79x100

Still in French service in 1940. Presumably about to see action with the Wehrmacht ?

Antarmike mentioned the low line of a Jeep with the top down and there is no doubt that the vehicle has a very low silhouette and a narrow track. The small size makes them look further away to someone not used to them. Those silly little Daihatsus which are often driven by the elderly on motorways at 55mph present a similar problem in that the closing speed is not so obvious. They simply look like a proper car further away. Modern jeeps with similar lines to the real thing are substantially larger than the originals. Personally, I don't take my 50mph cruising speed WD bike on motorways as the speed differential, even if seen by passing traffic is just too great to be pleasant. I'm much happier on single carriageways. Perhaps the permitted use of amber beacons on motorways by vehicles travelling slower than 50MPH (say) is something that the historic vehicle movement should be lobbying for ? It seems strange that a beacon is permitted on a 25mph vehicle in a 30 zone where the speed differential is negligible but not by faster vehicles on the motorway where they could serve a greater need. The risk here of course is that permission can soon change to compulsion.

The crossed rifle badge would be the marksman or weapons instructor badge. The point about the Arm of Service marking is that it shouldn't, for security purposes, give any indication as to the unit involved. The allocations changed over time and were dependent on background colour . For example, in a 1944 infantry division, '41' would have been on a green/blue background and indicated the Recce. Regt. In an armoured division, it would have been on cobalt blue and shown an RE Field Sqn. Without a formation sign, it would probably be impossible to pin down the unit (I'd like to see the photo though, if that's possible).

Ooh, a chance to split hairs ! Actually, up until late 1939, they were required to, as well as display a civilian style registration plate (generally from blocks of Middlesex series allocations).

Chris, I'm afraid that I'm no longer sure where that image came from. I almost certainly pinched it from a forum somewhere, just for reference. I know nothing about the image other than what can be deduced from the formation sign and Arm of service marking. Luckily they're both displayed on the same side - a practice which probably dates the photo to 1941 at the latest. The Home Commands in the UK were a pre-war set-up, dividing the country into administrative areas for military purposes. The areas were adjusted slightly during the war. Eastern Command had the bulldog on guard sign indicating tenacity. The wartime HQ was at Luton and it covered East Anglia and the central midlands. I have 3.25x19 Dunlop Uni-Grips on my Norton. These are Indian made copies of the old Dunlop Universals. They seem fine to me for a bike of modest performance but they're not 'e' marked and may not be on sale in the UK (officially at least). The VMCC are now selling Ensign tyres in 3.25x19 and they have a very period looking tread pattern. http://www.vmcc.net/vmccshop/scripts/tyres.asp?cat=18 I think that I'll give them a try once I've scrubbed the Dunlops (this could take quite a long time !)

The third party aspect of an insurance policy would not be invalidated by a lack of current road fund licence. I can imagine that there are owners who have a block policy for multiple vehicles but who don't watch the tax disc as carefully as they should. I don't condone it but I wouldn't want the old vehicle world to become the equivalent of East Germany under the Stasi. It seems like the thin end of the wedge to me, perhaps being reported by a jealous concours entrant for using a non-E-marked LED lamp or wearing a motorcycle crash helmet that doesn't have a BS kite mark (such as the DR helmet). As far as I'm concerned, it's the job of the authorities to check vehicles when they're on the public highway (and they have enough automatic recognition cameras to do that).

Chris, your Triumph would not have been fitted with canvas grips originally. They were introduced due to rubber shortages once the Japanese had taken over the rubber plantation areas. Production of 3SWs is a bit complicated as production was stopped by the bombing of the Triumph factory in November 1940 (all factory records were destroyed also). Some 3SWs were built later in a temporary factory but the latest dates for this would seem to be early 1942 when 3HW production took over. The early Triumph rear carrier is quite a scarce thing and not the easiest to replicate as the top part is a pressing rather than of tubular construction. If you're really serious about accuracy, it might be worth making a lot of noise over on the WM20 forum and trying to attract some other owners as there are certainly some people there who could make a small batch but it's never going to be worthwhile making even simple tooling just for one. Blackout masks do turn up and there have been replicas but if you're going to portray 1940 / 41 then all that was done at that stage was to paint out half the reflector and fit a black manilla paper mask with a small cutout behind the glass. This is a nice early war shot dating from the period when the DR pulp helmets were only issued to CMP and R.Sigs DRs, not ordinary motorcyclists. The 3SW is marked up to Eastern Command and '603' Should indicate an RAMC Casualty Clearing Station. The 3SWs were not generally issued to frontline units and this is reflected in the RASC census number rather than an RAOC series. The bike has the paper blackout mask (nice and cheap to make !) and what appear to be rubber grips.

