gritineye

Mike I researched this myself 14 years ago when I first got My Explorer, I have been trying in vain to find the source since I posted that reply. However I had printed off some of it and have just found this in the Scammell: Good vehicles (plating and testing) (amendment) (no 1) Regulations 1991 Amendments to Schedule 2 (classes of vehicle to which the regulations do not apply) 8. in schedule 2 (a) for paragraph 13 there shall be substituted "13. Living vans the gross weight of which does not exceed 3500 kg." this is the class of vehicle I was intending to build and did so because of this ruling, it goes on to say: "Living van" means a vehicle whether mechanically propelled or not which is used for living accommodation for one or more persons, and which is also used for the carriage of goods or burden which are not needed by such one or more persons for the purpose of their residence in the vehicle." When I rang Swansea regarding driving this combination on a the car licence I had at the time (my Explorer was taxed PLG before Historic class was invented) they had to ring me back after consulting and said as long as the sink, bed etc were fixed and no other load except personal effects where carried it would be OK. The living van was then considered to be an unladen trailer. Yes I do know, never rely on the spoken advice Swansea! I once converted a Commer walkthrough van to live in (1970) and one of the requirements needed to get the logbook changed was that it had to have bed, sink and cooker permanently fixed, details are a bit hazy but a man did come and inspect it. As an aside, a mate had a dropside Thames 4D registered as a living van and running on red around the same time, never worked out how he did that! PS. the more I think about the phone call to Swansea, the more indistinct my recollection of it becomes, as I was also asking about driving it with it's snow plough attached. It was along time ago, that's my excuse.

Predictably it's getting cheaper.............. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160401902066&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:GB:1123

That should be a great fun vehicle, but beware the MODs ban on aggressive tyres, dumper type tyres unacceptable.

Don't worry Andy, your time will come.....................................:coffee:

Thanks for those replies chaps, I picked this up many years ago with a DTI gauge in it, I was vaguely thinking of using it for another purpose which would involve removing the lining and drilling a small hole in it....... But I thought I should find out how rare it was first.

This box is 6"x5"x2" and is divided into 4 compartments with felt. It has "CASES 4 VALVE No 3 ZA9817" stencilled on the lid.

Nick, just been told that there is a picture of Floyd in the latest Military Machines International........:clap: Not seen it yet.

Yep the one on the left is the type I meant, I thought mine has Michelin on it, they give an unrestricted full flow of air and inflate big tyres quickly.

Thanks Croc I think I've got it now, but these things are exactly what we need to have officially spelled out for us in plain English at the end of this consultation process once and for all. That's not to much to ask is it? MY head hurts now..........:-(

As I see it, over run braked trailers (Arrows) will remain exempted. Living vans are exempted, a living van has to have a bed, sink, and cooker fixed into it, personal kit can be carried as well a a pay load. (historic vehicles tax exempt must not carry a pay load) The payload is what distinguishes it from a caravan. A living van can be self propelled, that is why it has an asterisk in the list of unchanged exemptions. I certainly don't think it is the cost of making them roadworthy that worries us, most are over maintained just for the love of it, it is the cost of maybe having to meeting modern C&U requirements with historic vehicles. We are just asking for clarity here. Oh and then there's the not so small problem of being pulled over and caught out by the small print and getting fined for some unforeseen infringement of these new rules, which would most likely make us uninsured as well!

Ring round the dealers, there where a lot of very nice heavy duty NOS Mitchelin ones at Beltring last year around £15-30 each, and stillages of them at Whithams

Quote: "Who else has a vehicle that will not test on Brake test rollers, either because it in permanent all wheel drive, or has a double drive bogey, and no centre diff. I am already aware that Scammell Pioneer/ Explorer, Martian have walking beams with geared wheels on a single axle and these can't be tested, but as I see it these are pre 1960 vehicles, which if used unladen, not towing a laden trailer are exempt." Mike, this is not a criticism, your work on this is much appreciated. I'm a bit confused as to whether a Scammell Explorer is affected by these proposed changes. At present exempt testing by virtue of being a recovery vehicle/heavy locomotive. Not exempt under pre 1960 HGV as it isn't one, it is not constructed to carry goods, nor is it allowed to under this class of vehicle. The exemption for recovery vehicles is to be removed, so I can't see how one can remain exempted under these proposals. If they do have to be tested, surely a Tapley meter and hill hold brake test will be used.

I was surprised at the mobility it had too, it seemed to only be beaten by the tight turns due to it's length. I thought I had some pix too but can't find them now.

Thanks for all that Alan, the firework usage came as a surprise! Just a thought, but when I first saw Sparky I wondered about the lack of a winch, as one would make him even more useful, presumably you used the winch PTO to drive the hydraulic pump, which would prevent using the original winch. As the crane blocks the normal path for the winch rope have you considered a simple under body hydraulic winch using the front fairlead, if only for self recovery? This would replace the dead weight block with useful weight

Yep, site map here: http://www.militarymayhem.net/plan.html

it works for me, click the pic it takes you to photobucket, bit slow to load but OK.

Great story well told, as always I wonder what these film props cost..

Sorry, a little off topic but worth a visit on a nice day just to let your imagination wander In the ring of trees beside the obvious farm building remains in this picture is where a large barn stood. This was a very important barn as on a clear day one can see from Dungeness to the Isle of Wight from there. Locals say Churchill and Montgomery amongst others were seen there. Apparently it was heavily reinforced with concrete inside to look normal outside, which makes one wonder why it was demolished as it would have been unlikely to have just fallen down. When I built a farmhouse nearby, the owner got me to build the date stone from over the door of this barn into his chimney breast above the fireplace, he had kept it for years just for that purpose, he loves the Churchill connection.

A couple of pix of the flint work on the barn, the new looking work can be seen at the bottom of the first, it weathers down very quickly once exposed. These were taken 2005, a couple of years after the first small bit fell off, so more must have come off by now, these barns are hardly ever rendered, the fact that it is reflects the exposed position.

The barn is circled, the concrete roads are all wartime, note the road loop to the east, under the golfcourse to the west you can see a corresponding one. the gunnery range was between the barn and sea cliff, the details escape me at the mo but there used to be bits of a target rail track as well. It is OK to drive and park up there from Seaford.

Yes please Paul, we often walk this area and I have tried to work out how it all fitted together, and what periods certain bits where. Have you looked further west on Seaford Head south of the barn that has obvious signs of military rebuilding, there are signs of a gunnery range south of it. On the west side of the barn where the rendering has come off lately, un-weathered flint work can be see just like the day it was built, very rare to see.

That just enforces the reason for using chains, it is nothing to do with weather a hitch can come undone, but about the unexpected. I read somewhere that the official fix for bent spring mounting plates was to straighten them and change them side to side!...:shocked: A good friend of mine with many years in round timber work told me that they always used safety chains as they couldn't work out how to test for metal fatigue out in the woods.

Hi Mike, always a comfy chair for another Scammell man in the clubhouse, have you found any Explorers pictured on here yet that you have re-engined?

Hi and welcome Dan

But he can live in a Matador, as he doesn't want to buy a house yet!