N.O.S.

Yes please, Tony! They were a Navy wrecker weren't they? If yo go into Transporters and Wreckers section and click on POST NEW THREAD at the top left in a green box, you can start a whole new topic!!

Now on display at the Tate Modern - "Shed" by Tracey Emin :-D

Is the gearbox now coupled to the Cummins your original one, Mark, or a 'Beke Special'?

A CMP type with No.11 cab?

Les - do you think those pics might be the Berlin airlift? Civilian plane, possibly sacks of coal, oddball wrecker in aircraft recovery pic?

Big thanks for that, abn.:captain: It does raise more questions though :cheesy: Look at the Willys Jeep data below - why would anyone want to log it as 9 tons of shipping, and what the deuce is 'broken shipping' at a total of 12 tons? :??? The only reason I can think of is that there is/was some general rule that cargo ships were designed with a hold capacity of 40 cu.ft. per ton of carrying capacity, and that for loading purposes, cargo ship capacity is always worked out as weight. So if you fill a hold with a load of light vehicles they are given an unnaturally high 'shipping weight' equivalent to the ship's carrying capacity in tons divided by hold volume in cubic feet (say, 40) multiplied by actual volume of the vehicle plus a small bit extra to allow for access around it . So that when you've loaded the maximum permitted 'shipping weight' of jeeps the hold will be full, even if the ship is only loaded to say 30% of its carrying capacity in tons. Makes perfect sense now :cry: VEHICLES TYPE Truck1/4-ton Willys (Top Up) LENGTH 11' WIDTH 5'2" HEIGHT 5'10" ACTUAL SQ.FT. 57 ACTUAL CU.FT. 330 Net WEIGHT 2324 ACTUAL SHIP TONS 8 SQ.FT. PLUS 25% 71 CU.FT. PLUS 50% 495 BROKEN STOWAGE SHIP TONS 12

Workwise - if you haven't got a vehicle yet, there are still one or two of the civilian MJR trucks around with rear-mounted Hiab (typically Model 070) as used by the Electricity companies in large numbers. These would also have power steering. You might look a bit out of place taking it to a M.V. rally though :-D

Well I feel a lot happier about the conversion having seen the photos of the assembled engine/box. My interest here is that I have an identical engine sitting in front of my WLF waiting for me to find some spare time :cry: My main concern was the weight of the WLF gearbox / bell housing hanging off the relatively small B Series SAE3 flywheel housing which also accomodates the rear engine mounts - modern boxes fitted to these engines are far lighter, and often the rear engine mounts are incorporated into the bell housing - thus sharing some of the box weight and taking the overhanging load off the flywheel housing. One option might be to work in a transverse leaf spring support at the back end of the gearbox, although not easy to mount on the box - but I must admit it looks O.K. as it is. Carry on. please! :-)

Armycars Holland have them.

Exactly, Mike - try any of the known shipping volumes and they don't seem to tie up with the vehicle dimensions. This is what we're trying to get a handle on. Looks like it is the same for British vehicles.

It would be great if you could find that reference, Richard. Does seem very odd that in wartime, when there was so much pressure on shipping, they would not be more concerned with simply adding up the actual weight of the cargo than working to some some nominal volumetric formula - presumably used when weights of bits of cargo were not always known...

Once you have the tacho fitted it is a simple job to get it calibrated to your truck at for example a Lucas tacho depot - they stick it on a rolling road and set it up. They could I'm sure also supply the necessary cables for connection. If you get an electronic one it will no doubt be much simpler but more expensive to connect it all :-D My truck (drilling rig) has a Turner 5 speed box so I put the tacho on that (not that I need one, but it is very useful when marking out boreholes accurately, as in high range 0.1km division = 100metres, in low range 0.1km = 50metres). But I'm pretty certain there is a cable mount on the transfer box too. If you are going to do a lot of driving the Turner box is a dream - you can get direct top (same as Bedford 4 speed) for better gear spacing, or an overdrive top for more speed, but still the long 'gap' between gears.

Then I think you were thinking the right thing then :cool2: I don't see why the springs should have been uprated, as the max. axle loadings would remain the same - just means there would be a bit more weight on the front axle when unladen. Loaded axle weights would be the same as without crane. The amazing thing about the Bedford is its low unladen front axle weight compared to more modern trucks.