The engine W46562 is obviously from a later contract (C10217) which commenced production in June 1941. It is probably impossible to say whether the engine swap occurred during its service life or after demob, unless it has a brass rebuild plate inside the toolbox. At some point, rebuilt machines were issued with new census numbers (yours wasn't) but it is not clear whether this always occurred after engines were replaced. Contract C5612 was completed on 20/5/40 and certainly some of the earlier bikes from the contract found their way to France, particularly with the 2nd BEF that landed at Cherbourg in June. The 16H was extensively used by the RAF although later in the war, they purchased mostly Ariels. They were a substantial customer of Nortons prior to the war and continued throughout the conflict although the later bikes were mostly sidecar units fitted with 18" wheels. Neither your frame nor engine come from RAF contracts. However, specification and finish were identical and few could tell without a reference book handy. It probably goes without saying that you'll need to strip and clean the carb and fuel tank before it'll cough into life. It's also worth draining the sump (1/4" BSP hex screw at the rear right hand side of the crankcase). Nortons have a gear type oil pump and despite fifty years of factory denials, the oil tank will empty itself into the sump and the oil drag will make it a devil of a job to spin over fast enough to start (and you don't really want to see the smoke screen that can follow !)

If you've got Irish documents then transferring to a UK registration should be straightforward. Make sure first though that the correct date of manufacture is shown rather than the post-war release date. If it isn't then it might be best to get a dating letter from the VMCC and start an age-related number application (it's detailed on the DVLA website). The Norton is from contract C5612 and would date to mid-1940. It was originally supplied with a civilian type carrier (no paniers during 1940) and the large 8" headlamp. Does it still have a matching engine number ? Values are difficult, especially from photos, added to which I've been around old bikes for too long and find everything expensive these days. If I was pushed and if they're both runners, I suppose I'd reckon on about £3500 for the Norton, perhaps a bit less for the BSA, either of which might be brought up matching numbers (not so important as with a civvy bike) or dragged down by obvious mechanical problems. Dealers would ask more but whether they receive more in the end is always difficult to know.

It's nice to hear that it all fits, which reinforces the idea that no major disaters have occurred since demob. Have you bought it ?

They've both been subjected to the sort of 'matt green over everything' treatment that makes it very difficult to judge condition. I can't see any obvious howlers on the Norton. Battery carrier cover is not original and the pannier load is a bit odd. It looks as if the voltage reg has been moved to under the saddle. The bikes both carry post-1948 registrations which are a bit incongruous with a black-out mask. If the Norton really is 80 YB 83 then it should have frame number W8334 and was converted from the wartime number C4153502. It was struck off strength on 28/9/56 so had seen some considerable post-war service and is likely to have some more recent parts reflecting that but it doesn't seem to have been badly got at in civilian life. I don't have detail on BSAs but a post on the WM20 forum might be worthwhile. It has the quite sought-after large early fuel tank. Neither of them is likely to be a bad buy for someone experienced with older vehicles so it really comes down to price. Nortons tend to be more expensive than BSAs and spares are generally harder to find and more expensive (apart from some of the specific early production BSA parts that were shared with pre-war models).

Well done Chaps. A most impressive shakedown run. Far more adventurous than the gradually increasing trips round the village that I permit myself with a rebuild. Still, what is there to go wrong with a ninety year old lorry ? What's it like to drive compared with its contemporaries ?

This made me smile when I first came across it.

It reads like an old vehicle version of 'Murphy and the bricks' - have you tried singing it ?

Andrea, did you ever get a sensible answer about this ? I'm in Belgium and I'd like to be able to take my WD16H back to the UK this year and can't avoid the idea that I probably need an import licence and an export licence. Maybe I'll just paint it black and hope that no-one spots the extra 1" ground clearance (or knows their Spanish Civil war History as during the late 1930s, Nortons were supplying the Republican side with black finished military spec motorcycles via the Paris agent ,Psalty)

The fact is that WW2 service records are not yet in the public domain and apart from the servicemen themselves who can apply for a free copy, all others have to pay £30 and there is no possible way for full records to be put on the internet. Regrettably, as the UK institutions seem reluctant to computerise their own records, when the time comes they're most likely to make another secret deal with the Mormons and allow 'Ancestry' exclusive rights to our own records. The bloody Mormons of course, as well as being interested in the post-mortem baptism of our ancestors, are also interested in profit so that they can pay more of their damned-nuisance 'missionaries' to hassle us. Rest assured that when WW2 records are computerised, they won't be free or even cheap. In the meantime, a good number of servicemen from the period are still alive and might not want to discuss with their Grandchildren the time spent in a Cairo hospital being treated for the 'clap'

There are tens of thousands of vehicles running with 'age related' numbers which have been issued on the basis of authentification of the date of manufacture. This applies to vehicles which have been imported to the UK as well as those that lost their numbers when the records were centralised. I've never heard any suggestion that these vehicles, including those with two-letter, four digit combinations from the 1920s (such as DS 1234 etc) should be on reflective plates and indeed I've never seen one like it. Is it not the case that where age related numbers are issued, whether with suffix / prefix letter or not, a fictitious 'assumed' date of first registration is allowed ? I have always had the idea that in their own simplistic way, the authorities are more concerned to stop people pretending their vehicles are newer than they really are, whereas most of us want them to be older ! In the real world, this seems to be something that doesn't cause problems but playing with the spacing will certainly attract attention.

