Roy Larkin

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.

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.

Tony, would your friend have any further information, and could you put us in touch, please? The top pic is a donated or 'gift' ambulance, but not BRCS. It's British Ambulance Committee. Not been able to find much on BAC but hopefully more when next at Kew. The bottom pic is a War Office Siddeley-Deasy, so not BRCS either. The lady looks to be FANY.

The 3 lorries to the right of the steamer look like 2 Commers and an AEC in front. I'd make that post-war as AEC were building LGOC buses pre-war and apart from the odd exception AECs don't really feature with the War office until after 1917.

Tim, The Ford T was trialled along with Sunbeams for use by Field Ambulances. It had been thought that only horses would be suitable for FAs due to FAs being mainly tents in fields and much closer to the front line. On 8-11-1914 the Ford stood up best in cross country trials around St Omer conducted by 1 MAC and had 'good ground clearance and small turning circle' whereas the Sunbeam lacked ground clearance. On 23-11-1914 ambulances were sent by 1 MAC to FAs for trials and 9 Fords and 3 Sunbeams were sent. The Fords came out on top for use off-road, although were unable to carry as many patients. The Fords appear to have been BRCS cars, not War Office. These trials only lasted a few days and the horse ambulances of FAs began to be replaced by motor ambulances, mainly Fords, but some evidence of Daimlers, Austins and Sunbeams being used. The Ford remained the most popular with FAs (cross-country ability) and least popular with MACs (payload capacity) and as with all the other makes used underwent various modifications as wartime experience developed. In Africa the Ford T was known as the 'Jigger' after the Jigger Flea due to its ability to get everywhere. The GMC ambulances were all BRCS cars it seems. I have found nothing that points to the War office buying other than British made cars, but by early 1915 the BRCS were buying American chassis with UK built bodies (Buicks with Sunbeam fittings) as the War Office were grabbing all the British manufacturers capacity. The BRCS were no different to any other civilian user in that permission was needed to buy new vehicles. I've not found direct reference to GMC ambulances being used except a couple of photographs which both have FANY drivers. The FANY operated a ambulance convoy in Boulogne on behalf of BRCS carrying patients from hospitals in the town to hospital ships and from hospital trains to the hospitals, so rarely ventured outside of Boulogne.

On 21 September 1915 John Thornycroft arrived at St Omer (he appears to have questioned the War Office repeat orders for back axles which the War Office weren't happy about and was summoned to France to see for himself how many Thornycrofts had broken axles). Thornycroft were told not to supply any more complete lorries until the back axle problem had been resolved and replacement axles supplied. It is not inconceivable that axles were unofficially modified by St Omer or individual companies to keep lorries working as much as possible. They could possibly be ad hoc modifications as temporary repairs that then stood the test of time. Thornycroft weren't the only makers to question the War Office about the need for spares, Vauxhall, Daimler and Austin were also summoned at various times to see that their vehicles were not as reliable as they claimed. To be fair, conditions on the Western Front were nothing like what the vehicles were designed for.

Doug, The ASC at St Omer (and Rouen and Paris, though I have not seen their records yet) had workshop facilities to rival any manufacturer. If a back axle casing was needed they simply made one. If gearbox internals were needed they machined the gears. If a chassis rail was damaged they made another. Thornycroft was one of the makes that were allocated to St Omer, so would certainly have had parts made at St Omer. I very much doubt that parts made by the ASC would have carried any marks. Time spent marking would not have been seen a priority. The records don't reveal individual makers figures, only total output though occasionally there is mention of X number of Daimler (car) back axles being manufactured. Daimler couldn't keep up with the number of back axles their cars broke. There is also little reference to modifications other than comments about the part being manufactured being modified strengthen it etc. So, nothing specific but enough evidence to know that it did happen, such as the forging workshop needing expanding with more forges to meet demand and more furnaces required for melting scrap for use in manufacturing. As an example Output for September 1917: Complete overhaul: Tractors - 2 Lorries - 37 Cars - 87 Motorcycles - 134 Garage repair: Tractors - 1 Cars - 7 Hoods recovered - 8 New spare parts made - 7309 Crankshafts reground for outside units - 74 Ball bearings repaired - 948 Daimler rear axles repaired and issued to outside units - 49 (The ASC hardened the Daimler gears in Daimler axles to try to improve the failure rate). Average daily strength of the company - 1130.

