Roy Larkin

Being marked RAF puts a date as after 1918, however now the questions evolve as to its use when electric lighting for vehicles was becoming more the norm. Was it a hand lamp for security or similar rather than a vehicle lamp?

Doug

I'm not sure electric lighting on heavier vehicles was becoming more the norm in the early 1920s. There are plenty of instances where lights, especially tail lights, were blown out while driving resulting in no rear lights at all right up to the late 1920s. It's possible new lorries were fitted with electric lighting at extra cost but many built/refurbed up to the mid-20s were ex-WD. If they were for the RAF, ten they would have been for 'old stock' lorries, which would have lasted many years on lighter duties or as reserve. With the government struggling with war debt, much cheaper to replace oil lamps than electrify.

This photo has puzzled me for a while as to the truck manufacturer. From the bonnet design, it appears to be a Hallford truck as the workshop.

Note the flat belt driving the overhead line shafting for the workshop in the cab area, taken from the engine flywheel direct.

Doug

While an separate engine was the normal power supply for the dynamo, there are references to power being taken from the lorry's engine via a belt, like the traction engines provided power for fairgrounds. 4-cylinder Austin engines seem to have been the most commonly used, mounted transversly to help alleviate vibration.

It's a lot of effort for just one hole!

Steve

Now, come on Steve, after all the effort the three of you have put in so far, what's another hole? The quality of the pictures and your continued workmanship continues to amaze. I look forward to seeing it at Brighton!

Thanks for posting those photos. It really is a very interesting discovery. I am not sure what to suggest that you should do with it. It is very unusual, but ideally you need someone with an RAF Leyland chassis to put it on. Unless of course Leyland made the workshop bodies used on other trucks such as Peerless, Packard, Dennis and Thornycroft (to name just a few).

 

I guess this one was used as a shepherds hut, hence the window. There are lots of those about so it would be a shame to restore it back to one of those.

 

Tim

I'm reluctant to rule out anything because each time I do, some evidence later appears that contradicts, but I'd think it unlikely that Leyland built workshop bodies for use on other British chassis, though might have done for USA chassis. I can't see any logic in building bodies and then moving them the length of the country to fit on Dennis or Thornycrofts for example when both were quite capable of building what is effectively quite a simple design from the W.D. drawings. I suppose it's possible some USA chassis were imported through Liverpool, which would make them handy for Leyland, but I suspect most were imported directly into France via either Nantes or Rouen.

It's possible some might have been fitted to the wrong chassis at base workshops while mobile workshops were in for renovation, though workshops did little mileage as they remained stationary at the Company base most of the time, except for occassional forays to recover MT and therefore wouldn't have suffered the wear and tear GS lorries did and would likely have been rarities in base workshops for renovation.

The first travelling workshops into France were on trailers drawn by steamers, though these were very quickly abandoned in favour of lorry mounted workshops. They were also used as trailers in support of the W.O. Trials, so to have a restored one drawn by a steamer would be very appropriate, though it would be nice to see it on a lorry chassis.

Some history here

 

http://www.historicroadways.co.uk/s-006.htm

 

Tom

Tom,

Thanks for the plug.

The War Office specified Drummond machine tools for the WW1 mobile workshops. Somewhere I'm sure I've got a list of the kit included. There were lathes, milling machines, pillar drills, forges and every type of hand tool that would be needed. Electrical power was usually provided by a 4 cylinder Austin engine, or sometimes from the lorry engine with a belt to the dynamo. The original idea of a single cylinder stationary engine to provide power was soon discontinued as the vibration caused the men to slowly vibrate towards the edge of the body.

Do these figures take into account that fuels have now improved? Presumably we would get better figures now. As one Diamond T owner remarked 'If I could get 2mph, I'd halve my fuel consumption'

No, they are figures quoted at the time.

If you think those figures are low try a Holt 75 gun tractor, according to Ron Harris who owns one the fuel comsumption is 100 YARDS to the gallon towing a load and 140 YARDS to the gallon empty, which is why he converted his to run on parrafin. I estimate the fuel tank holds around 50 gallons giving a range of 4 miles. How did they keep up with fuel supplies?

Several ASC Coys that were using Holts in Egypt and Mesopotamia quote their fuel consumption as 2 gallons per mile, although that doubled over rough terrain.

