6 X 6

Mike, thank you very much for posting these fascinating 'photos. I think I must have visited this yard at about the same time as you. The picture you have captioned "Martian ?", judging from the driver's door handle and other details, is indeed the remains of a Martian. The picture you caption "Unidentified lorry body" I think is the body from a Martian Gun tractor I can remember seeing there. I had a couple of very successful visits to Hunts and bought some bits that were, even then, getting hard to find. The first picture of post No. 2 "Unidentified" chassis with a blue front wheel certainly looks like a Militant MK 1 but the front hub isn't right for 6 X 6, so is this a 6 X 4 ?

Dat's de one.

I'm sorry, but all this St.Trinians stuff is a red herring. I've been racking my brains all afternoon and now I'm pretty sure, in fact I'm certain, that this is a still from "School girl sluts give Rommel a Black Eye" which featured Alex Guiness and was a morale boosting semi-docummentary film directed by Carol Reed and released in about 1943. I bet I'm right.

There have been so many films combining the explosive mix of under age school girls and MV's that this is a bit of a tough one. Any chance of a clue ?

Heaven ?

Thanks to both radiomike7 for the link to a website I had been unaware of and to Richard for his explanation of the workings of the diesel/electric system. I can remember thinking, as I marveled at all the gubbings on the one I have mentioned in Hunt's yard, that it would have been a restoration far beyond my level of skill. Also, once again, because I failed to foresee forums and the internet, I didn't bother taking a photograph.

Now that would be a Militant variant worth having. Richard, I believe you have driven one of these, can you remember how the crane was powered ? I looked over one in Hunt's yard about 10 years ago and seem to remember some sort of electro-mechanical system to power the crane. (but I could be wrong !)

Younggun, I was only thinking that the crane might be useful on some journeys but not others. Being able to easily and quickly remove the crane, leave it in the depot, and thereby free up valuable cargo space on a bed that is only 18' to start with could be useful. It just makes the truck a bit more flexible and productive. I realize that the fact that by having the Hiab in the forward position makes the already heavy steering on the MK 1 so awkward that you almost need Cow Pie Dan at the wheel, at least while maneuvering, is something the Army wouldn't really have cared about.

You can't help wondering why the idea of placing a dismountable Hiab at the rear of the platform, as described by Mike, instead of the adaption we are more familiar with, where a fixed Hiab is placed immediately behind the cab, wasn't the one that went into service. Rear body mounting seems to have many advantages, and few obvious drawbacks, compared to a fixed position behind the cab. If you accept that the cost of the front, or rear modification was probably much the same, one wonders why a sigificate number of MK 1's were fitted with the fixed forward position, and not a dismountable rear, Hiab. Maybe, as always happens to me, they thought of what appears to be the better design only after they had already finished building the other sort. If so, as Mike asks, what was the story behind the one in Vass's Yard. We should be told.

Impressive vid of an exceptionally original Explorer coping well while off road.

Good luck with registering your OT-90, I'm sure you'll find a way. I've stuck these 'photos up here because a few of us, me included, weren't really sure what sort of MV you've all been talking about.

Sorry MadRat, it doesn't seem as though you can wriggle out of doing the restoration quite as easily as that. Looks like you're going to have to press on.

Thank you N.O.S. that's very interesting. I look forward to seeing a few more 'photos when you are able to spare the time. The British Commercials Museum may well hold history relating to this vehicle other than build sheet. Post No.15 in thread, "Researching vehicle history" in MV Chatter may be helpful.

N.O.S. Thank you very, very much indeed for posting photographs of your exceptionally interesting, and absolutely fantastic, Scammells. For the past 24 hours, since first learning of their existence, I've been in state of shock. Now that I'm gradually regaining my composure my first question is, what is going on within the wooden body of PKG 888 ? Is it compartmentalized and if so how ? Are there lockers and a ballast compartment, or indications that there once were ? On the N/S of the body is there recessed area where the spare wheel is stowed. Pray do tell us. Also, what, if anything, does the British Commercials Museum at Leyland have to say about the history of PKG 888 ? I'd love to know.

Wasn't this "grease prop shaft every 50 miles" business due to heat from the extremely close exhaust system "drying out' the prop shaft grease or am I thinking of some vehicle other than the Explorer ?

