Rangie Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Hello, wondering if anyone could decypher the information on a Landies ID Plate? Cont. No. WV10634ITEM1 Code No. 1040 0766 Covered by CES No. 33752 Also on my 654 Form: Authority for Disposal - AF6 1084B SER No. 1040/35, (I take it this is tied into the code number above) And after the normal style chassis number - 251XXXXXH, there is B/21, any ideas? Regards, Alec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Alec, the first one is the Wheeled Vehicle Contract No. The second one is the Asset Code which is an ordnance supply accounting code eg 1040 0762 Ambulance, 2/4 Stretcher, 4x4, Rover 9 1040 0766 Ambulance, 2/4 Stretcher, 4x4, Rover 11 1040 0778 Ambulance, 2/4 Stretcher, 4x4, Rover Series 3 The third is the Complete Equipment Schedule which is here: http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/AC33572.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 From the Rover 11 list of contracts , WV10634 - Item 1 seems to be CTS CODE CO(1) CHASSIS FOR AMBULANCE , 2/4 STRETCHER, 109 in. wb. RHD 0n N.S.N. (Nato Stock No.) 2310-99-808-1472 For Army service. 12 volt FOR DETAILS OF BODY SEE ARMY CODE 22147 I suspect Marshall of Cambridge possibly branded B/21 as their suffix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangie Posted April 17, 2010 Author Share Posted April 17, 2010 Ah I see, so the Wheeled Vehicle Contract Code is the reference number for a specific batch of vehicles built to the same specification? Alec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted April 18, 2010 Share Posted April 18, 2010 Yes, pretty much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rover8FFR Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Clive do you have a CES that would cover my 24v Rover 8 please? Would make good bedtime reading when my new baby son decides it's time for food! Regards Wayne :cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Wayne. Looking in the Rover 8 UHB under Associated Publications, no CES is listed. But there was a later CES covering 1/4 Ton Rovers including Rover 8/2. http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/AC33623.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rover8FFR Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 I guess there isn't much diffrence between Rover 8/1 and Rover 8/2 in simple mans thoughts. Very grateful for CES. Regards Wayne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Off hand I can't tell you the difference apart from the different Asset Codes. I'm looking in Equipment Regulations for 1963, 1964 & 1967, they've got Rover 8 & 8/2. But no 8/1 but I suspect they were upgraded to 8/2. Although I note there is Rover 9 & 9/1 but no 9/2. Anyway I mustn't go digging up the documents that could take an hour or so, must get out into that sunshine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Off hand I can't tell you the difference apart from the different Asset Codes. I'm looking in Equipment Regulations for 1963, 1964 & 1967, they've got Rover 8 & 8/2. But no 8/1 but I suspect they were upgraded to 8/2. Although I note there is Rover 9 & 9/1 but no 9/2. Anyway I mustn't go digging up the documents that could take an hour or so, must get out into that sunshine! ================== Not wishing to get heavy into comparison of spare parts lists , ISTR the main difference between 8 & 8/2 + 9 & 9/1 is that the 8/2 & 9/1 have reinforced Rover axles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Might well be. The weights & all dimensions are the same. One curiosity I've noticed that on Rover 10 the LHD version is 1/2 in wider than the RHD vesrsion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangie Posted April 24, 2010 Author Share Posted April 24, 2010 Cor, thats an odd one! May be a typo error but unlikely. I cant recall if the hub-centers of the ENV axles are a tad wider, this may account for it. Hmmm.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.