2013 - 3 lads in a garage in Devon doing what they can in their spare time. Starting with a wreck, salvaging and refurbishing some parts from same wreck or other wrecks, buying new parts where available, manufacturing new parts when no other option and ending up with a complete and serviceable lorry. 1918 - 1,000+ men in a big workshop doing what they can full time. Starting with hundreds of wrecks, salvaging and refurbishing some parts from same wreck or other wrecks, buying new parts where available, manufacturing new parts when no other option and ending up with 10 lorries, 80 motor cars and 100+ motorcycles plus other assorted machinery each week. The only difference I can see is scale of operation. As I don't see the logic of the Devon lads employing over 1,000 helpers unless they can guarantee the work and I have a suspicion that some killjoy or other will complain about commandeering the local town and banishing the occupants to make way for billets for the extra staff, I think the scale part of the authenticity question should be put to one side, at least for now. In all other aspects, what the Devon lads will end up with is identical to what the ASC ended up with in both the end result and method of getting there.

Indeed, life is never simple and the perception that Leyland bought all the Leyland WD lorries they could after the war isn't quite right. My view is that Leyland suffered (in modern parlance) from a 'senior moment' when buying back lorries from the War Office. What Leyland bought was the 'dump' at St Omer. This was the RAF base and Leyland paid £500,000 for the vehicles and parts etc. It would appear that Leyland paid substantially too much and caught quite a considerable cold over the deal. The reason they paid so much was to outbid Lever Brothers bid of £450,000 for the dump. Quite why a soap manufacturer would want to buy the dump is a mystery, to me at any rate. For their £500,000, Leyland got 1231 lorries plus miscellaneous spares etc. The problem was they were all in France and therefore incurred an additional cost to repatriate them. The War Office quoted £15.00 per lorry against their own cost of £9.4.2d, which appears to have been turned down until the commercial rate of £75.00 per lorry was obtained and Leyland accepted the War Office quote. The cost to Leyland therefore increased by a further £18,465 plus the cost of transport from port of arrival to Leyland's premises, probably Ham near Richmond. Leyland ended up with stock that was far too expensive to be commercially viable. Other makers bought their own vehicles back via sales at Slough, which proved far more viable. As an aside, questions were asked in Parliament about Colonel Spurrier (War Office Sales Director) being the brother of 2 of Leyland's directors and his part in the sale.

Thanks Steve, B-Type buses: In my view, the only B-Type buses older than 12 months were those shipped to France and which lasted more than 12 months before being overhauled. Those in London had to be tested every 12 months to be licenced which meant a complete overhaul. OK, not 100% complete as the number plates would have been re-used. Whether they ever went back onto the same vehicle is another matter. Therefore a B-type, or any other London bus, built in 1912 and surviving to 1920 was actually 8 different buses, despite carrying the same registration number. As to the Thorny, or any other ASC lorry. Those repatriated in 1919/20 were not the same vehicle that went out. Possibly those sent out in late 1918 survived without change but the others were extensively overhauled, repaired and modified. Not even the bare chassis could be guaranteed original as siderails and crossmembers were replaced. Could they even be called Thornycrofts? Maybe not as the ASC manufactured many of the parts themselves, such as chassis rails, axle casing, gears, bodies, etc etc. So, to clarify the position for DVLA: We have a Thornycroft of which part of the chassis was built at Basingstoke with some replacement parts from Basingstoke and also some ASC manufactured parts from St Omer. It has a Thornycroft engine but probably has a crankshaft made by the ASC and the back axle has at least a fifty/fifty mix of Thornycroft and ASC parts in an ASC casing. Most of it is Thornycroft design but some is ASC design never approved by Thornycroft but said to be an improvement so implemented. We don't have any idea what the registration number is as it was never registered but exported and then reimported at a later unknown date. We do have a number stamped on it which dates it as 1916, although other numbers date it variously as 1914 and 1918. The completed lorry, which looks entirely authentic is actually as 33% Steve, 33% Thornycroft and 33% ASC. If we had a 3-sided coin, we could toss it and be more definite as to what we would like it registered as, but we don't, so can it be a Thornycroft please? OK, very tongue in cheek, but any talk about originality simply takes away from the fantastic work done by restorers.

The Royal Warrant was issued on 27 November 1918.

Looks like a bigger workshop might be useful? Here's the engine repair shop at 3rd Heavy Repair Shop (358 Coy ASC) at St Omer if you need a model to follow. Looks like you aren't alone in needing some engine work doing.

Never seen any reference to a REO being used as an ambulance. Actually never seen any reference to REO at all, but that doesn't mean they weren't used. Ambulances were car based although 3-tonners, buses and charabancs were used when needed by frontline companies and the auxiliary companies had charabancs and buses on their establishment. I think it extremely unlikely that 3-ton REOs were ever used as ambulances.

To be honest, I know nothing about the 18 BLR. My information and the photo came from Nicky Armstrong, resident of Italy, restorer of early Scammells and FIATs and well informed about the preservation movement in Europe. It is apparently featured in Bart Vanderveen's book.