As you will already be aware, the main problem that needs to be overcome by living in such a confined space, is coping with the condensation that is generated by one's own breathing while asleep and, if you are using gas for heating and cooking, the water produced by burning bottled gas. Sleeping in damp bedding caused by condensation for more than a few days can caused very serious health problems. I see that you will using your camping module for relatively short periods so I don't think condensation will be much of a problem for you. Had you been intending to use your module for say, a week at a time, especially in cold weather, I could have made a few suggestions but as it is I don't think I need to. I have a converted vehicle that I've lived in at well below freezing point that, with simple systems I which built myself keep every thing dry and cosy but, in your situation I don't think they would be necessary. Wood as your frame work, polystyrene foam as insulation and exterior quality plywood/stirling board can make a very cosy home. These three 'photos are of a living space a bit bigger than you are thinking about but the idea of using wood as your main material is the same. You simply cut 50mm thick poly foam shapes to fill the spaces in the frame work and then skin the interior with more, thinner plywood. It's a bit more "human" than using metal sheet. I could post some pictures of another smaller vehicle I have but as I have already said, the systems it uses would be a bit over the top for you. Good luck.

For how many days at a time would you being using this camping module and at what times of year ? You mention having a heater, would you expect to use the module during cold weather as well as the summer ? What time of year, and for long a time you anticipate using your proposed camping unit would have an effect on it's design.

The only possible explanation for how Graham gets away with this sort of thing is that he's operating some sort of force field around his vehicles that makes them invisible to the Old Bill and the Ministry. Good luck to him I say.

Younggun, I'm sure you know what I mean, it's when normally cautious and sensible owners of restored heavy haulage tractors at GDSF, often out of their minds on cider, or reefers, or both, allow themselves to get carried away by taunts of "I bet it couldn't f**king pull that". They then find they are trying to tow some almighty trailer the size of Buckingham Palace with their 50 year old pride and joy, revving it's nuts off, just to provide a bit of sport for the crowd.

In a previous post N.O.S. says that to avoid a repartition of his Scammell throwing it's rear prop shaft he is "anxious to understand why" it had happened in the first place. Having just established, in recent posts, that N.O.S. need not, if he wishes, to reinstate the rear prop shaft at all and just power the first rear axle, I thought it might be of interest for some of the people who post here to apply their undoubted experience, and expertise, to suggest the possible cause of why this Constructor misbehaved in this way. I'm just going to ask a few questions to get the ball rolling. When the incident occurred was: A) This Scammell performing some crowd pleasing stunt at GDSF ? B) Being towed by a modern recovery vehicle at, for the Scammell, excessive speeds ? C) Free wheeling, out of cog, down a step incline somewhere in the Scottish Highlands ? D) It suffering from worn U/J's and, or, worn transfer box output flange bearings ? E) It sabotaged by members of an extremist faction of the Basingstoke Products Supporters Organization, intent on promoting the discredited "Scammell flawed design" theory, to cause fear and despondency within the Scammell camp ? If none of the above, what is known about this Constructor's last moments and, if the black box survived, what does it reveal ?

I'm surprised that owners of preserved Constructors who are experiencing problems with the centre bearing, or the prop shafts to the rearmost axle, don't simply take the whole lot off ? Couldn't you just run the vehicle by powering only the first rear axle ? The front wheel drive is there and could be engaged in "sticky" situations. Surely, if one was just poncing about going to rallies and not really working the vehicle, driving only one axle wouldn't make much difference, or would it ?

At the time when these vehicles were designed, the speed limit on all British roads for ALL heavy goods vehicles (not just heavy haulage) drawing a trailer was 20 mph. The Ministry of Supply (see post one of this thread) set a speed limit of 5 mph for their Constructors while towing loaded trailers. Unladen, these MoS transporters would have been subject to the 20 mph limit during the 1950's. Heavy haulage companies such as Pickfords ran their Constructors at these sort of speeds, 5 mph when loaded, 20 mph with unladen trailer. It's hard image the design office at Scammells ever envisioning the Constructor running at speeds much above 20 mph. Of course, if you shoe horn a massively more powerful engine of say, 300 BHP, into a Constructor and then run that vehicle at speeds, up to, and over 40 mph you may well experience gearbox and other problems but, hey, it's nothing that can't be explained away as "flawed design".

Winning Bid.....£5.50 http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250246418769&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:GB:1123

Current bid 99 pence and 18 hours to go. Bidding ends 17:42 Friday.