N.O.S.

And it has to be said - how successful it is from here on depends very much on Antarmike and the support / information we give to him!

That's a standard to aim for! I'm almost worried you won't want to get her dirty......

FridgeFreezer, the last part of my last paragraph was a bit unfair - you didn't mention any 'expert' - please put that comment down to my own frustration :cool2: Your suggestion to seek advice from VOSA, FridgeFreezer, is a very valid one - but such written responses can take time to obtain - also members have posted anecdotal evidence in threads that such advice has been found to be not always correct, and can conflict with other parts of legislation. Your comment about defining UNLADEN highlights very nicely how difficult it is for any of us to get to grips with the written form of road vehicle legislation and regulations - I thought I understood what unladen meant at one time, but now I don't!!! We should recognise that NONE of us on here are masters at this subject - some of us have a good working knowledge of those parts of the legislation which affect our own vehicles (I'd say we have a responsibility to know this much), some have a much broader knowledge, some of us think we know more than we do, but none of us know the lot. As an example - I thought I knew enough about Special Types legislation as it affected my work vehicles - thanks to the discussions on this thread I discovered that I had unwittingly not been complying in one respect (now corrected). Better to have learned here than at a roadside check or worse :embarrassed: And yes the whole discussion did become overcomplicated - I reckon any budding large mv owner reading this thread will run a mile and sensibly buy a jeep :-D So if only for their benefit let's take 5 and sum up in simple terms where we are (again...sigh...): 1. The MOT rules governing large mvs and the way the vast majority of us use them (i.e. Historic tax, unladen / towing unladen trailer) are well established and quite simple - anything pre 1960 does not require an MOT, anything over 1960 does (except for certain classes of vehicle which are currently exempt from testing). Problems can sometimes arise with testing (e.g. brakes, standards applied by examiners). Do not panic this group - nothing will change under this proposed MOT review. 2. Some of us have post 1960 vehicles which either don't fit easily into any curent vehicle category, or which are physically difficult to get MOTd, call them 'grey area' vehicles - Ferrett, Saracen etc. By registering them as a particular type (e.g. locomotive) we can legitimately operate them without an MOT. 3. Some of us choose to operate vehicles laden or towing a laden trailer. In which case we either have to have them tested or where possible take advantage of certain vehicle classes which allow laden use (or post 1960 unladen use) without testing (e.g. locomotive). Some of us get them tested voluntarily. 4. If we choose to do more than operate unladen with our vehicles then we need to understand what is required by legislation in terms of taxation and testing, and here too the exact definition of the vehicle (e.g. locomotive or recovery) can be important. The big boys with the big toys should be fully aware of what is and is not permitted under the legislation. 5. These MOT proposals seek to reduce the number of HGV based exemptions available to commercial operators, and two types of mv will be unintentionally caught up in this - the post 1960 grey area vehicles (e.g. Saracen) and the vehicles operating LADEN (e.g. Locomotives, WW2 tank transporters). 6. The changes affect HVG based vehicles only - any vehicle not able to be tested at a current HGV testing station is likely to continue to retain a test exemption. 7. Consultations are taking place with representatives from the preservation movement to see if / how the effect of the proposed legislation on these old vehicles can be minimised. Through this thread HMVF has identified issues of concern affecting mv owners and has a representation at these consultations, and is actively encouraging discussion on ways to achieve this - and hopefully look at how certain vehicles might be accommodated for more convenient testing. In my view HMVF has only managed to achieve this because of everyone who contributed to this thread!

FridgeFreezer - I've had a very brief look through the thread again and as one of those who spent a lot of valuable spare time carefully wording posts to try and smooth the way of this discussion and get it back on track by offering opinions and asking the right questions, I feel compelled to take issue with your comments to some extent. The thread seemed to develop quite rationally with concerns being aired and some very valid points and suggestions made. Yes there were some 'doom and gloom' comments, but these also served a purpose by affirming the seriousness of the topic under discussion. If you look carefully for the source of the 'blind panic' you may well find yourself at posts 75, 89, and 91. Note that this panic also spread to the sister MOT thread. You may arrive at the conclusion that the panic was not in fact caused by 'a lot of people', in which case you may wish to reconsider your allocation of marks and top prize :-D If we are not to discuss / argue over issues and try to help each other, but instead only seek counsel from and bow to the opinion of an appointed 'expert' - this will soon become a pretty useless place to be.

