question Understanding a RN key card and a mystery contract No.

[sickpup]

Morning chaps

 

Years ago I had Wally Dugan at the MoAT pull the key card for my Lightweight. Now I need to understand a few things from it.

 

 

As you can see the Contract/Warrant on the key card is 006741 which is a bit strange because on the covering letter...

 

 

Mr Dugan has hand written the contract as WV11378 which matches the data plate on the bulkhead. Problem here according to various people, Mark Cook and the RLC 006741 isn't a Contract/Warrant No. and no one including the MOD has a record of Contract/Warrant WV11378. In fact the only other place I have seen WV11378 was in a parts list for wiring looms.

 

So can anyone explain the strange Contract No. on the Key card or throw any light on the Contract WV11378 that no one has a record of such as which branch of the forces was it for and for how many vehicles?

 

The reason for wanting the above information apart from curiosity is to try and work out what happened to my Lightweight between the years it was made and Feb 1983, Mr Dugan believed it had been in another arm of the forces and the original B vehicle data card had been destroyed so it would be nice to find out where it was.

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited October 16, 2014 by sickpup

[fv1609]

I can't explain WV11378, but it seems to me "Contract/Warrant No" is dual purpose. In this instance 006741 is the Warrant No. rather than the Contract No. i.e. the authority for transfer from presumably the Army.

 

One might wonder why there is a space for the Contract No. if it is not going to be quoted especially as the Army became the Single Service Manager on 1st January 1976. The answer is that this is a record card for "Equipment" not necessarily just for vehicles. Where equipment was supplied directly to the RN then I expect the actual Contract No. would be quoted.

 

Certain equipment such as concrete mixers, generators etc carries an Equipment Registration Mark in a similar fashion to the registration of vehicles. The reason for this change was that an ERM makes it much easier to account for & keep track of equipment in the way that vehicles were managed.

[fv1609]

I expect yours was one of these five.

 

[sickpup]

Thank you for the photo. Thats the first picture I've ever seen of what appears to be Lightweights aboard ship.

 

Do you have directions to the photographer by any chance?

[fv1609]

The full photo was given to me for publication in http://www.registrostoricolandrover.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=186:land-rover-half-ton-a-sankey-trailer&catid=60:book-store&Itemid=111

 

Incidentally there is a bulk purchase under way on here:

 

http://forum.militarylightweight.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2664

 

But you'll have to be very very quick!

[paulbrook]

I am a bit surprised that Wally wrote anything without referring to the number in the text. What exactly are you trying to establish by the way?

[sickpup]

I'm trying to establish what happened to my LandRover in its missing years.

 

Clive's comments on the Contract/Warrant No. are interesting but doesn't match the newly stamped Data plate that still retains the Contract No. rather than the Warrant No. and of course having the Warrant No. on the key card would mean it couldn't be referred to in the event of maintenance that is contract specific.

 

If the vehicle was always a Navy vehicle why did it disappear for 9 years and get replated?

if it was originally an Army/RAF Vehicle why is the Contract No. unknown?

Contract WV11378 has not been found on any other vehicle record held by the RLC, no other vehicle delivered around the same date has the same Contract No. there are another 6 records missing that are listed in LandRovers Daybook but these were delivered weeks before so was this a contract for only one vehicle and if so why when there was already another contract WV11404 being supplied before and after it?

A further note is there is no addition to ADPCON on the Key card so I would assume it is on a previous B vehicle Data card, are the ADPCON records still available anywhere for example by FOI?

 

The Data plate which shows it was replated.

 

 

There is just so much missing history to this vehicle and I would like to find it out although I am becoming resigned to never doing so.

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2014 by sickpup

[ruxy]

Yes, it was "re-plated" that is very , very rare , that plate is rare Rover British-Leyland , possibly just prior to the common Leyland Cars plate.

