Jump to content

6 X 6

Members
  • Content Count

    1,201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 6 X 6

  1. Some years ago I was looking around for a Crossley 'Q' type tractor and contacted the Crossley Register. They were, at that time, able to tell me of seven or eight unrestored 'Q' types still surviving in various parts of the country including three, or more, that were standing in the back garden of a well known Crossley collector. I'm assuming that some of the posters on this thread may be members of the Crossley Register so does anyone know what happened to these back garden Crossleys ? Are they still there ? Restored ? Scrapped ?

     

    By the time I was offered a fairly complete and running example things had moved on so I told David Shopland about it and he bought and, as far as I know, still owns that one.

  2. Eaurouge, this may sound like nit-picking but it's really just curiosity.............like Zero-Five-Two, I think the rear wheels on your magnificent Milly are the "wrong" way round. Militant hubs don't usually protrude that much and the shallow side of the wheel seems to be facing outwards. Having said that, I'm surprised that 14:00 or 15:00 wheels can be fitted "inside out" without the tyre fouling the spring pivot. Wot's going on ? We should be told !

  3. I'm not absolutely sure this 'photo hasn't already been posted on the forum already so forgive me if it has. Scammell Constructor 20 ton Ballast Tractor while operated by Circus Hoffman shown here at Crayland Park, Wellingborough -August 1980. There's something about this picture that I find very evocative of long, hot, past summers.........wonderful. Lots of other ex MOD stuff in circus mode on the link to where this pix came from. (below the 'photo.)

     

    circus0037.jpg

     

    http://showtrucks.fotopic.net/c1666830.html

  4. Yes but in terms of vehicles there are only makes and models. The make for all types mentioned is Scammell so I suggest the genus is Scammell.

     

    The models are Junior Constructor, Constructor, Super Constructor. These are all species within the genus Scammell, as are Handyman, Routeman, etc. A junior Constructor is no more closely related to a Super constructor than a handyman is to a routeman.

     

    A Constructor is more closely related to a Mountaineer, than it is to a Super Constructor......

     

     

    Mike, I think you're missing the point that Constructors are a polytypic species and not a monotypic species. A polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description. These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which would interbreed freely if given the chance to do so. Note that groups which would not interbreed freely, even if brought together such that they had the opportunity to do so, are not subspecies: they are separate species.

     

    However, a monotypic species like the Routeman or the Handyman has no distinct population or races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:

     

    All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant.

    subcategories. The individuals vary considerably but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.

    The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious. In fairness, I've been trying to get my Scammells to breed for ages without much luck so far but I'm not giving up yet.

  5. is the Current Mini the same genus as the sixties mini that bore the same name???

     

    Surprisingly, yes. Both have enough general characteristics in common to place them in a group, or class, of vehicle. The three types of Constructor you describe also have more similarities than differences between them and that places them firmly within the Constructor genus. They are all Constructors. A bit like with African elephants and Indian elephants. They're both elephants but distinctly different models within the elephant genus. I hope this has cleared things up.

     

    GENUS.

    a class; kind; sort

    BIOL. a major category in the classification of animals, plants, etc., ranking above a species and below a family: it can include one species or many similar species: the Latinized genus name is capitalized and italicized, and precedes the species name, which is italicized but not capitalized (Ex.: Homo sapiens, modern man)

    LOGIC a class of things made up of subordinate classes or species

     

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/genus

  6. 6X6

     

    you are 100% CORRECT in saying that the super & junior are both Construtors Just different plated weights and the junior being 6X4.

     

     

    Clive

     

    Well, it's very unusual for me to be right about anything never mind being 100% right ! This must mean that Lord Field Marshal Fowler is also right......and.....err....... that ExAntarMike is 100% wrong. What a day it's been. I expect Mike will apologise to Andy.

  7. But to answer your question, why yes - they are all members of the genus CONSTRUCTOR

     

    Well, that's what I thought. Just to elaborate just a little further so that everyone knows where I coming from, in Mike's post he describes a Super Constructor as "is not Constructor" and also, the Junior Constructor as "not a Constructor". Well, surely, they both are Constructors. One being a Junior and the other a Super.

  8. Peter, thank you for taking the trouble to post what sounds like a excellent idea. Certainly, it would be well worth considering for any Constructor owner with insufficient tyres to make up a good match between the axles. When evenly matched tyres are fitted to each axle I don't think there is an "issue". Has this been the experience of other people ?

     

    I'm not completely sure, from reading your very thoughtful post, whether you actually fitted a slip joint to the film and camera crane or just researched materials and prepared drawings. I can't help wondering why this camera crane could not have simply been equipped with matching wheels/tyres. What was it about this crane that prompted you to consider installing a slip joint ?

     

    P.S. Please P.M. me if you do come across your slip joint drawings. I'd love a copy and I will pay your expenses and postage. Cheers.

  9. The top picture was taken some time ago because thats me in the pioneer aged about 13 .

     

    As soon as I saw that photograph I thought, "that young'n don't 'alf look like nptimber". Seriously, thank you for bringing this wonderful photograph alive. As daz76 says, it makes all the difference knowing a bit of background. :thumbsup:

  10. where & when?

     

    Sorry Simon, I've no idea. The picture of TYJ 905 is one of several photographs of different lorries that were sent to me recently by a friend of mine. Looking at the modified front towing arrangement, the steel plate hides the original towing pin, it maybe, maybe, one of those ex driver training gun tractors mentioned earlier in this thread.

     

    Like this.

    scan0010-1.jpg

     

    It doesn't appear to be this one.......same steel plate mod but different reg number. Maybe someone could tell us a bit more about TYJ 905 in post 472.

    4aece340-2.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...