It's perhaps not surprising that one of the major suppliers of LED units mentioned earlier deals primarily with motorcycles as, whether strictly legal or not, many riders of older motorcycles have been using them for some time. I live overseas so I don't have to worry too much about UK specific legislation although I'm no doubt subject to some sort of European alternative. I'm certainly, as a motorcyclist, compelled to ride with daytime headlights and the fact of the matter is that the 35w dynamos that many of us have struggle to keep the battery up when using a 25w headlamp and a 6w tail, without taking into account the fitment of a brake light which wasn't originally present. The vibration resistance of LEDs is also a considerable advantage on an older motorcycle. Using an LED 'bulb' and a resistor allows me to have a brake light function without altering the original bulb holder and lamp connections which to my mind leaves the machine more 'original' than modifying a seventy year old lamp fitting. I've also, heaven forbid, fitted a 10w halogen pilot bulb. I have a re-silvered reflector and in combination, this gives illumination not disimilar from a conventional 6v 25w bulb. There is no doubt that it's not strictly legal but I'm confident that it complies with the spirit of the law and it gives me some chance of retaining a charged battery. I see that Paul Goff now has LED units which can replace even this function for less current draw. I consider myself to be experienced and sensible enough to make my own decisions regarding the use of a vehicle which quite clearly doesn't comply with modern expectations in many ways. I'm prepared to live with the consequences of my actions. ...Don't tell anyone but I have a non-illuminated speedometer that could also be added to the charge sheet.

Do you know this photo Glyn ? A nice gaggle of Guys. It's from the Rommel photo collection in the US National Archives and records Administration (NARA) Location is St Valery-en-Caux and these probably belonged to 152 Infantry Bde Anti-Tank Company. (51st Division). The Motley mounts in the back look good.

Now you're making me wonder how much I know and how much I think I know... I've always been aware of the MOT testing requirement (although I was a year out) :- "This inspection applies to; all machines except those which have neither front nor rear position lamps, or has such lamps permanently disconnected, painted over or masked that are . only used during daylight hours, and . not used at times of seriously reduced visibility If this situation occurs the vehicle presenter should be issued with a VT32 (advisory notice) recording the above. Exemptions For this test if a stop lamp is fitted, it must meet the requirements of this inspection, but need not be fitted to a machine which: a. cannot exceed 25mph, or b. was first used before 1 January I936.or c. was first used before 1 April 1986 and which has an engine capacity of less than 50cc. Machines first used before 1 April 1986 must have a stop lamp that operates from at least one brake control. Machines first used on or after 1 April 1986 must have a stop lamp that operates from both brake controls. However, a small number of machines first used from this date were approved with the stop lamp operated by only one control. A machine should only be failed if you are certain that it was originally manufactured to operate from both controls" The UK regulations are not known for being applied retrospectively and I'd always assumed that stop lamps had been compulsory since the late 1930s. Could it be that the regulation was applied later with a retrospective cut off date (why 1936 then ?) I must admit that I've never seen an MT110 with a dual filament facility and they continued to be fitted post-war. The instuction manual for my 1939 contract Norton (it's the civvy book) includes wiring for the brake light with what looks like a schematic of a double bulb unit. Peculiarly, it states "When tail light only required, omit this switch and leads" I'm running LEDs in my MT110 with a resistor permitting extra brightness when braking. Although it makes the wiring non-original, it saves butchering the lamp unit. Strangely, referring to Leon Hoppenbrouwer's pre-war BSA site, only the 'sloper' models for 1934 have the stoplight shown.. http://home.planet.nl/~leonhop3/1934_e.html

1937 was the year of the Road Traffic Act in the UK, at which point brake lights became compulsory on civilian machines so they would have stopped showing them as an extra.

Lots of motorcycles and components. Ariel - Selly Oak, BSA - Small Heath Excelsior - Tyesley James - Greet Norton Bracebridge Street Velocette - Hall Green

"Sorry girls, I'm not interested. Can't you see the bucket hanging on the back ?"

Most of the motorcycles seem to have civilian registration numbers so were presumably from non-WD government departments. The Levis in particular must have been civilian impressed. Are there any motorcycles in the Bordon catalogue ?

Hmm...perhaps I'd better start a thread for odd early vehicle photos that I've found on eBay and leave the identification to the rest of you ! It seems a shame not to post them somewhere before they disappear.