N.O.S.

And if I'm reversing in an MV I wouldn't stand much chance of evading capture! :-D

I think you'll find that any hgv used primarily for engineering purposes and not carrying a commercial load (for example all those Highways vehicles used on barrier repair work?, and maybe even cone-laying vehicles?) are also exempt. Just look at all the special purpose trucks around now and you can then see how the numbers start to add up! White line marker trucks, road sweepers, bridge inspection units - again all pure HGV chassis, the list is endless. But I too am surprised it's as much as 10%. If you build an overwidth body on an hgv chassis to carry a specific load (and that load only) I think it falls outside C&U Regs and is therefore test exempt?

Yes, best wishes for speedy recovery. In a very non-p.c. tone - how about reversing alarms for our MVs? You can get recordable ones now - Instead of "BLEEP Caution, this ABC delivery truck is reversing BLEEP Caution, this ABC........" we could have rapid machine gun fire (of a type of weapon appropriate to the vehicle's period of course). Boy, would that scatter pedestrians around the back PDQ!!!!!

Agreed. The document suggests this proposal has come about primarily due to the large increase in HGV-based vehicles which are currently able to avoid normal HGV test procedures. If they are HGV - based they can be dealt with easily under current test procedures and in some ways the idea is very sensible. However it is proposed that those vehicles which fall outside Construction & Use Regs (for example by virtue of their width - like a heavy haulage tractor maybe), or come under the category of Engineering Plant (like a 15 tonne artic wheeled loader) are also to be subject to testing. Quite how this would be achieved in practise is not yet clear. In terms of how it might will :-( affect our hobby - I'm not sure how post 1960 historic vehicles are going to be able to escape this latest round-up :-( Some form of exemption would be ideal but it will need some 'recognised body' to make a stand on this. I can't see individual representations being taken too seriously unless they are legion in number, but that must not stop us writing/emailing etc. The fact that the Government has the ability under E.C. legislation to issue various exemptions does not make me feel any happier - their view is that this proposal primarily affects commercial operators who can simply recoup any additional cost burden by increasing the cost of the service they provide. Sadly I can recall several 'restored' mvs which really should not have been on the road. 'Our' old vehicles may be unroadworthy due to faults which 'we' have obviously ignored, or due to un some unseen but potentially dangerous fault despite reasonable diligence in 'our' inspections. If 'we' cannot police 'ourselves', I guess someone will inevitably do it for us.

I've just found a website where you can burst bubble wrap virtually. I might be some time.......

Well I got my first M.V. on the road in July 1990, so it must have been before then.........:banana:

That's a rare beasty, Captain C.! Careful you don't shove the boom through the Billiard Room window when parking at the Clubhouse :stop: Looks vaguely like a smaller version of the two 8144T crane units for the U.S. Navy? Can you tell us anything about this model - how many, where used, etc.? What is the Autocar population in the States like? Can you give us an idea of how many might be preserved? In Europe 444, 4144 are very scarce, we think there could be possibly 16 - 20 x 7144Ts and some 8144Ts. Thanks Tony

Re. the last two posts - can you be more a little more specific about the thickness and number of layers of bubble wrap, Mike?

You could get a fair bit of hand traction on those big rear pram wheels. One day (aged 8) I hooked up with a length of (luckily long) rope to the 15 ft high peach tree growing outside the back door. Just as I was seeing how well it would pull before the wheels slipped, the bloody thing came over :shocked: Turns out my grandad had for 10 years been knocking his teapot on the trunk to empty out the leaves, they had rotted the trunk right through :-D

Luky sod - all I had when I was a lad was a GO-BOX (a go kart made from a wooden box like a foot locker and a set of pram wheels!).

My thinking exactly, hence my post. I imagine it might be more likely that a towing spring would break than a hook suffer "structural failure". I've seen a broken one. After all, who knows what terrible metal-altering experiences a ww2 Matador or Pioneer hook or towing spring might have suffered in its long hard life? :shocked: There are some hooks out there which are not solid metal, but hollow - and with quite a thin wall at that. I have a couple of these in stock but decided to take a good old solid one off a Matador when choosing a hook destined for 'use and abuse' on the back of a large wheel loader. But if it is not practical to attach safety chains by any other means - because the vehicle has not yet been fitted with suitable mounting points - then do you not agree around the rear crossmember has got to be safer than no safety chains at all? I hardly think anyone is talking 'complete solution here', just one more sensible, practical step towards making these rigs a bit safer for other road users in today's world. :thumbsup:

I guess you would have to modify both vehicles in order to attach chains? If I wanted to use safety chains I would probably drill a couple of holes in appropriate places or attach some brackets somewhere and bolt on a couple of suitably sized lifting eyes. Would be a better engineering solution than wrapping something around the rear crossmember (Expl) or towing spring (Mat).

Yep. But on reflection I think maybe 2 tonnes was being generous - what I meant was that if these were lifting eyes they would probably be rated for a 1 or 1.5 tonne lift, but lifting equipment testing is a different ball game to ratings for towing or recovery equipment. Not a good comparison. The reason for making it though was just to illustrate that there would be no strength advantage using a chain with a rating of say 6 tonnes if the eye was only rated at 2 tonnes! Interestingly the WW2 photo below from a manual shows chains straight, not crossed. At that time they were presumably more concerned with catching the trailer than preventing it from digging in! Of course being American the equipment comes complete with all the necessary mounting points :cool2:. I would agree in this day and age crossed makes for a better precaution (excuse my choice of subject, I have OTD - obsessive tanker disorder).

Mmm - that avatar is going to do Jack's blood pressure no good at all :shocked:

"All hail Captain Crank" :bow::banana:

He sold it to buy a shepherds hut - he's always wanted one.

A big black oily patch?

Wonderful - better job than some of my restorations :-D

Erm, you forget to mention that a bomber never crashed into a hillside near the target :whistle:

Some of us (you included lee) seem totally unable to string enough words together to get much more than 1/2 way across the page before hitting the carriage return button :-D

Take Memphis Belle. The sequence of manually winding down the landing gear was stretched out far longer than would have been the case just to enhance the suspense. Not knowing this at the time I thoroughly enjoyed it, but now it does irritate me just a teeny bit :-D:-D The remake of Flight of the Phoenix is a classic example of how not to do it - the crash sequence goes on for ever (totally unrealistic) and not one of the characters is plausible (unless everybody really does go around speaking street slang and trying to outdo each other for the arrogance prize). No, it cannot hold a candle to the original. Complete and utter dross. A sad reflection of modern society. It is bad in every way the original was brilliant. This new film however will be fantastic I'm sure. Because it is being made by an enthusiast. And because it will have been well researched without doubt. But mainly because when I watch it I will not be comparing it to the original, which stands high in its own right.

For s/h parts a very good source is Crouch Recovery - their details are on milweb. Some new parts are still available - google Bedford Genuine Parts. They organise the production of parts and supply to approved parts distributors, and are very helpful. They or Crouch might be able to help with a manual too. Don't forget to post a pic of the TM when you've fitted the Roo Bar :-D:-D

Well credit where credit's due - that was a pretty slick gear change Mike! :-D

And these dogs skipped training and got in by the back door :-D Nice book, readily available.

Before that - it was Mike, not Jim - we were loading Federal / Autocar, and you were looking in the Ward laFrance wrecks for gauges I think? I would have taken a fuel tank also, but we ran out of capacity on the last trip. :-( Just imagine what a problem you would have to find those spare parts in the future - I think we both have a lot to thank the Bekes for Good luck with your restoration! Tony