Ex military trucks

[Redherring]

The question is, would the Maples lorry have been a subsidy lorry? I had imagined that all subsidy lorry's started life in a military capacity. Robert

[Redherring]

Rod, thanks for that information. I now have a good excuse for a visit to the archives in North Melbourne. Robert

[Roy Larkin]

I came across an article which relates to a subsidy lorry which gained notoriety through its commercial livery advertising 'HP Sauce - The Worlds Appetiser'. The vehicle which had originally been owned by Maples Store and retained its infamous wartime brilliant scarlet livery when operational with RFC No. 5 Squadron in France in 1914.

 

No more info but shows how quickly the subsidy vehicles were pressed into service.

 

Exact figures vary somewhat but consensus seems to be that on 4 August 1918 there were 80 ASC lorries and 750 privately owned subsidy lorries available for mobilisation with the BEF making 830, although 850 is often quoted. Mobilisation started on 5 August and by 10 August there were 1,468 lorries, 326 cars and 58 motor ambulances shipped to France. I don't think they had all reached France by the 10th but they appear to have left this country. It wasn't only subsidised lorries that were grabbed.

 

Between 9-8-1914 and 12-9-1914: 2,400 MT vehicles arrived in France plus 57,600 horses and 7,700 wagons. (MT vehicles don't usually include cars, motorcycles or ambulances so that's 2,400 motor lorries.)

[Roy Larkin]

The question is, would the Maples lorry have been a subsidy lorry? I had imagined that all subsidy lorry's started life in a military capacity. Robert

 

The Maples lorry may or may not have been a subsidy lorry. Subsidy lorries were all privately owned with the owner receiving an annual subsidy in exchange for the vehicle being maintained and available to the military at 24hrs notice.

[Charawacky]

The Maples Lorry was indeed a subsidy lorry

 

According to the RAF over 1000 lorries were registered to the scheme prior to the Great War

A £50 grant towards purchase cost and £20 per year thereafter for agreed maintenance

The army would then have the option to purchase the vehicle in the event of an emergency.

 

Tom

[Roy Larkin]

The Maples Lorry was indeed a subsidy lorry

 

According to the RAF over 1000 lorries were registered to the scheme prior to the Great War

A £50 grant towards purchase cost and £20 per year thereafter for agreed maintenance

The army would then have the option to purchase the vehicle in the event of an emergency.

 

Tom

 

As I said, numbers of subsidised vehicles vary. The RAF say more than 1,000, but the War Office through Kitchener's report on the BEF says 700, others say 750. Interesting that the RAF have a different figure to the War Office when the RAF initially obtained their vehicles from the War Office and from 1916 from the Ministry of Munitions.

[Richard Peskett]

I believe that in the foregoing correspondence there is some confusion between what is a lorry built to 'Subsidy' specification and what is a 'Subsidised' lorry. A scheme was published as early as 1907 regarding the registration of 'military ' motor vehicles. This scheme scheduled terms for hire or purchase of motor vehicles by the War Department and covered a wide range of vehicles . Hiring rates included trailers, drivers and assistants and terms of purchase included depreciation rates with the final agreed value 'of current market plus 25% '. Gradual interest in schemes moved on and by 1912 a new scheme was drafted with detailed attention to standards in manufacture etc,. In January 1913 the first major trials took place but only three manufacturers entered ( Commer .Halls and Thornycroft) but two others ( Dennis and Maudslay) unofficially joined in the proceedings as 'free-lance ' entries. Extensive corresponce followed in Commercial Motor during June 1913 in the form of a five part article ' The War Office Subsidy Muddle' in which considerable critism was levelled at the W.O. The underlying problem leading to all this correspondence is the fact that vehicles were being accepted that did not conform with a most interesting paragraph and photographs of Waring and Gillows Leylands that were granted subsidy status but did not comply !. ( Commercial Motor 12.6.1914, page 327. ). This is a vast and complex subject ; France ,Germany and Austria also had schemes in place by 1914. Commercial motor of 15.4.1915 page 127 actually illustrates a 'Receipt for one impressed vehicle'.

Richard Peskett.

[Redherring]

More on the subsidy scheme.