 

Clearly something was done (re-work) at Solihull , it may have been taken from longer , very long term storage for de-preservation & service. Changes could have been made , that probably included a hard-top fit , may have been only a hard-top fit (done proper).

 

I would suggest that this was undertaken by "Special Products Division" that being the case I would expect their plate - this seems to be a exception - hence this "special" plate - that IMHO would only be affixed by SP.

 

AFAIK Rover Technical - no longer answer this type of query. Special products will still be there , but perhaps under a new name. The only way is to make contact with SP , include a photograph of the plate , ask what they know of this plate and ask them to search their records. Have a good search for a SP plate around the cab / inner , bulkhead under bonnet & in particular on the radiator front panel (appro. 3/4" x 1.1/2")

Edited October 16, 2014 by ruxy
spelin

[sickpup]

I suspected it was an unusual plate as I can't find its like on any of the companies that make replica ones and it also makes sense that it was fixed in place by Solihull as I would have expected a maintenance unit to have the correct plate in stores.

As far as I can tell it didn't have a hardtop in service, there are no extra bolt holes or marks along the rear tub cappings and no hinge holes for a rear door but then it may have had a cat flap in place. Also on release it definitely had a soft top. Theres no obvious reason for it being returned to Solihull that I can see except possibly as you say de-preservation and servicing.

 

I have never noticed a 'Special Products' badge but then I've also never looked for one either so will next time I get a chance.

 

Thank you for your reply, unfortunately yet again this just raises more and more questions :nut:

[ruxy]

Plate & other "Time-Line"

-------------------------

 

I have 23HF86 built mid-1979 , it has a 951/A original S3 chassis No. Contract FV.22A/87/ Item 3

 

The nomenclature plate is BL Cars Solihull manuf. by Rover-British Leyland UK Ltd. DIS July 1979

 

What this shows is the original Rover S3 chassis No. was still being used but Contract No. had changed to FVE style BUT change to BL Cars / Leyland LoL

 

Built a few months later , I have 52HG33 Contract FVE 22A/115 / Item 6 DIS Nov. 1980 , this is no longer Chassis No. , it is the 14 digit Internaltional VIN starting LBBA

 

Earlyish 1981 the 14 digit VIN stopped and became the 17 digit still used - starting SALLBBA (SAL = Land Rover)

 

-------------

 

Clearly , the plate is not manuf. quite correctly at anodizsing , where the contract is branded in the black - there should be a clear box.

 

As a matter of interest , I have Chassis No. 9510333A 19FM65 Contract WV11140 that is quite near to your 95103491A

 

Looking at the MJC book , page 182 your WV11378 , slots in between :-

 

WV11131 1973/74 60AM20 to 60AM28

 

and

 

WV11147 1974 61AM04 to 62AM64 , this page is full of RAF Lightweight Contracts

 

Possibility / probability - I think I would pursue more query at the RAF Museum on this , does not require a FOI as they are very good in reply .

 

It was decided that your truck was to keep the original Chassis No. and Contract No. & be properley re-plated to RN and it looks like they still used the Contract pre-fix WV for RN - but not that far off the Tri-service Contracts starting KA in 1982.

 

 

Did the RN go to manufacturers always ??? when taking on a vehicle from another service - they would re-plate (not wanting a vehicle with two plates where one could be removed as a sailors momento - then misidentification for census , probably no big deal shifting a vehicle around the country and it kept all records official traceability. This would be more important with such as a crane or fork lift truck where lifting certification is all important. I would put this officialdom all down to the actual periodic physical check & return to HQ of movable assetts - positive identification , also no chance of error with accident reports / missing in action.

[ruxy]

btw , if it was originally RAF , then it could have been the case of removal of specialist RAF kit and return to standard sticks & tilt. It may have been fitted originally with a hard-top ?

[sickpup]

I've had a brief look over it today and there are no odd screw holes in the bulkhead where an original plate would have been (assuming below and to right of steering column) so I suspect it was re-plated due to having a new bulkhead fitted. I wonder if it was at this point that it was converted to a S11a vent panel and screen as previously discussed elsewhere?

