rewdco

Highly unusual! On the engine you can still see the "WM20." prefix of the original engine number (which was clearly removed with a file). But I have no idea at all about the 14 CW 0027 and 14 GW 0022 numbers... They are not even matching...

Highly unusual numbers! Any chance of some pictures Geoff?

Random letters and numbers are usually not recorded on the Key Cards Geoff. But if you post them here, we can have a look.

"Flattened tube end with a hole"...?

Maybe "eyelet" is not the correct word... 😕

Does this make sense...?

That is exactly the same as on the M20 (12" on the RHS, 12" 1/8 on the LHS).

Is that center-center or is it the overall length Ron?

Hi John, I’ve made an overlay of a WM20 and a WB30 line drawing, and I come to the conclusion that the horizontal stays on a WB30 are 1/2” shorter than on a WM20. (LHS and RHS on a WM20 are different: LHS is 1/8 longer than RHS, due to the asymmetric rear frame. Is the WB30 frame symmetric?) The bottom tubes for the pannier frames on a WM20 have a dropped down eyelet. The eyelet on the WB30 bottom tubes is straight. When I compare the length of the bottom tube with the diameter of the rim, I calculate an overall length of 290mm. On a WM20 this is 380mm. The brackets to support the pannier frames appear to be completely different. Just my twopennies... 😊 Cheers, Jan

Maybe not military, but I think this is a beautiful photograph: And to compensate, here is a WW1 scene:

I guess you will be using a new industrial gear that you will modify to fit your bike? Be careful, as nowadays these industrial gears always have a metric module. The WD bikes usually have gears with imperial modules. Only metric module 1 will fit the appropriate imperial gear system (difference is negligible), all other sizes won't fit. No idea about the module of a Triumph gear set...

One month later there was a demand for 100 WB30s for the Royal Navy (contract C13872). The allotted frame and engine numbers were WB30-601 until WB30-700. Once again, the factory ledgers haven’t survived, so the exact despatch dates are unknown. Must also have been somewhere during the summer of 1942… FOM 785 is another works registration number, looks as if this is the RN demonstrator. If you study the pictures carefully you’ll find lots of specification differences between the early contract (FOM 719) and the later contracts (FOM 785).

End of story for the WB30…? Not really… In February 1942 there was a demand for 100 WB30s for the GPO (contract C/13683). The allotted frame and engine numbers were WB30-501 until WB30-600. Which means that engine numbers 501 - 560 have been used twice: first time for the contract C/8330 bikes, and then again for the GPO bikes. Unfortunately the factory ledgers for the GPO bikes haven’t survived, so the exact despatch dates are unknown. Must have been somewhere during the summer of 1942… GLP 664 was a typical GPO registration number of that period:

Around the end of the “(pre)production" tests (on August 1st 1940 to be precise), there were some interesting remarks in the editorial of “the blue ‘un” (The Motor Cycle). Arthur Bourne pleaded for the approval of only one (or two at the most) motorcycle(s) to avoid logistical problems with spare parts etc. He also suggested ordering a batch of 100 motorcycles of the chosen motorcycle. The idea was that when ordering just a single motorcycle, the most experienced fitters in the factory would have built it. A batch of 100 motorcycles would have been built in more realistic circumstances… The influence of Arthur Bourne and Graham Walker in this standardisation project must not be underestimated! On August 9th, the Army ordered 50 BSA WB30 motorcycles (contract C/8330) and 50 Triumph 3TWs (contract C/8331) for final evaluation. Production of both contracts didn’t start immediately: it looks as if at that time, both factories were too busy producing all the motorcycles for the “normal” military contracts. But on August 13th, the German bombing offensives against airfields and factories in England began. On September 15th, Germany starts massive air raids on London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool and Manchester. And in the autumn of 1940, the Luftwaffe did some serious bombing on the British industry cities (Coventry, Birmingham). During one of these air raids (on November 14th 1940), the Triumph factory in Coventry was heavily damaged. Tooling for the 3TW was lost, as was the complete production so far… Faced with this situation, Triumph could no longer fulfill the demands of the Ministry of Supply. This means that by 1941, Triumph was out of business. The frame numbers that BSA had allotted for this contract C/8330 were WB30.101 - WB30.150. It looks as if 60 WB30 engines had been prepared (numbers WB30.501 - WB30.560). During assembly, engines were picked out “at random” (so no relation between engine and frame number). The first contract C/8330 bike was assembled in December 1940 (frame number WB30.101, engine number WB30.512). This motorcycle was road registered by the BSA factory (FOM 719), and it also had a military census number (C4279578). It was tested by the M.E.E. in January - Februari 1941. More or less at the same time (Januari 1941) BSA also assembled a WB30 motorcycle with frame number EX289 - engine number 289. Judging by the EX prefix, this must have been another prototype. And this motorcycle was to become the 51st bike for contract C8330! EX289 was despatched to the M.E.E. on January 30th 1941, but the M.E.E. had other plans with the bike: this was going to be the first of the so called “hybrids” (a mishmash from different frames and engines). As such, the WB30.289 engine was replaced by an AMC engine (number 23297). This BSA-Matchless was tested by the M.E.E. during April - May - June 1941. From March to May 1941, the original 50 contracted C/8330 WB30s were now officially handed over to the Army, for further testing. And for these tests, the bikes were sent all over the place:- 25 bikes were sent to Chilwell (RAOC)- 19 bikes were sent to Feltham (RASC)- 3 bikes were sent to the USA- 2 bikes were sent to Canada- and we know that good old C4279578 (FOM 719) was used as a demonstrator for both weeklies: on May 22nd / 29th they both did an article on the new 350 OHV BSA. From the WB30 factory ledger we know that by this time the original engine (WB30.512) had been replaced by either WB30.509 (fitted to frame number WB30.101), or WB30.552 (fitted to WB30.101A). Yes, they messed it up! There was no frame number WB30.142, instead number WB30.101 was used twice! (Well, there was WB30.101 and WB30.101A to be precise). And we know that (in May 1941) 2 of the 25+19 RAOC-RASB bikes were also sent to the M.E.E., for further testing! (Frame WB30.125 - engine WB30.508, and frame WB30.149 - engine WB30.548). And as if this was not enough, in February - March 1941 the M.E.E. started to test the other “hybrids” (BSA engines WB30.540, WB30.523, WB30.522, WB30.556 in respectively Royal Enfield, Ariel, Norton and Matchless frames, and Matchless engines in Royal Enfield, Ariel, Norton and BSA frames…) For reasons currently unknown, the whole hybrids project was abandoned somewhere around June 1941. Steve Madden wrote this on the WD Motorcycle forum: “... it is thought that the drive for uninterrupted production, particularly 1941 into 1942 with the UK, Empire and Allies facing ongoing defeats across the globe, took primacy over new ideas and designs. Perhaps the fear of disrupting production lines at individual manufacturers factories was simply too much of a risk at the time...?”But the whole exercise had convinced the military staff that a good WD motorcycle had to be a “lightweight”, and had to have an OHV engine with a 350cc capacity. So one week later, they ordered contract C/11101, for 10.000 WB30s! But without prior warning, the WB30 contract C/11101 was changed by the War Department and Ministry Of Supply to 10.000 M20s. “The exact reason remains unclear, but it is thought that at this point in WW2 Britain was still suffering the impact of the BEF losses from the fall of France, not to mention other theatres of war, and was still desperately trying to maintain production to meet demand. Although the threat of German invasion had eased, it was still a possibility, and Britain's overseas commitments in the face of continued losses and defeats throughout 1941 did not help with matters. Remember too, that the USA had not yet entered the war, and further defeats in the Middle and Far East were yet to come. To summarise, it is likely that somebody at the War Office had "cold feet" (and with good reason) about a new design interrupting the constant production of M20s at a time of great National crisis... “ (Steve Madden on the WD Motorcycles forum).

After the 10.000 miles of the “pilot” test as described in the previous post, all tested models were “approved” by the M.E.E.. In June 1940, a second “(pre)production” test was planned with motorcycles that had a less “exotic” specification (read: less aluminium parts). Royal Enfield (C/7972), BSA (C/7975; frame and engine number EX309), Matchless (C/8019), Triumph (C/8020) and Norton (C/8031) had all been asked to make one (two for Triumph) extra prototype(s) for further evaluation. Again, all motorcycles were tested extensively, but this time, “only” 5.000 miles had to be covered, of which 50% were off road. The BSA went through this test in July - August 1940. And again, each motorcycle was completely dismantled after these 5.000 miles plus a “repeat performance test” to check all components. I found the illustrations below, and although the last illustration comes from the contract C8330 instruction book, it also shows EX309, the C7975 “preproduction” bike.

Think it would be appropriate to have a look at the history of the WB30 here... The history of the WB30 is quite complex, and shrouded in mystery. Some time ago I took all the WB30 information that I could find on my computer and started to compare, and to try to understand… At the end of the 1930’s, the Norton 16H had in effect become the “standard W.D. motorcycle”. But in the second half of 1939 the Army had come to this conclusion: “Owing to the heavy weight of the 500 c.c. standard W.D. Norton model 16H motor cycle , and the consequent difficulty in handling over cross-country terrain, Messrs. Norton Motors, Ltd., The Triumph Engineering Co., and The Enfield Cycle Co., were each asked to produce a special 350 c.c. lightweight motor cycle, and these were in due course received for trial.” Testing continued until early 1940, when two extra manufacturers (BSA and Matchless) joined the group. BSA had prepared a 301 lbs. 348 cc OHV model (contract C/6623, frame number EX290, engine EX291), and Matchless presented a 282 lbs. 249 cc OHV model (contract C/6674). These models also had to go through the same test procedure as the Enfield, Triumph and Norton models. And here's the test procedure for this “prototype” WB30: first it had to go through a performance test (20-21 Feb 1940). Then it had to endure a 10.000 Mile test (3/4 road, 1/4 cross country, during the spring of 1940. This was also the period of the German invasion in the Low Countries.) Then another performance test and then the bike was dismantled for inspection. During the 10.000 Mile test (and prior to the fall of France) this particular BSA was also shown to the French Lieutenant Baulny, who had come to the UK in search for thousands of military motorcycles for the French Army, as the French factories couldn’t provide them in time. The French didn’t order any BSAs, as BSA didn’t have the time to build so many bikes for a foreign army either. But I’ve added the French test report FYI...

I agree with Lex that it looks an awful lot like the 7" WB30 brake plate. If the diameter is correct, it shouldn't be too difficult to modify? (Assuming you haven't got a brake plate yet...)

Can't wait to see the progress on this one Ron! 👍

Not true Lex, during the war, both the James ML and the Royal Enfield WD/RE were affectionally called "Flying Fleas" by Arthur Bourne. (Bourne was the editor of The MotorCycle and he was also the man behind the success of these lightweights with the Airborne Forces.) It was only after the war that the "Flying Flea" name became synonymous for the little Royal Enfield.

Nice! Pictures taken at a foundry...?

I think the DD/MM code is easy for everyone to understand. Don't know who gave the order to start using the more abstract "day of the year code" though. Much easier to make mistakes... And no doubt this is what happened (errare humanum est, and the clerk may not have been the sharpest pencil in the box). Think we have to allow a margin of approximately two weeks for all the entries in this system.

I've been looking at these numbers "for hours", but I can't find a pattern... 🙁

Has anybody ever tried to decipher the date codes on these cards? On most cards the number of vehicles is recorded on a day per day basis. The days are numbered DD/MM. But all of a sudden they start using a single number, in the example below the writing went from red to blue ink at the same time: It would be logical to assume that this would simply be the day of the year (e.g. Jan 1st = 1; Dec 31st is 365). But this can't have been the case, in the card below the year ends approximately two weeks before Sylvester: Maybe they didn't count Sundays? In that case the last day of the year would be 365-52=313... The cards above are only one example, but there are many similar examples. I'm defeated... 🤨

FYI, the "Brooks saddle" and the "Lycett saddle: Velocette version" have been amended. Pictures have been added in the "Terry saddle: Matchless version" post. And here's a new Excel sheet which summarises all the Lycett, Brooks, Terry, Mansfield and Wright(s) information. Jan saddles.xlsx

Hitchcocks have these springs in stock...