Summarising the Hampshire museums Thornycroft site…

· Only chassis’ matching a W.O. specification were acceptable for the subsidy scheme.

· Thornycroft A1 chassis’ were accepted for enrolment in the scheme for a period of three years.

· Payment of £120 subsidy per chassis or vehicle was made by the W.O. to private owners in six £20 half-yearly instalments paid in advance upon inspection.

· Private owners could fit any type of body to their chassis, however if that body was unsuitable for W.O. purposes, then it would remain the property of the owner and was not included in the scheme’s purchase price. In the event of a national emergency the W.O. could purchase the enrolled chassis or entire vehicle at a price fixed at the time of enrolment in the scheme.

· At the outbreak of war in August 1914 the W.O. impressed large numbers of non-subsidy vehicles for service. The author goes on to suggest this as the “…failure of the subsidy scheme” i.e. failed to yield the required number of lorries...

Does the author’s statement suggest the subsidy scheme had a quantified objective in mind at the outset, which it failed to meet, or does it mean the vision for the scheme was just too insignificant to make a difference?

Robert

[nz2]

The Commercial Motor articles show the troubles they had with the fixed standard. The ongoing problem of interpretation of the rules by one person then another ruling by another. Interesting to note the light lorries in the accompanying photograph show the use of chain drive. The use of chain drive in was not acceptable to the standard, yet was used by the War Office in many of the lorries supplied; ie Commer Car.

I feel the writings from Hampshire Museum Service reflects the regulations latter in the war once supply was more organized.

Doug

[Roy Larkin]

What has to be remembered when reading Commercial Motor, or any other publication is that they were mainly interested in their readership i.e. the civilian user and any problems were seen in that light. The War Office when designing/specifying the subsidy model had only one thing in mind, which was their needs. It was intended as a military vehicle, not a civilian vehicle.

Although chain drive was not included in the original spec in 1910, it was certainly considered from the outset as the subsidy scheme included provision for a slightly lower subsidy for chain drive vehicles, with two separate rates for covered and uncovered chains.

In reality, the subsidy scheme became purely academic on mobilisation as the rate of requisition during August and September 1914, and beyond, shows that if it could carry a load and had wheels it was hoovered up by the War Office. The condition of many requisitioned was such that they needed overhauling in France before they could be used. It took 45 Coy ASC until Christmas 1914 to get all their vehicles up to what they regarded as a suitable condition, and 45 Coy were in France by 10 August.

[nz2]

I accept your comments Roy regards the tone of the writings in Commercial Motor of the time.

They appear ( or at least from that reporter) to be quite biased highlighting factors that restrict or limit vehicle operation. Praise in some pages and criticism on another.

The plus side of this is now we are able to read of these concerns, showing that the subsidy scheme and the purchase of vehicles at the out break of war was not a totally smooth transition. To me it also shows that while the War Office was influential in a design, the commercial users appear to have had more of a demand as to what they required, being more traditional lorries of a lighter weight.

However, this is only my interpretation on reading such material, and like any point of historic research, differing points of view arise. All for a healthy discussion.

Doug

[Roy Larkin]

Commercial users will always have a differing opinion as to what is required than the military. It still applies today. Commercial Motor were right to highlight the problems of the subsidy model, too heavy, body too high, too expensive, etc when considering it for their readers who were mainly civilian users carrying the same weight on lighter, cheaper chassis that were adequate for the time. The military knew that the subsidy model if used during wartime would not be operating in anything like the same conditions, so needed a vehicle to be able to cope with what they thought the conditions might be. So, we ended up with a very over specified vehicle for civilian use.

 

The problem was not so much the vehicle as the tiny subsidy which did nothing to encourage civilian users and the War Office were aware of that but it was determined by the Treasury, not the War Office. In the end, it made little difference because although the subsidised lorries were requisitioned first, within a few days requisitioning was rife with anything being taken, whatever the make, model or condition. Some did not even reach Avonmouth without being towed. Many needed overhaul in Rouen before use. All the early companies complained about the poor state of the lorries they had been given.

 

In wartime conditions the subsidy model out performed the civilian model in every respect, vindicating the War Office stance. That still did not make it a suitable vehicle for civilian use. Yes, it proved itself as a civilian lorry post-war but that was more to do with availability than choice.