Sean N

Yep. Popped up here too: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?50114-Herr-Flick-s-not-so-little-tank And here: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?49889-3-churchills-to-be-scrapped-if-not-sold&p=446193#post446193

Anyone know a reliable supply of Volvo C303 spares, specifically diffs / axles / CWPs?

Barry, I've finally remembered to have a look for those wheel cylinders. Sorry it's taken so long. I have found three, all Lockheed. I thought I had more, but they're obviously still buried. They are: 1 x AU/LK 16566 given on the box as for Thornycroft Nubian MkVa and fire fighter, though I think it'll fit other vehicles. Casting is marked Lockheed 44955 1 x No identification but externally appears identical to the above, casting is marked Lockheed 15052/2 1 x No identification, externally appears to be the same dimensions as the above but the opposite hand, casting is marked Lockheed 10??0-44-1C and mounting flange is stamped No.21 14955 / JHS They do not appear the same as yours (I think Richard is right in saying yours are Girling); they have not got the large lug that the locking pin is on, nor the other mushroom shaped lug, and the boot is much shorter.

And I think with common transmissions, which gives the neutral categorisation for those gearbox parts (also maybe common to the CCKW) Thanks for the confirmation, Richard - I wasn't sure.

You've got one oddball in there as LV3/LD X31850 is an engine part for a Leyland built or engined AFV. The rest all seem to be REO or Studebaker, all gearbox (or transfer box) parts, all for 6x6 or 6x4. That they're labelled NEUtral indicates they're parts for a particular design that came from two or more makers (i.e. neutral as they're common across all the makes). Presumably that they have British VAOS classifications indicates they were for vehicles that the British were involved with in some way or another (did commonwealth countries use British VAOS?) So you're looking for a typical US standardised design that was built by REO, Studebaker and possibly other makers, all using the same transmission, available as a 6x6 or a 6x4, built during or before the 1950s, and with at least a British connection. Tempting to suggest the US6?

I think you need to review your thinking on this if you are serious about going to central or west Africa. Why does the driver feel a spare gearbox is important? Why are you considering taking a spare gearbox which does not match the original and will need parts machined, or extra alternative parts, to make it fit? Why do you think the most likely transfer box failure on an MK is a gear, and given that gears are paired why do you think only one will be damaged? Why do you think that a gear from the gearbox is likely to fit the transfer box, even on a Bedford? Why consider a spare gearbox (and bellhousing, and prop) but not a spare transfer box? Have you measured the prop to check that it would fit if you have to bypass the transfer box? Are the conditions you are likely to encounter in Africa likely to need 4WD? If so, is it reasonable to plan to bypass the transfer box (and therefore run in 2WD)? NOS is right about the gearshift rubber. Why take the owner's word that the potential spares vehicle was running 5 years ago rather than making simple checks on the condition of the gearbox (i.e. whether it has water in or not), particularly given Icelandic weather? You have both Bedfords there; why not measure the bellhousing bolt centres if you think it might not fit? Have you discussed or investigated the likely weak points of the MK in arduous conditions?

Richard, part numbers I can read are GB 150208 ?? Gearshift; 150507 Carrier; 170022; GB 15021?; RA 1706??; GB 150219 Washer. Phil, better photos of the labels would help. You can often find clues to the maker on the packaging as well. Could these be CMP parts?

Phil, the parts all look like gearbox components and all appear to have the VAOS code LV7/NEU on. LV7 is non-standardised B vehicles (so definitely not Matilda, which I believe would be LV1), and the following letters normally give manufacturer but in this case I believe NEU is short for NEUtral, i.e. common parts to a group or nation's B vehicles. Clive might know better. My eyes aren't good enough to read many of the labels in your photo, but I'd be looking for other clues on the labels and packaging, or googling part numbers.

Exactly so. It's a direct top box.

Think you might have problems swapping that for a standard MK box at the side of the road. Perhaps take a look at the gearbox in your MK and compare it with this one? Measure the length?

Well... if that was the case, could they really not have passed the information to someone or done what they could to ensure the vehicles were saved? You know a lot more about this than I do, Adrian, but really? Would they really be that self-interested at the expense of preserving unique vehicles or helping restore several other projects? People are only human, and there are some odd attitudes around, but if so it seems somewhat self serving and short sighted.

