Sean N

I was in a restaurant Saturday evening that had a number of old photos around - said to be connected with the owner's family. One, a WW2 truck, carried a number on the front offside just below the windscreen, but rather than a conventional census number it was a broad arrow followed by 275698, the 27 being painted a smaller size than the other characters. This probably should ring a bell with me but doesn't. Anyone shed any light?

Missed that, thanks. Interesting conversion.

Unusual Rubery Owen trailer with the door in the side. Is that a standard version, or has it been chopped about post-military?

Now there's a thought - crowdfunding a dig?

Not only Jeeps.... I think it's a real problem. For those who have vehicles, particularly the sought after ones, elevated prices can give you a cosy feeling in the wallet; but they're a barrier to entry for those new to the hobby, particularly the young. BUT ... as someone who was looking at a couple of your old posts earlier and thinking you're not around as much, welcome back (ish)

Pete, there's another site which is very useful: https://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/ It allows you to compare past and present prices in a number of different ways; inflation, purchasing power, wage comparison and so on, and gives some idea of the best measure to use. For example, I have a Ruddington catalogue from around 1952, which shows Bedford O types selling at, I think, £25 each. I found it interesting that in wage terms, that was almost exactly what I used to see Bedford TKs sell for at Aston Down in the '90s. As an example, the Fodens that I've commented on in the past come out around £35,000 in RPI terms, but £92,000 in terms of the proportion of an average weekly wage it would take to buy them (probably the most meaningful), and a frightening £135,000 in terms of GDP per capita income!

This image is interesting. Oblique, unfortunately, but a 1948 shot from the south clearly showing a rough chalk line across Denbies. A marker tag someone's put on it, middle left, says 'Course of the WWII tank ditch, now infilled': http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/eaw015273

Rick, have emailed. Best bet might be to talk to geophysics people or archaeologists. Several options including GPR, magnetometers, electrical resistance, EM conductivity, even metal detectors perhaps. University Earth Science or Archeology departments might be able to help, or at least offer advice and contacts - see if you can get to talk to someone at UofM or the Metropolitan uni.

I suppose if you had a quantity of tanks with no supporting paperwork or which had been / were going to be written off at scrap value, and you had a ditch to fill, it must have been only too tempting...!

If I'm honest, I think the comparison with Wheels & Tracks is a red herring - it's looking at it from a partial viewpoint, and as John says, things have moved on. CMV's problem might be that it's not W&T in the eyes of many enthusiasts, but that doesn't mean that CMV should (or could) aim to be a replacement for W&T or that it's even aimed at the same niche. As Clive has said above, there's a tension between catering for the highly knowledgable enthusiast market and for the mass, casual interest market. An authoritative in-depth article that satisfies the first may turn off the second; for every person who's hooked by an obscure discovery or authoritative history of Subsidy Talbots, there's another who's only interested in Series 3 Land Rovers. It's a difficult balancing act to pull off well, but it has to be pulled off for the magazine to be successful. Modern print production techniques have made publishing relatively niche magazines practical in the last 15 years or so, but it'd be a mistake to think there are huge piles of cash to be earned at the drop of a hat and the magazine has to make money - or no magazine. That means it has to appeal to a wide range of people. It also means advertising is likely to be necessary, however much it may be disliked; I can't think of a current mass market magazine that doesn't have extensive advertising. Having said that, some of the issues commented here are inexcusable; simple proofreading or technical errors, repeated typos, unreadable copy (design should aid readability, not hamper it). Unfortunately many of these issues might point not just to carelessness but also more fundamental structural problems in Kelsey Publishing, in which case John's got his hands full!

Chris, knowing Rick I suspect if it works out he won't stop at one - he'll be bringing up anything vaguely tank-like that's down there.

What do the extinguisher brackets look like, Stuart?

Be nice if it was even vaguely approaching the condition of that one.

I know, always the way. I was sure I'd mentioned them before, though in another thread. Perhaps it was just the smaller ones, which I also have. I'll check what i've got next time I'm at the workshop.

Tony, I assume from your comment that's the one that went to Bovvy. Did you get any photos of the ones that were put back? Might be handy to know exactly how bad they are...

Richard, thanks, that's interesting. Having had next to nothing to do with them I hadn't realised QL® had such a control box for the engine dynamo, so that's where my confusion arose. Having the auxiliary control board inside the body on the front bulkhead is consistent with practice in other vehicles so sounds probable. That confirms Guy's comments and that I have a QLR auxiliary charging set up. Thanks. Guy, thanks again for your input on this.

Need to double-check what I have here just to be sure. Guy said in this thread: However in another thread, someone asked about this control box on a QLR that Peter Hommes had for sale: ... It's clearly a 141, and given the discussion here I said it was the control box for the [DW7X8X] auxiliary generator. Guy replied: ...which I took to be stating it was the regulator for the vehicle (i.e. engine mounted) dynamo NOT the auxiliary (chassis mounted DW7X8X) dynamo. This appears to contradict what was said in this topic, so I'm now confused. Though I know nothing about QLR auxiliary charging, all the FFW / FFR vehicles I've come across with auxiliary dynamos have a conventional control box for the vehicle dynamo and a large auxiliary control box either in the cab or in the radio body. The box in Peter's photo is clearly a 141 and so wouldn't appear to be the control box for the vehicle dynamo. I'd like to clarify so I know definitively what I have - is it definite that the 141 is the control box for the DW7X8X and that the pair formed the auxiliary charging set on QL®? Thanks.

Does everyone else have the same problem with the windows on the 1950s - 1970s office bodies that I do? Every office body I've had has had sticking or jammed shutters, fly screens or sliding windows, often all three. Tried to open the shutters on my Rubery-Owen office trailer yesterday and they just will not move. Mind you, they haven't been used for a long time. Anyone got any tips for freeing them off other than dismantling and rebuilding?

I'd have to check, but I'm sure I have a quantity of those!

Is that an appeal for a rescue or a cobbler?! :-D

Another data point, maybe - I have a Bedford 28hp water pump here in eau de nil. Unfortunately the packing label's gone, but the part number is LV7/BD [bedford part number]

I haven't spoken to them in ages, but Hirst's in St Mary Bourne used to have PSP regularly. Paul's closer to you, though.

Hello Hugo, welcome to the forum. That 2a looks lovely. I don't think anyone here would be sniffy about it, and it's always great to see things like that preserved. Your family acquired it in 1980, I assume? For some reason you don't see many Praga V3S around, I'm not sure why (or I don't, anyway). Must be quite a big body on it, or is it the standard Soviet bloc style box? I might have to pick your brains at some point, as we keep contemplating a trip to Prague!

Howard, I might have one, I'll see if I can have a look this weekend. If not, Precision Clutch Components in Henstridge are very helpful. Do you need a service exchange or have you nothing?

I'd have thought that was a good CES number; for example, my 1971-ish office trailer has a CES number of P/33918/1 Was the way CES numbers done changed, along with the plate on that Morris after a late rebuild (it looks like a late plate), so that 34173 is older (and current when Clive's reference was published), later replaced with P33540/11?