Roy Larkin

Er thats brown...

Nah! That's GS - greeny s...

I have now found further evidence of colour identification/description that should help a bit. 62 Coy wired for more paint to continue painting their lorries on 14/1/1915 and it is described as 'GS Colour'. I am assuming that GS is General Service. First time I've seen the colour referred to as GS.

Mind you, military vehicles were grey with black lettering up to about 1915.

 

Steve

It looks like the change of paint colour started around mid/late December 1914, although that may (probably) have been the civilian ones being repainted as I guess they'd have repainted those first.

Thanks Richard.

Anybody any ideas on Ensign lorries?

All I've been able to find out is that they were 3 tonners (presumably subsidy spec) built in London from December 1914 to about 1923.

Problem is that I have 62 Coy with one in France in September/October 1914 with gearbox trouble. It's possible they had several, but my gut feeling is that it is the same one that keeps breaking down as it is crops up several times during October.

Thanks Richard.

It's too trivial to be more than passing interest but does anybody know anything about Dank steam wagons? I've found several in Boulogne in 1918 but all I can find is that Dank only existed between 1914 and 1918 and probably only built a few, more likely very few.

Commercial users will always have a differing opinion as to what is required than the military. It still applies today. Commercial Motor were right to highlight the problems of the subsidy model, too heavy, body too high, too expensive, etc when considering it for their readers who were mainly civilian users carrying the same weight on lighter, cheaper chassis that were adequate for the time. The military knew that the subsidy model if used during wartime would not be operating in anything like the same conditions, so needed a vehicle to be able to cope with what they thought the conditions might be. So, we ended up with a very over specified vehicle for civilian use.

The problem was not so much the vehicle as the tiny subsidy which did nothing to encourage civilian users and the War Office were aware of that but it was determined by the Treasury, not the War Office. In the end, it made little difference because although the subsidised lorries were requisitioned first, within a few days requisitioning was rife with anything being taken, whatever the make, model or condition. Some did not even reach Avonmouth without being towed. Many needed overhaul in Rouen before use. All the early companies complained about the poor state of the lorries they had been given.

In wartime conditions the subsidy model out performed the civilian model in every respect, vindicating the War Office stance. That still did not make it a suitable vehicle for civilian use. Yes, it proved itself as a civilian lorry post-war but that was more to do with availability than choice.

What has to be remembered when reading Commercial Motor, or any other publication is that they were mainly interested in their readership i.e. the civilian user and any problems were seen in that light. The War Office when designing/specifying the subsidy model had only one thing in mind, which was their needs. It was intended as a military vehicle, not a civilian vehicle.

Although chain drive was not included in the original spec in 1910, it was certainly considered from the outset as the subsidy scheme included provision for a slightly lower subsidy for chain drive vehicles, with two separate rates for covered and uncovered chains.

In reality, the subsidy scheme became purely academic on mobilisation as the rate of requisition during August and September 1914, and beyond, shows that if it could carry a load and had wheels it was hoovered up by the War Office. The condition of many requisitioned was such that they needed overhauling in France before they could be used. It took 45 Coy ASC until Christmas 1914 to get all their vehicles up to what they regarded as a suitable condition, and 45 Coy were in France by 10 August.

The Maples Lorry was indeed a subsidy lorry

 

According to the RAF over 1000 lorries were registered to the scheme prior to the Great War

A £50 grant towards purchase cost and £20 per year thereafter for agreed maintenance

The army would then have the option to purchase the vehicle in the event of an emergency.

 

Tom

As I said, numbers of subsidised vehicles vary. The RAF say more than 1,000, but the War Office through Kitchener's report on the BEF says 700, others say 750. Interesting that the RAF have a different figure to the War Office when the RAF initially obtained their vehicles from the War Office and from 1916 from the Ministry of Munitions.

The question is, would the Maples lorry have been a subsidy lorry? I had imagined that all subsidy lorry's started life in a military capacity. Robert

The Maples lorry may or may not have been a subsidy lorry. Subsidy lorries were all privately owned with the owner receiving an annual subsidy in exchange for the vehicle being maintained and available to the military at 24hrs notice.