I can't find a Special Products badge (or anything like one) anywhere or odd screw holes.

 

I am fast coming to believe it is probably Ex-RAF especially considering the RLC have no knowledge of the Contract No., unfortunately Hendon can't yet trace via Contract or Chassis No. but I think I will ask them if they have any knowledge of the Contract No, if nothing else they are just up the road so I could request a day going through their vehicle cards.

 

I have completed an FOI request this morning after discovering that vehicles delivered at the same time as mine were entered on the ADPCON computer system, there is always a chance my vehicles details were transferred or stored and the ADPCON would have the original registration and date of transfer to the RN. I have also just requested any details from the RAF Museum in Hendon.

[ruxy]

That re-plate , it is of the size fitted from late 1970's , it is smaller (the width may be the same but the height is less).

 

So - if that bulkhead is original as fitted in early 1970's then there will be at least two redundant holes , have a close look - they may even be filled in.

 

If the bulkhead was replaced , then I would suspect the chassis was at same time (they soon crumple on impact) , have you checked the chassis dumb-iron for branding of chassis No. It would be good if you could show a photograph of this.

 

The vent panel , there was loads sold off early 1990's - obsolete for abt. £20 often the screen hinge was cut off and S3 ones welded on , often this can be seen as a poor weld bead run.

 

If it was RAF early 1970's , then I would expect RAF Blue/Grey paint , a good way to check is overspray at engine bay top corners of bulkhead where late painting does not get - but as you say it could be a new bulkhead. So have a look under the alloy plates where the seat base cushions are secured & similar places.

[sickpup]

I replaced the vent panel in the mid nineties, it already had an S11a one on it. I knew the previous owner very well and he had never replaced it and by the state of it, it was corroded all the way up to the flaps it had been on there since before it was released. In fact I have just taken the one off that has been on there for the last 20 years and it is in considerably better condition so I believe it had a S11a vent panel in service.

 

I've never looked for the chassis branding, the chassis is covered with underseal so won't be able to look at this straight away.

 

I've just checked under the seats, it was definitely supplied in Bronze Green as the day book shows.

 

 

There is no Blue/Grey anywhere on it. Where it looks Blue/Grey on the sides is just faded green under the flash form the camera.

 

Inside the bulkhead you can just about see the furthest top screw from the plate. There are no other holes and no filler and as can be seen it is Bronze Green inside as well. Again no blue/grey even into the corners under the top fold.

 

[ruxy]

So , it does seem the bulkhead was replaced at some time.

 

The seat-base - side-plate on entry, drivers side. There should be another plate affixed with the chassis No. - any plate or evidence of holes for securing ??

[sickpup]

Drivers side seat base, 3 plates. All seem to be in the standard position.

 

 

Chassis plate close up.

 

 

Seems to be the correct type of plate for the year with correct chassis No.

 

The plates on the seat base as you can see are all fixed in place with pop rivets yet the ones on the bulkhead are fitted with screws. I know the red plate that covers the hole for the steering on a LHD is fixed with screws as I did it, it was removed when I got it but the screws were still in the holes so I just refitted it. Wonder if this is relevant?

 

I've just cracked of the underseal around the right front spring hanger and removed corrosion with a paint removing disc, iirc this is where the chassis No. should be. There are various marks but none seem to be a chassis No.

 

 

Unless I am in the wrong place which I could well be it appears there is no chassis No. on this chassis.

[ruxy]

You are in the right area , it is a early S3 Lightweight chassis. At the time of the re-plating both early & late type chassis would have been available.

 

Could you remove the bitumen where smeared , give it a good stiff wire brush in area of thicker plate for securing spring bolt , in area from top weld bead run downwards 1" , if no signs of number - then it must have been re-chassis.

 

Due to DBG & no sign of RAF Blue/Grey , I now doubt that it was RAF , strange that it is plonked amongst them all though.