This seems to me the crucial factor. You can't get too excited about the scrapyard's part in it; as has been said it's likely they have a contract, breach of which might jeopardise future contracts. Without knowing the ins and outs it's difficult to be too critical of the museums in one way; who was offered the vehicles, what were the circumstances at the time, were they being asked to buy them, what else was going on at the time and so on. As we've already said though, it's a shame the chance to save unique vehicles and / or contribute to the restoration of a number of other Churchills has been lost perhaps just through a lack of communication. Might it be the case that museums can't tout these vehicles around outside other museums and like organisations? Or did they just not think of it, or not know who to contact? In any case, it's clear that the way to save these things is to intercept them before they even get onto a scrap contract.

And just to add to Ted & Clive's comments, many of the specialist RAF vehicles (and some Army vehicles) built in the 1970s and that came out through the sales in the '90s were obviously in their original paint and were wearing full gloss NATO green (while others were still wearing deep bronze green!). With all these questions on paint, markings etc. I think it's very easy to assume that everything's cut and dried - an edict was issued from Whitehall on a certain date, the edict went out to the various units and manufacturers, and everyone painted their vehicles a certain colour. Practically speaking, that couldn't be done - but even ignoring that, we all know that real life isn't like that, particularly when a complex organisation like the armed services is involved. The reason there is often no clearly established, well known chronology for such things, in my experience, can often be that such a chronology didn't exist, or existed in theory only!

Perhaps he confuses the DEF STAN etc. introduction with the start of experiments into IRR (1968 - 1969?) I used to go to the MoD vehicle sales in the '90s when a lot of Armstrong MT500s were being cast. Pretty sure all the green ones were NATO green (there were a few in odd colours, like Arctic camouflage). Those who went to the sales will recall reserve stock vehicles coming straight from Ashchurch in their original factory paint, so a fairly good guide to the paint of the period. I recall particularly a large batch of late Landrover 101s (so mid to late '70s), all of which were in deep bronze green and still with yellow bridge plates. You can't necessarily look at paint now and assume that because it doesn't look like NATO green, it isn't. Paint can be quite sensitive to original composition, manufacture and application; I work with a local company who paint trailers for MoD contracts and they are considerably darker and more glossy than you'd normally think of as NATO green. Matt NATO green IRR, certainly early stuff, in my experience is quite susceptible to weathering and chalking so older paint coats can look nothing like NATO green. I've seen original deep bronze greens as light as apple green. Similarly self-coloured plastics such as used on the MT500 can appear quite different. The colour (masterbatch) is added to the raw material at the production stage, typically as a powder, and depending on proportions, additive make, processing conditions etc. can look very different. The fact that it's 'in' the surface rather than on it, the surface material is different, plastic thickness and type etc. can make it look different due to different reflectivity etc.

These guys have a lot of experience in ship preservation - don't forget, they're the same people that look after HMS Victory, the M33 and others and have just restored the WW2 sub HMS Alliance, which was heavily corroded - so it should be OK. Either way, it's a step forward from sitting at the bottom of the East Float at the mercy of whatever Peel Ports decide to do with it, given that the last rare piece of history Peel Ports dealt with went to Turkey to be cut up.

http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day-news/details/saving-landing-craft-lct-7074

Stalwart is now running and mobile, so it's for sale. All the bits are with it. Latest photos: See also this topic in the classifieds section: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?50057-Alvis-Stalwart-Mk-2-HMLC-running-road-registered-part-swimmer If you're interested, reply to the classified ad or send me a PM.

It might also be that the quoters aren't aware that you can delete images or bits and pieces from within a quote. Still, I suspect discussing quoting in a restoration thread might be taking things off topic... On the data plates, personally I like to see these 'tangents' discussed in such a thread. It makes the topic more interesting and alive, is relevant to the topic, exposes me to techniques and information that I might not know about, and potentially feeds new information and techniques back to the original poster, in this case the Goslings. Everyone benefits.