I came across an article which relates to a subsidy lorry which gained notoriety through its commercial livery advertising 'HP Sauce - The Worlds Appetiser'. The vehicle which had originally been owned by Maples Store and retained its infamous wartime brilliant scarlet livery when operational with RFC No. 5 Squadron in France in 1914.

 

No more info but shows how quickly the subsidy vehicles were pressed into service.

Exact figures vary somewhat but consensus seems to be that on 4 August 1918 there were 80 ASC lorries and 750 privately owned subsidy lorries available for mobilisation with the BEF making 830, although 850 is often quoted. Mobilisation started on 5 August and by 10 August there were 1,468 lorries, 326 cars and 58 motor ambulances shipped to France. I don't think they had all reached France by the 10th but they appear to have left this country. It wasn't only subsidised lorries that were grabbed.

Between 9-8-1914 and 12-9-1914: 2,400 MT vehicles arrived in France plus 57,600 horses and 7,700 wagons. (MT vehicles don't usually include cars, motorcycles or ambulances so that's 2,400 motor lorries.)

Next year, 2014 is 100 years after WW1 commenced - and we already have the Dennis and the military Autocar to take part in anything that we may think is appropriate to commemorate it. There is no way in which the Thorny can be completed in time for that - but we have said that it would be rather nice if it was completed in time for 2018 - 100 years after the end of the war. Tony

Don't forget that you can stretch that finishing date to 28 July 1919 which is when the war officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

Robert,

 

In all my research over the years I am convinced that somewhere there is a register of vehicles 'enlisted' in the schemes and also a register of those which were actually requistioned in August 1914. This/these items have completely eluded me which includes PRO Kew ( probably the most likely source) . My good friend David Fletcher ( ex. Tank Museum) has come up against the same wall !. Disposal lists are equally difficult although there is limited info. at Kew.

Richard Peskett.

I agree Richard, I've searched high and low for any register of vehicles requisitioned but to no avail, except for a few isolated mentions and a few disposals, particularly from Kempton Park. Don't forget the hundreds that were requisitioned in August and September 1914 after those on the subsidy scheme had been exhausted. Kensington Gardens did have information as to where suitable vehicles could be found for requisition on Mobilisation, which gave the type of vehicle and the company name and address, but there is no record as to what they requisitioned. It is clear though that there was little regard as to whether any vehicle was registered under the subsidy scheme or not though. It was also noted that 'every effort' should be made to induce the driver to be requisitioned with the vehicle with a tempting offer of 6 shillings per day wages, which was good money in those days.

Ford model T ambulance, possibly: http://www.prewarcar.com/index.php?option=com_caradvert&view=ad&section_id=1&id=86696&Itemid=432

 

This vehicle has a strange cowl and a longer than normal steering column. The aficionados seem to agree that it is WW1 period but no firm conclusion on its original form: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/331880/382042.html?1377170013

 

Anyone know more?

Ford Ts were imported by the War Office as chassis cabs and bodied in the UK, probably at Trafford Park, but sometimes by other bodybuilders. It was not considered efficient use of either the transatlantic convoys to use space for bodies or government funds buying bodies in the USA when they could be built cheaply at home.

These ferries operated from the Military Port of Richbourough at Sandwich during the Great War, I've a photo I'll try to find of TF1 in 1940 being used to evacuate forces from Jersey.

The Royal Engineers built Richborough Military Port for the train ferries. I'd heard about motor vehicles being carried on them, but this is the first evidence I've seen of that happening. Great pics.

 

The rear chassis cross member is badly corroded in the corners and we have decided to take this right out so that the steel can be “re-enforced” with new bits welded in – if that is appropriate –

 

 

The ASC workshops in France regularly reinforced chassis by welding in strengthening pieces, either as small sections or when the steel was available, the entire length of the chassis, or crossmember was plated. Steel was obtained from Base Depots when available or more usually sourced locally with the size dependent on what was available rather than the job it was required for. If, as was often the case, no new steel was available, then anything that could be made to fit from the several acres of damaged 'spares box' awaiting workshop time was used. It would therefore be entirely appropriate to reinforce with anything that fits and does the job. OK, I accept that 'looking nice' is more important for the rally field than the ASC needs but basically any repair/strengthening could be considered 'correct'. Often chassis were strengthened as a matter of course, especially with cars, to prevent what came to be regarded as the inevitable cracking and breaking.