It's a FIAT 18 BLR. The R stands for rinforzato, which was the heavy haulage version. The attached photo is one that is under restoration in Italy by the Iveco dealer in Castelleone.

The subsidy scheme required govenors to be fitted and the army were certainly aware of the mechanical damage that would be caused by over revving. The main priority though seems to have been road speed. Speed limits were set as standing routine orders to protect the road surface as much as the vehicles and govenors were set to prevent speeding. This applied to all vehicles and not just lorries and Daimler ambulances were criticised for not having suitable govenors which made them difficult to drive slow enough for the speed limit.

Doug, I'm not sure there is a specific date when sprags stopped being fitted. Although they were part of the subsidy spec, they don't seem to have worked as well in reality as in theory and the lorry tended to roll backwards and over the sprag. I suspect it was a gradual 'forgetting to fit' the sprags as more and more companies discovered their weak spot and nobody seemed too bothered about noticing when sprags weren't fitted. Post war, when Chivers bought several Leylands, they were supplied with the sprags in hessian sacks, which then remained in the workshops awaiting fitting after the bodywork had been built. Those hessian sacks appear to have remained in workshops until the Leylands were eventually scrapped.

I've not looked at the Middle East in any detail but all the companies I've seen there all had Peerless 3-tonners or Fords. Some Peerless 3-tonners were downgraded to 30-cwt by simply changing the signage to read 'Load not to exceed 30 cwt'. The reason they were downgraded was because 3-tonners got bogged down in the sand too easily when fully freighted.

To quote Major P. Dwyer, RAMC Commanding Officer of 418 Coy ASC (1 MAC) on 2 February 1915 "There are 3 Straker-Squires attached to this convoy. They are quite useless for the conveyance of sick being more abit to lorries than ambulances." And on 11 March 1915 "3 Straker-Squire ambulances came in from the 28th Division. They had been lent by the ADMS of that Division to the combatent authority for conveying stores ration to the trenches, the Red Cross being obliterated. These cars are not fit for ambulance work having solid tyres and light lorry chassis." Major P. Evans, RAMC who was Deputy Assistant Director Motor Ambulance Convoys visited the 27th Division on 14 January 1915 after complaints about their 8 Straker-Squires and arranged to replace 5 immediately due to the "total unsuitability of the Straker-Squire as an ambulance". So far, March 1915 is the latest date for Straker-Squires being mentioned for ambulance use and by then it seems their use as ambulances had been abandoned and they were being used as lorries.

Richard, I'm not so sure. Certainly every reference I've seen in books and magazine/journal articles has the ASC Daimlers as Milnes-Daimlers, which as you say would be the Daimler Marienfelds from the Marienfeld factory just outside Berlin. However, every reference to them in ASC records refers to them as Daimler-Neustadts, which were built at the Neustadt factory just outside Vienna. Whether Milnes supplied them, or whether it was assumed that they had because they looked the same, or whether the government bought them direct from Daimler isn't clear, but I have found no instance of them being referred to as Milnes-Daimlers, only Daimler-Neustadts.

Thanks.

What was/is the American A.L.A.M. thread? On 3 March 1916, 2,500 sparking plugs were supplied by Lodge to Russia at 2 shillings each. They were 2,000 'standard sparking plugs, model 'C' and 500 'American A.L.A.M. thread sparking plugs model 'CT'.

Many lorries were converted to lorry buses in France. 92 Coy ASC, formerly an omnibus company, converted 124 Swiss Berna lorries into lorry buses between 1-1-1917 and 16-1-1917 after it had changed roles to become 4 GHQ Ammunition Park.

Late 1914 to early 1915 seems the most likely timeframe for the change of colour from grey to khaki/brown/green. The buses carried tins of grey paint when they left Grove Park in October 1914. Ambulances were originally white but were repainted khaki/brown/green very quickly in late 1914. So, even while grey paint was still being used in October 1914, the khaki/brown/green colour was also being used at the same time. Late 1914 to Spring 1915 seems to be the period when the colour change took place depending on how busy each company was and availability of paint. The actual colour they were changed to depended, it seems, on availability of correct quantities of pigment, mood of the mixer, amount of mud and dirt accidentally added to the mix, whether mixed commercially at home or in drums in France etc. My guess is that if it was possible to paint 10 lorries from 1 drum of paint then those were the only 10 of that exact colour.

The man is an Army Service Corps fitter/mechanic. The woman is First Aid Nursing Yeomanry helping/being trained the ASC man. The ambulance is obviously a GMC from the FANY Motor Ambulance Convoy whose ambulances were maintained partly by 584 Coy ASC (3 Mobile Repair Unit) despite claims by FANY that they did all their own maintenance.