It absolutely baffles me why things like this are still being turned into cans and why there is no interest in these sort of things from the major museums, who must surely have been aware of the situation and you would think have the clout to get them saved and the contacts to get them moved. If they did not want the vehicles themselves, they might have been able to help out other museums or collectors, perhaps exchanging them for parts they do want. For me, it's particularly important that specialist vehicles like these are saved. It's ironic that the specialist equipment tends to survive longer than the runs of the mill in service, yet tends to get converted back to the run of the mill or destroyed once out of service. Equipment such as this is just as important as gun tanks in telling the history. Absolutely full marks for effort, Rick - a brave attempt.

Double post, answers in this topic: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?50043-Bedford-TK-gearbox-in-a-MK

Go for it. If the tanks can't be saved, at least there's potential to make a significant difference to the restoration of 3 - 5 other Churchills. It didn't look as though they were that far into cutting them so there's a good chance there's at least piles of major units still there, if not complete vehicles. Worth working on from two angles - see if you can get an approach through IWM, Tank Museum, Disposals Agency or other UK sources, while at the same time tackling the relevant director at the scrapyard to see if you can identify and break down the obstacles, plus maybe promise them good publicity as well? Good luck with it.

Rick, I don't think you can or should kick yourself. You made a 27 hour trip at short notice to try to rescue these things, motivated not by profit but by a desire to see things preserved. Not many would have done that. Once there you did what you could with the restrictions you had. It's highly likely, as Richard and a couple of others have suggested, and as you guessed at early on, that the scrap dealer's contract specified that they had to reduce the vehicles to scrap and that once senior management got wind of a potential breach of that contract, they put a stop to it. I don't see that threatening them would have achieved anything - you always get more out of people if you work with them (I realise you're just expressing your frustrations). The one thing you might be able to do is contact the relevant director in person and establish in a constructive way what the obstacle is and whether there is any way round it. However they may well feel reducing the vehicle to parts isn't enough and releasing said parts would jeopardise their scrap contract. I don't know whether going to the press or politicians at this point might help save what's left or would just put people's backs up. I think one problem these days is not only arms limitations and demilitarisation laws but also paranoia about liability. Frequently we see usable equipment and vehicles, including historically important ones, destroyed because of largely unwarranted concerns about liability if something goes wrong. Reading the topic I didn't see where the Tank Museum came in or whether they actually had been offered the vehicles - you suggest later they had. As one guy they may well not have contacted you anyway, even if they did think of it. I have to say, it's my experience that museums (with one or two exceptions) are generally fairly blinkered and are not necessarily good guardians of the nation's heritage, sad though that is to say. Either way, as Jack says it's frustrating that important and irreplaceable pieces of history are consigned to the scrap heap almost without thought. Personally, I think it's almost worse with vehicles like this; specialist vehicles are often not considered glamorous and don't attract the attention gun tanks might, but they're just as important in telling the story. However I think you're right; the way to prevent this kind of thing in future is to intercept them before they ever get to the scrap yard, or even classified as scrap. Perhaps setting up some sort of formal clearing house for unwanted tanks and parts, and getting the relevant people - the decision makers and those with direct responsibility - in the MoD, the Disposals Agency, the German defence ministry and museums onside and aware you're doing this might be a way forward, for future cases at least. If I can help with that in any way let me know.

TK and MK 4 speed box are effectively the same (provided the TK is not a 214 petrol or early 200 diesel, if I remember right) TK 5 speed boxes can be made to fit but you may have to shorten the prop. Part compatibility with Goddesses is limited depending what parts you want (and it'd be a shame to break up a Goddess). Goddess gearbox would have to be modified to fit.

I think before you do anything you should contact Auto Sparks and check this. It may be an error has been made. It would be very unusual to either not follow the original factory colours for a coded loom, or not to label or identify the cabling for a single colour loom. No point in spending time tracing wires if it's their error, or at least something they can help with.

Terry, I'm no expert on Ferret and someone like Richard F will probably advise, but in my experience B series engines have a tendency to backfire due to (excess) fuelling on the over-run. Checking the timing is certainly worthwhile, but my first thought was I wonder if the mixture is a touch rich?