I think that will depend very much on what you intend to use the vehicle for in your business.

Try comparing shipping weights and shipping volumes - your 40 cubic feet per ton might work out. But why is the shipping volume so different to the vehicle dimensons?

I think you'll find that the U.S. Ton is a "Short Ton" because it refers to 2,000 pounds. Very rarely do tons mean long tons (2240lbs) or tonnes (1,000 kg) in the U.S.A. I stated "short" to indicate a 2,000 lb ton which would definitely have been the case during WW2. Using your guide for volume per given weight doesn't seem to work out anywhere near right for the GMC figures. But I think my use of the Shipping Stencil for the GMC is confusing the issue: the max. gross weight used for GMC could be explained by it being stencilled on the outside of the truck, so this presumably is intended to be used for loading purposes in combat, like loading landing craft, where they would be more interested in the actual weight of truck plus load rather than a nominal shipping formula. Take the Autocar U-7144T. Here the volume on the dash data plate is 1281 cubic feet, with shipping weight of 32. If this is 32 tons, then that is 40 cubic feet per ton, so your suggestion is spot on Mike. You might have solved the weight problem, Mike - thanks. But what about the methiod of calculating Volume?

That's interesting, Richard. But it is strange that the GMC Shipping Weight is exactly the same as the permitted gross weight given in the manual. Another odd thing - the Autocar U-8144T Pontoon Tractor has a shipping weight of 44,100 lbs, or 22 U.S. short tons (at least that's what we think the "44.1" means) - about the gross weight of the tractor plus pontoon trailer. And the Shipping Volume is dramatically more than the tractor itself, suggesting possibly a trailer too? I agree it is reasonable to expect a proportional increase in shipping volume to accomodate a crated vehicle for example. All very confusing! We are trying to guesstimate the shipping volume and weights for a vehicle for which no data exists.

Here is the stencilled GMC CCKW353 non-winch Shipping Data, showing shipping weight in pounds and volume in cubic feet. The weight represents the max. permitted gross weight (so assumes shipping laden) but the volume is much greater than the sum of the length x width x height - 125 cu.ft., compared to an actual truck volume of approx. 965 cu. ft. The shipping data plate for the Autocar U7144T shows a similar difference. Can anyone explain this? The image is from the Axholme Designs website - hope you don't mind the publicity, I'll order one soon!!).

No need - that old Cummins will soon coat it all over with a nice coat of sticky black oil :cool2:

If it is of any interest I saw it in December 07. We had gone to get a load of WLF parts, and were allowed to inspect the collection which was being restored for the new museum Many vehicles had already been restored - I think this outfit was restored by that time but cannot be sure (Grasshopper may know - although he was suffering badly with frostbite by 11am). Most were post war, but several nice ww2 vehicles also. The museum was intended to be opened in early 2008 - they were working flat out at this time to get it finished, but the opening was much delayed it seems.

My mistake, Michel - and yes I can see the problem now! When I first looked at your photos I could have sworn they were within the trailer deck!! :embarrassed: And I even viewed that very trailer at Zwijndrecht a couple of years ago :embarrassed::embarrassed:

Usually 'cos it wasn't bolted down properly in the first place :-D Welcome, jzimm.

Exactly - by rights I shouldn't be here now, nor several others I know :shocked: Typical example - a haulier's fitter borrowed our cutting gear one day to cut the U bolts off a Leyland 8 wheeler rear 2-spring bogie to replace the leaf. Now that is very close to the tyres. I did suggest something to him and he ignored it, so I kept out of the way. Like lots of things, you can get away with it time after time after .......BANG

John - why do you run your trailer on single tyres? It doesn't look as if the twins stick out wider than the trailer on the Overloon museum example.....:undecided: Regards, Tony

That's saved me some wasted time - I was just thinking of looking at the possibility of patenting a truck or other tyre valve insert which would relieve excessive pressure, but a fusible plug is a much better solution. Wonder why they don't fit them as standard on truck rims? Cost would be minimal. Might have saved the life of one tipper driver in East Anglia last year who had brake trouble - when he got out to look at the tyre it exploded and blew him into the dual carriageway. Oh well, no point in re-inventing the wheel. Pun intended :whistle: