nz2

Can anyone identify this drive unit?  Stamped on the crown wheels is 8 and 91 the numbers being upside down to each other. There are 91 teeth to the crown wheel, and it is      13 inches in diameter. There has been an alloy casing about the diff as evident from the few bits remaining on a bolted flange.. The mounts for the chassis attachment makes it a 3 foot wide chassis. The two supporting tension bars across the housing should be a feature for identity. Chain sprockets have 17 teeth with 1  1/4 inch pitch. Centre to centre of the sprockets is 47 1/2 inches. The front axle also in the photo has nothing to do with the chain drive unit.

 The start of another project !

 Doug W

11 hours ago, mammoth said:

I have an almost identical (but smaller) lamp bracket in my 1923 Leyland. The flat portion has a sand cast finish on the back while the rest clearly bears marks consistent with a forge power hammer with a rectangular tool of, say, 3/4" on the narrow edge. The ears have been bent up during the forge process. Also noted are the marks of a heavy handed grinding wheel.

After reading through these posts on the lamp brackets  I had a look  through some of the lamp brackets that we have  collected up and one becomes aware and notices the various styles of manufacture as described above. Thornycroft and Leyland have a common shaped lamp mount aside from the T section where it is bolted to the scuttle. The Thornycroft T is flat as per the scuttle while the Leyland T is curved to fit the scuttle radius.  A common supplier for these parts? 

 Doug W

Confirms me as a lunatic as well!

A search through the box of Thornycroft manuals shows no M4 engine  guides. The handbooks are all for the later engines. The scanned copies below are for the HB4 and the BB4 engines. Overall the valve timing is basically the same, the only difference I can see is the distance measurements relating to the different flywheel diameters.

 Hope this can be of help.

 Doug W

Like Redherring says AEC. The domed bearing caps can have a series of stamped numbers on them and the letters AEC. These are not heavily stamped though.

Alternatively those wheels could be from a Daimler considering the tie between the companies.

 Doug W

A great achievement. Well done to you all. Now to the next major task of the road test, to see how well everything  else blends together.

 Doug W

Those photos show a most interesting vehicle. The cast bearing caps don't match the M2 at Melbourne nor the one in parts here. They are brass.with the lettering recessed into the brass..

As for the diff housing, having a lower section bolted in place is so different to the latter years. I recall seeing a photo of a similar diff housing on a vehicle,  so will now have to track that photo down. 

 My early J ( c 1913) has a number of JAC  castings but not behind the dumb irons.

 Overall Ben what you have is unique, and  like your other rebuilds will develop into a fine example of your workman ship. 

The chassis number should be stamped on the left front dumb iron. Also check for any numbers on the top of the diff and about the king pins. These latter sites are numbers and letters from which I am trying to piece together a record of identity and parts dating as no parts manuals pre 1919 seem to exist. Are there casting numbers and letters on the rear springs front mounts, and the brake drums?

 Doug W

On 15/02/2018 at 6:03 AM, Ex-boy said:

Why were all those bodies still on the truck whilst it was being manhandled though?

Steve

Looking at the photo the road surface appears firm by the feet of the men, but the area to the rear of the lorry shows many small stones on the surface as if they have been flicked up by spinning wheels and a lose of traction. Adding weight using people as a load would increase the grip. The chap by the fallen lorry has a number of lengths of timber about providing a solid base to position the jack on. 

Identifying the makers of the two vehicles is the next question. 

 Doug W

10 hours ago, dgrev said:

I feel confident that my 500ml tin of Terebine (smallest I could buy) should see me right for at least the next 50 years given the amount of use I have for it on wooden tools.

After reading these posts, realised what was missing off the shelf. I have rung  a local paint shop and found they have a 500 ml tin of Terebine in stock. There are painting projects here waiting for the right weather. This will assist in getting it done!

 Doug W

I too have looked at recording these restorations on to storage as they are so helpful in guidance in restoration. One of my sons has a computer background however what I thought would be a simple task is not , but rather in the difficult category. Hopefully some can take the lead. 

 Doug

Steve; Does the Army specifications list a window material? Then again specifications changed over time and what was added at a local level as vehicles came in for repair. The realm of adaptations and improvement. Cellulose could well be standard after a certain date.

 Doug

4 minutes ago, Nick Johns said:

I was refering to the original Ford TT as probably not Military, not what the trailer which was made later on from the parts was used for

The point you made is taken. I have been  thinking of possable military uses for for a light trailer about a base. Could even be something less dramatic like transfering rubish tins. As for the time period , I would say pre WW11, and its construction could well coincide with periods of economic constrant and the use of locally build products.

 Doug

6 hours ago, Nick Johns said:

The back half is a Ford Model TT,  I tonner truck rear axle and chassis, front axle is a modified T too, ..not military

The id plate would indicate an Australian product. As such could it have  be made as a trailer for Australian military use within a base etc.. Just because it does not fit the pattern of a UK military made item, or American, does not mean it was not in military use. Australians were very good at modifying or building up equipment for their domestic needs, using the resources they had of the time. It could also be produced for a commercial use, and some were sold to a military base.

