question Scammell (Constructor?) DAU 668

[G-CPTN]

A photograph has emerged (elsewhere) of an obvious ex-Army vehicle which was described as a Thorneycroft Antar (which I disputed).

 

 

To me this is obviously a Scammell, though possibly from the same period when Antars were in use.

I'm uncertain of the model type - it looks to me like a Constructor, though obviously seems to have an Army-type body fitted.

The registration number is said to be DAU 668 (which no longer appears in the UK register that I have checked).

 

Anybody know whether this vehicle still exists?

 

The photograph was taken at Waddington in 1976.

[Markheliops]

Is that the one from David Crouches yard?

[G-CPTN]

My guess for the registration was PSU 668 - but that didn't match any searches that I tried, then I was told (by the photographer) that it was DAU (which also doesn't match any searches).

 

For a vehicle in such good condition (in 1976) I would have expected it to be a survivor . . .

[Richard Farrant]

My guess for the registration was PSU 668 -

 

 

I thought it looked like CSU668..............checked it on DVLA and it is a Scammell, made in 1955, registered in 1987 with a 8500cc diesel engine, so that does not quite tie up with the date you say the photo was taken in, not only that but engine capacity is too small.

[antar]

You are quite right, it is a Scammell Constructor 20 ton ballast tractor, originally supplied to the MOD with Meadows 6PC630 petrol engine. It was at some time fitted with a Rolls Royce C6 engine. The restoration you see in the pictures I have attached was carried out by Alan Buckingham of Hinkley, Leicestershire.

 

You were also right about it bieng in David Crouches yard, as far as I am aware on 2 occasions, Alan bought the vehicle off David, then a few years later sold his whole collection back to David, so it returned again.

 

Where it is now I am not sure.

 

My clearer pictures show the registration.

[G-CPTN]

Thanks for that - pleased to see that it survived for at least a while longer.

 

I expect the date discrepancies might be due to allowing the registration to lapse and then being 're-registered'?

Edited December 29, 2010 by G-CPTN

[TooTallMike]

...The photograph was taken at Waddington in 1976.

I'd dispute the claimed date of that photo. The 8-legger in the background looks much more modern than 1976, especially given that it says '...gate.com' on the side.

- MG

[G-CPTN]

I have to confess that the photograph that I 'published' wasn't the photograph to which I referred in the text. I was trying to avoid republishing a photograph that belongs to someone on a different forum and I gleaned the other one from the internet via a Googoo search which I used to make the point elsewhere that it wasn't a Thorneycroft Antar! (I had had a Dinky Toy Antar, so I knew it wasn't that.)

 

(The other forum has very recently had a rash of photographs submitted by a member who has harvested them from websites and then claimed them as his own, and to avoid a possible confrontation (and being accused of stealing photographs) I cheated - and have been found out! It was (to me) obviously the very same vehicle so I reasoned that the substitution was allowable. I cannot vouch for the 1976 date (or the Waddington location) as the information came from the same source as the suggested registration DAU!)

 

Anyone who is still curious can search at http://www.truckandbusforum.com . . .

[G-CPTN]

When was the FV12101 introduced? (and what is the difference that defined the MkII FV12105?)

When were they discontinued?

 

(refer me to other threads if the information is already there . . . )

[Markheliops]

You were also right about it bieng in David Crouches yard, as far as I am aware on 2 occasions, Alan bought the vehicle off David, then a few years later sold his whole collection back to David, so it returned again.

 

Where it is now I am not sure.

 

 

 

It was in David Crouches yard about 6 months ago.

 

I was looking for a different vehicle and David offered it to me for a tidy sum.

 

It is a lovely vehicle though.

[radiomike7]

When was the FV12101 introduced? (and what is the difference that defined the MkII FV12105?)

When were they discontinued?

 

(refer me to other threads if the information is already there . . . )

 

 

 

Deliveries of FV12101 started in late 1954 and IRO 275 units were supplied.

 

FV12105 was supplied to the RAF and used the same basic chassis/gearbox/axles but was fitted with a Rolls C6 diesel, 14.00 x 20 tyres, larger cab, fixed front wings and a heavy steel cargo/ballast body. It was rated at 30 tons and I seem to remember we decided that just 21 units were supplied.

[6 X 6]

It was in David Crouches yard about 6 months ago.

 

I was looking for a different vehicle and David offered it to me for a tidy sum.

 

It is a lovely vehicle though.

 

Has this Scammell been put back in running order while at David Crouch's workshops ?

 

Sometime ago I read some posts by the ex.owner of CSV 668 on the "Metal Solders" military vehicle forum that said this lorry had been towed with the transfer box in gear with the predictable consequence that the gearbox seized. I thought this was tough luck and none of us can say that we haven't done daft things from time to time. On the posts I'm referring to there were also a few sad 'photos of the stricken Constructor being towed away behind one of David Crouch's recovery trucks.

 

These posts seem to have now, for whatever reason, disappeared. The only reference to this Scammell and it's gearbox "mishap" I could find on "Metal Solders" today is post No 4 by the same poster that relates that "transmission caught fire and jammed the gearbox Xcase"

 

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/deuce/59649-memories-past.html

 

I've been driving lorries for quite while now and I have not, as yet, come across a case of

a transmission catching fire. Does anyone one on here know what actually caused the gearbox on CSV 668 to seize and, more importantly, if Mr. Crouch has sorted this problem out ?

[N.O.S.]

Tom - I saw the truck at Dave's yard a few years ago (I could smell it from the A14 and diverted....:-)). He said it had been towed without disconnecting prop or pulling half shafts, so quite possibly also with gearbox in neutral between 1st and R....

 

In any event it had seized up and they were looking to put another box in. It appeared otherwise to be in very good condition. Something about being towed in Germany rings a bell??

 

Best,

Tony

[6 X 6]

Tom - I saw the truck at Dave's yard a few years ago (I could smell it from the A14 and diverted....:-)). He said it had been towed without disconnecting prop or pulling half shafts, so quite possibly also with gearbox in neutral between 1st and R....

 

In any event it had seized up and they were looking to put another box in. It appeared otherwise to be in very good condition. Something about being towed in Germany rings a bell??

 

Best,

Tony

 

Thank you for the info Tony. I've no experience in towing these vehicles and had always understood that it would be sufficient to isolate the main gearbox by having the transfer box in neutral. Certainly, detaching and safely suspending all three propshafts on a Constructor would be a formidable task at the roadside.

 

If this Scammell is being offered for sale for a "tidy sum" can we assume it is now driveable ? If it is, well done to David Crouch and the blokes in his workshops. CSV 668 is one of very few surviving Scammell Constructors with an original appearence and even still having it's fuel tank surrounds.

 

Does anyone know the earlier history of CSV 668 after it was released by the Ministry ? It's so unusual for any vehicle of this kind to survive unbutchered until it comes into the care of us preservationists.

 

Edited December 30, 2010 by 6 X 6

[G-CPTN]

According to the UK registration database:-

The vehicle CSV 668, is a 2006 Renault Espace Rush (MPV).

 

The subject of this thread is CSU 668 - your reference might be a typo:-

The vehicle CSU 668, is a (1987) Scammell (Goods).

Edited December 30, 2010 by G-CPTN