Good News,

Are all World War One Military Vehicles to be welcomed ?

 

Tom

My understanding is that the hope is to have as many WW1 commercial vehicles as possible but it's really up to owners to enter. Cars will be excluded though.

WW1 production

 

3,000 Phelon and Moore

 

 

P&M were comparatively a very small manufacturer

 

Tom

 

Contract for P&M 3.5hp RFC Model motorcycles in January 1918 was for 150 motorcycles per month at a cost of £72.00.01 each plus 90 sidecars at £20.00.00 each. Basic motorcycle was £62.12.00 plus extras including tools and delivered to the RFC Depot at Hurst Park. Contract subject to 8 weeks cancellation clause.

The make next to FIAT on the shop window looks like K.R.I.T. No idea what they looked like but they were built in Michigan, USA from about 1911 to 1914. I am certain that the lorry pictured is not a K.R.I.T. though as K.R.I.T. appear to have made mainly cars and a van based on their car chassis.

Don't know much about McCurds at all. They don't feature so far in any records for the Western front, but I wouldn't expect them to as small manufacturers lorries were used mainly for the Home Front. Certainly no mention to date of any McCurd buses being used for anything.

I wonder if the crew of `Fray Bentos` thought this?

The lorries were certainly close enough to be within range of enemy shells, and close enough to be seen, but never close enough for shiny bits to be seen unless the sun glinted on them.

Thanks to all who answered, have to say this was my favourite answer as it covers all possibilities, definitively :-D

Another question, what does MRU stand for? something repair unit? I suspect the M is really obvious but it escapes me at the moment.......

MRU is Mobile Repair Unit.

If there is a difinitive answer to this one then perhaps Roy Larkin can come up with it from his great collection of records and procedures of that time!

 

But this was war time and I would think that the objective was to get the lorry on the road as quickly as possible, as safely as possible, as reliable as possible and with the minimum done, but still keeping the crew as safe as possible. Only paint where it is essential.

 

Tony

Thanks, Tony! I would have to say that the definitive answer is (in no particular order) 'yes, no, maybe, possibly'. Too many variables, I think, - individual companies may have had their own individual policies. Were engines painted after ancillaries were added, if so, probably everything was painted, if they were fitted after painting the block, probably not, unless they were painted before fitting. Company workshops were probably less likely to paint everything than Heavy Repair Shops with MRUs somewhere in between.

Speed was less important than getting it right, though, with MRUs throughput seems to have been a factor, but more to prevent a build up of waiting vehicles than the need for repaired vehicles for work. Company workshops appear to have done the minimum, MRUs completed the repair plus their version of overhaul and certainly repaired faults they found over and above the breakdown, Heavy Repair Shops overhauled to 'as new' spec and standard.

I'm not sure they considered shiny bits being seen by the enemy as a reason to paint. Even shiny bits dull somewhat when covered in dust or mud and the enemy were never really that close, at least not close enough to spot a shiny hub cap or fuel line under a bonnet. I suspect every external piece of brass was painted simply because it was easier to paint everything than paint round bits. Also, shiny bits would have provided more of a temptation to locals for 'borrowing' to sell on as salvage. Salvage would have fetched a decent price, especially at a time when the local farmers were having their fields turned into battle fields.

As for definitive, well, I'm sure there is definitive somewhere, I just wish that every time I find definitive that something else wouldn't turn up to contradict it.

Regarding the 'gate' this is just the same as the Dennis with reverse through first and a trigger to allow the lever to move to that position. I'm not sure how common this was but I have seen it elsewhere.

 

Cheers!

 

Steve

Maybe something to do with the War Office conditions for acceptance under the subsidy scheme. All gear change gates had to be the same so that a driver could change to different makes of lorry and be able to drive it without re-training. pedal layout, position and operation of controls were all determined by the War office.