 Doug

A further point of observations to variations of J radiators is the slight changes to the lettering style of the word Thornycroft and more noticeable is the changes of the pattern underneath the name. Once again I've been trying to get these into some form of order to assist dating when a radiator surfaces .

 Mikes radiators are all noted in my records.

 Doug

2 hours ago, Old Bill said:

Our scuttle obviously had two plates. This one is the original but there are four holes present for a plate like Ian's.

Never seen one like that!  Only ever the square type. Let's call it domestic issue only.

 This conversation is becoming increasing interesting as minor changes become uncovered.

2 hours ago, Tomo.T said:

The top end and radiator of Thornycroft J, No. 2282 have been borrowed from a very late model built for a military contract that was cancelled at the armistice. As can clearly be seen the high-level radiator was fitted to this lorry along with its attendant long top hose connector. This would tend to indicate that military J types were fitted with this arrangement until the end of production. I will attempt to procure the relevant chassis and engine No.s which should give us a cut-off point for the end of this practice.

 

Tomo.T  could you check about the back of the top tank for casting marks. On the radiators here are a series of raised numbers, but the break down of the alloy makes them very hard to read and make sense of. If these are casting numbers and a date that could assist in this process of dating.

On 25/11/2017 at 9:53 AM, Old Bill said:

t was part of the Subvention Scheme requirements that the radiator be mounted entirely above the chassis

Thanks Steve, for its a point I had forgotten about prior to my ramblings!

Interesting then as to those radiators shown in Military Service with rounded bases and mounts on the side. Those images are of a series  from about the Middle East, so wonder if it was a change and adaptation for the regions of higher temperatures.  

I do have notes of the various sizes of radiators I've come across, but relating that to the particular time period we are interested in narrows the field down to such a small number and without confirmed data from an original example to compare against.

 It is the same with the stamped numbers and letters on the king pins of the J's. Trying to produce a data base and dating sequence  to those numbers is proving difficult.

Doug

Do not be surprised at the lack of chassis stamping. I have only come across one chassis in NZ with stamped numbers. To others it has been wire brushing and emery paper then close inspection with a hand lens looking for any sign of malformation where the stamping could of been.  Reports from other contacts  in Australia also report a lack of stamping. It is as if export  chassis were not identified in this way. 

2 hours ago, Minesweeper said:

Again, not a Subsidy "J"!  I will be interested to know what it is when you manage to identify it!

The question becomes what is actually a subsidy radiator?  Is it  only a J radiator having the mounts  placed on the bottom tank?

Looking through photos of J's in military service some have mounts on the bottom tanks, and the crank passing under the bottom tank. Other images dated 1917 show mounts on the sides with crank passing through the core. Others images show  side mounts with crank underneath.  This point of confusion is further shown with images of early J's with the non cast name on the top tank  having the crank under the tank and another with the crank through the bottom tank.

  The overall result appears to be  a period of modification and change took place regularly.

 From each of the photos we have posted what is shown is the change  that occurred over the years of J and on to related models production. 

  Having dated Ian's two chassis, that assists in setting a time line  for the  the sequence of radiator shape to production time .  That is assuming  these are the same as new on the vehicle  and not replacements that are upgrades. Accidents etc could well mean a replacement radiator had slight variations to the original.

 One of Ian's chassis is a X model, yet we have two identical radiators. Looking closely at the style of castings about the edges of the core, with Ian's style having two bolts for the curved sections bolted to the tanks, those I have have three bolts. Ian's have the crank through the core, mine are through the bottom tank. 

 It is confusing, so restoration will be at best one of  making a judgment  as to what appears to be correct.

Found another photo of the other radiator, this time showing a better indication of the shortness of the top tank inlet. 

The bottom tank design in the photo is similar that shown in the X model parts book, being curved. Also shown is the  curved lower radiator outlet.and the  recessed areas for the bonnet supports on the top tank. However it would appear this design was also used on latter J models, but from when is the question. All the parts I have are from different vehicles and nothing as a complete identity to work as a basis point. I need an earlier version of a radiator as well for the early J, which has no Thornycroft name cast on the top tank. Photos show the name was cast  on a separate curved plate and screwed in place

 Doug

The two radiators both have the crank through the lower tank. Truncheon mounts are on the sides , not on the bottom tank. then again could these be for a model  JJ or even a Q? Again lacking a parts manual of the type and time. 

 While not the best of photos to show this particular part an indication of its shortness can be seen.

 Doug

13 minutes ago, Old Bill said:

Interesting! Is yours a low level or high level radiator?

Steve

Knew I would get a bite!

 I'll go out and photograph the casting later so we can compare. My parts book copy  (1919) shows the same long unit. If we could locate an earlier and also a later parts book many of these riddles would be answered.

 Doug

Sorry to disappoint you but that fitting for the top tank is wrong. On the two Thornycroft J radiators I have  ( in poor condition) both have short inlet pipes extending only about 75 mm from the header tank. Again one of those odd variations we have picked up, whether it be a change in design over the years or could it be as a separate part of a larger diameter for colonial use. The pipes here are 75mm long and 70mm od. How does this compare to the one you have made?

 Doug