Very interesting site - I even found a mobile bakery in amongst the howitzers!!!

That's a pity - you should have asked us first where to get the best black pudding from :coffee: http://www.wjmacdonald.com/RunScript.asp?p=ASP\Pg0.asp

When you re-plant that, can I have a cutting please?

Perhaps we'd better team up and get both trucks and both trailers done together :D

Aha - that would explain the side louvres at rear!

Sorry, I've lost the plot - will any of the replicas be flyable?

Do you reckon that front end is based on a VW Beetle?

You're not wrong there, abn! If you look under TRUCKS you'll find a nice set of the LeTourneau LCC-1 Sno Train at Fort Wainwright.

Ah - looks like I was typing too slowly :writing:

Jack - if that camera kit is available I'd be pleased to take it, but I'd like to make a contribution to the forum running costs in exchange if that is OK!

And a halftrack hulk in the USA..... http://www.artificialowl.net/2009/08/half-track-truck-skeleton-near-hole-in.html

And here is a link to another section of the same site showing an abandoned Sherman tank (used for bulldozing sand) at the de Beers diamond mine in Namibia. Apparently no vehicles are ever allowed to leave the site (as it might be possible to find diamonds in them!!) so there is a very big parking lot as can be seen from the images. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Q-PuSGjFHvY/SehOX2_Ef0I/AAAAAAAADyk/4_AIRm_2Geg/s1600-h/PJ011746.jpg

Here's a link to part of an interesting site which shows some images of a large mv scrapyard in Eritrea - mainly Russian gear but a few postwar U.S. trucks by the look of it. Enjoy. http://www.artificialowl.net/2008/11/great-tank-truck-of-asmara-tank-trucks.html

Hi Brian, have you found this whacky site yet? Check out the mutant vehicles - several military themed ones www.artcar.blogspot.com

Got it now, thanks. Fluid flywheel. The use of a seperate plate clutch for top gear is interesting. The diagrams and descriprtion are really useful - without some understanding the thread is just scribble to those of us not familiar with the vehicle in question. Perhaps something for us all to bear in mind :thumbsup:

Thanks Lee. But I was actually wondering what the clutch set-up was :-) I've only ever come across the Wilson epicyclic box used in congunction with a fluid coupling or similar, to alllow the epicyclic box to be in gear and the vehicle to be stationary while engine idles - only taking up drive when revs applied. Reading the description of starting off above, there must be a fluid coupling built in somewhere, so what is the GPC connected to? Does it simply dump the oil flow to fluid coupling, thereby causing it to lose drive? Heavier duty transmissions for railway shunting locomotive application incorporated an auxilliary clutch which actuated a by-pass driveline during gear shifts, so tractive effort could be maintained whilst the main gearbox was changing gear under reduced load without causing excessive brake band wear. I wonder if any of the tank drives used this method?

Sounds a whacky transmission design - can anyone post a link to a technical description of it please?

No idea on FOX, and I will be interested to hear how it is done. A typical truck pre-selector box allows you to preselect the next gear whilst on the move - the trick is to keep power on to avoid instant change. Once you either release the drive by backing off the throttle or blip the clutch, the box will automatically change into the selected gear. Good example is the hybrid Eaton twin-splitter box, you can play tunes on that one by splitting each gear twice with a switch using the technique above before shifting the gear lever into another set of cogs :-)

More to the point - what would be the benefit since this is one category of vehicle shortly due to require an MOT when the new proposals come into effect! I think there are several trucks out here with pinned side bars which are removed for off-roading or rally purposes so you should be ok with that.

And that is just the equipment sent to Japan (not that I knew they had many occupation troops there) :shocked:

They became 1950's SUNAMI SIRENS - a flood defence early warning system all along the east coast.