The thought occurs that with Tim in need of a new car, that Steve should be contemplating a char-a-banc body?

Tim, Steve and Tony, brilliant - well done and look forward to seeing it out and about.

Good to see you found this place as well, Seb.

 

I would be suprised if the Holt did much more than 1Mpg.

998 Coy in Egypt recorded 2.5 mph and 2 gallons per mile for their Holts.

Even in WWII you still had a two weight rating system , as in the GMC CCKW was rated 2 1/2 tons cross country and 5 tons on improved roads . Not sure what the limits were in WWI but it would not suprise me if they had two different limits as well . I d think at least some of the roads miles back from the front lines would be paved be it cobble stone or something else that would let them load the trucks differently from those use where the road had been shelled and generally torn apart nearer the front.

Absolutely no evidence yet found that loads varied to conditions. The only time road conditions affected loads was during 'thaw conditions' when motor transport was banned to protect the road from further damage and from becoming clogged with bogged down lorries.

Restorers take note !!. Going through some info. on the W.D. Subsidy Scheme 1912 ammended 1913 . Ignition: drawing no. 108A q.v. 'Leads to the different cylinders should be of colours to facilitate correct connections being made, and to be coloured as follows: Cylinder nearest radiator red, next green, next yellow, cylinder nearest dashboard blue'. I shall be carying out an inspection in due course.

Richard Peskett.

That's 2 of us on the look out for authentic coloured ignition leads then! Best have a hammer of debate in each hand, Tim.

I do not believe that road conditions could be considered a factor, as fields and farm roads are not very smooth.

Best

Gus

Preservation of the roads was of paramount concern to the military with strictly enforced spped limits and weights. The roads were little more than cart tracks and badly pot holed and carrying hundreds of times more traffic than they were built for. Keeping the roads in as good a condition as possible was of the utmost importance to keep traffic running.

1124 MT Coy LAMT, based at Canterbury record the following fuel useage:

3-Ton lorries - average monthly mileage 1050 using 180 gallons (5.8mpg)

Light vans - average monthly mileage 1000 using 120 gallons (8.3mpg)

960 MT Coy working on the Western Front with 101 3 ton lorries had average daily mileages per lorry between 31 in May 1918 and 49 in September 1918 at an average 4.3mpg

For October 1918, 15 lorries were in workshops each day, 242 minor repairs were completed, 2 total overhauls were completed and 16 front and 40 rear tyres were replaced. On average 77 lorries were used daily covering 56,856 emty miles and 41,653 miles for the month. They used Thornycroft, Commer and Locomobiles, employed mainly on munitions and road material work.

My current car is on its way out and i am looking for a replacement. I have got several different ideas in mind. However, my wife has suggested that because of the snow and ice we had this year that we should consider a 4WD. I suggested a war time Dodge but that did not go down very well. Anyway, my query is with modern cars, is 4WD really that much of a great help in snow and ice? The roads around me turn in to sheets of ice in Winter and some moron usually wraps himself around a tree early in the morning only to block me in the village. When the roads get bad i usually phone in, but if i have a 4WD then i really have no excuse not to go in - until of course i catch up with the early morning moron. What shall I do?

 

Thanks

 

Tim

Tim,

I'd look at the type of car you want for the rest of the year, rather than for the odd day or two when there's snow and ice. Using a car for 51 weeks of the year which isn't your first choice because you compromised to suit weather conditions that might last the other week, or maybe not at all, when looking at the last 10 years, seems a bit daft to me. Whatever you get to cope with the snow will be in the same traffic jam as everything else anyway. Anyway, don't you have a Jeep for when the snow's on the ground?

Being soldiers, you can bet the wagons were loaded till there was no more room , regardless of weight. Why go into the firing zone more times than nessacary?

Gross weights were very strictly observed as were speed limits. The extra wear and tear of overloaded or speeding lorries was well known and as far as possible everything was done to prevent additional wear and tear. It is likely though that during the heat of battle the needs of the war took precedence over the needs of the lorry, but that was only a small percentage of time.

I am always very suspect of claimed mileage and fuel consumptions as it was extremely difficult to keep proper records without mileage recorders fitted and you did not get an accurate receipt from your local friendly supermarket fuel retailer.

Richard Peskett.

 

 

 

I agree entirely Richard. I've often wondered how ASC companies came to the accurate mileage and mpg figures they do. But, they are all quite consistent, so they must have got reasonably reliable information from somewhere. I'd guess that mileage was calculated from maps and on the face of it, fuel consumption would be fairly easy just using the fuel issue figure. But then, by the time some has leaked from cans, variable quantities put in the cans, fuel slopped while filling lorry tanks etc, even the fuel issued figure can't be 100% accurate. ASC figures also applied to the entire company, so would be the entire mileage and average mpg of what could be anything between 50 and 150 lorries, not individual lorries.

For a CB, are you sure? A CC should give 5 Mpg, compared to the FWD (the worst of the lot) at 3.5 Mpg. cant see a figure in the Automobile engineer for it.

Yup! I'm sure. I've never seen any ASC figures for more than 5mpg average, whatever they were running and CBs were quite common. I'd have also guessed that the Holt was probably worse than the Holt, but I've not seen, or at least can't remember any Holt mpg figures. Bet it wasn't many though, but then they didn't do many miles to the day either, so maybe didn't use too much fuel.

Dammit, I'll have to check now. That's another few hours looking for Holts.

Yes, Kempton Park is more likely, or possibly Rouen.

No, not Rouen, I'm sure of that. I'd put anybody else's mortgage on it being Kempton Park.

I agree that 30 miles a day for five days a week would be exhausting for us (just doing London to Brighton for one day in 365 is exhausting), but i think these drivers had to do a great deal more. Ron Harris has leant me his wifes uncles memoirs (he was an ASC lorry driver from 1915 to 1919) and he refers to a hundred miles a day journeys. In addition he gives a fuel consumption of his Daimler CB (two ton) as between 18 and 22 gallons miles a day. A document I found at the IWM gives an average fuel consumption of the CB as being 13 mpg. So that equates to between 234 and 286 miles a day. Of course the roads were all shot to hell and he may have spent a lot of time sitting in traffic so the actual distance travelled would be a lot less. It is very hard to find any good evidence of what the life of a lorry driver was like, but these memoirs are very informative indeed.

 

Tim

It all depended on the work the ASC company was employed on, whether Divisional Supply Columns, Ammunition Parks etc and also the work they were doing, whether servicing the front lines or further back supporting the RE and Labour Corps with road maintenance. Serving the front lines seems to average about 5 miles to railhead in the afternoon, between 10 and 15 miles to the front line and then 10-20 miles back to base so average daily mileage would be about 40, though there are plenty of instances where the average was nearer 60 and at times during the heat of battle that would rise considerably. During the German advance in 1918, 100+ miles per day was more usual with drivers working 60 hours non-stop. Basically they ate after fuelling the lorries during loading and slept while queuing to load or unload or until the next bump woke them up. The working week was 7 days, every week, only when pulled to the back lines for 'rest and maintenance' did they work less than 7 days.

Daimler CBs doing 13mpg seems a bit unusual! All the figures I've seen record average mpg as between 4.5 and 5.

I think that 22 weeks was a bit optimistic for tyres, some of the larger ASC companies had a tyre press permanently attached changing between 20 and 30 tyres per day. The companies that were sent by road to Italy left Flanders with new tyres fitted and needed new tyres again at Lyon, which were fitted in the Berliet factory there. Having said that, one company who took a very steady drive to Italy arrived just as quick because it lost no time through breakdowns and needed no tyres at all. Certainly more tyres were replaced through damage than wearingout, although the damage did help with getting grip. Amazing what a few chunks missing can do on a muddy road.

What a picture! is that Slough?

Definately not Slough. Looks like Kempton Park to me, also known as the 'Unfit Park'. Interesting that most of the war Office ambulances are Ford Ts and most of the Red Cross ambulances are Talbots, Sunbeams etc.

Great picture, Richard.

You can have it any colour you like so long as it's got a red cross on it.

What dimensions is it? Looks more like a hip flask! :-D

Might it be a French wine flask?

Nowhere near big enough for a French wine flask!

Thanks. I came across a description of Beugny as being an ammunition dump for the 1918 offensive - presumably in its capacity as a railhead, but can't find the earlier depot desription as yet!

 

http://www.circlecity.co.uk/wartime/board/index.php?page=6

 

Interesting site that.

OK. I've got ammunition parks still to do. Will get onto those when the DSCs are done.