 

 

It was already down for a fair number of new body panels - as it seems the bulkhead was in fact renewed. Worth checking if ever a plate at passenger side , could have been LDH & converted to RHD..

 

The Royal Marines had both RN & Army VRM's.

 

Looking like it was totalled and sent to Solihull for re-build and re-plate for RN. All most,most strange if they put a S2A vent panel on - just unbelievable. However , we know they were ship-borne , if needed for a taxi - then a 12 volt would be chosen , the fact that it is a FFR = a "Unitary kit" for communications ship/shore. I suppose ££ did not enter the decisions.

 

What is daft , the photograph of your truck shows a "adaptable" box (common conversion kit) for connections stowage , on wings originally intended for Larkspur - so it was Clansman equipped. At the time of the re-build , I think the later front FFR wings with integral boxes & cover tids flush would have been available , certainly they were at Nov. 1980.

[sickpup]

Could you remove the bitumen where smeared , give it a good stiff wire brush in area of thicker plate for securing spring bolt , in area from top weld bead run downwards 1" , if no signs of number - then it must have been re-chassis.

 

Not certain where you mean exactly so taken the Bitumen off to bare metal in areas of smears.

 

 

If its somewhere else you need cleaning up let me know.

 

Just checked the passenger seatbox and no odd holes so probably always RHD.

[ruxy]

Where you have linished off , the chassis No. should start in that area & finish where rusted still , looks like a replacement chassis - story building up now LoL

[ruxy]

btw , in the boundary area between the red and the green - there seems to be a weld run that had been dressed with a grinder , just wondering if somebody has stitched a new dumb-iron on , have a bit more scrape investigation.

[sickpup]

Thats just the underseal edge where its bubbling and been hit with the angle grinder not a weld, coating it in red oxide as a cheap way to stop corrosion before new underseal.

 

<edit>Just remembered it also has a replaced engine that was preserved in 1981. Now I've only put about 5000 miles on it and previous owner estimated that he had done 10-15,000 in the 8 years he owned it so it had the engine replaced sometime around 33-38000 miles so pretty low.

 

So now we have what seems to be a replaced chassis, bulkhead, vent panel, screen and engine, why not just scrap it?</edit>

Edited October 17, 2014 by sickpup

[RAFMT]

I have to be honest, I read the first few posts on this thread and switched off as it was Navy; but I picked up your request for Form 524s today at work and I hope you don't mind me answering via here. Unfortunately as you said earlier in the thread, they are arranged by Reg, and whilst it would seem common sense to be otherwise, there is no chronological correlation between Reg, Chassis number and Contract number. Here are some cards to illustrate my point, in the order of the Reg numbers:

 

 

 

 

 

You'll notice that 69 AM 29 and 75 AM 25 are both from contract WV11369 but are separated by a year and about 500 Reg nos. And I couldn't be bothered to find the difference in Chassis numbers.

the other two were also received in the Jan 75 period but came from two different contract numbers (so that makes at least 3 contracts for 3 different equipment fits in one month)

 

A lack of Blue Grey doesn't necessarily rule out the RAF as vehicles for the Regiment and RAF Germany were in Green, but it does look like the weight of evidence is against the RAF being previous owners. However if I see any cards bearing the contract number WV11378 I'll let you know

[ruxy]

1974 , the Solihull Despatch-Out record would state the vehicle colour , likewise - the Solihull re-plating several years later , I would expect the Despatch-Out record to state the vehicle colour - second bite of the cherry ? From what I have seen these records don't state much ,but the colour for some reason is there.

 

However as the chassis does seem to be a replacement - it would hardly be definative . Without original chassis steel DNA and present lack of traceability , you are on a hiding to nothing but I admire your determination to close the huge gap of several years.

 

I would like to see several more photographs of the hardware , in particular the view of rear. The more pics the better , sometimes obscure age related parts can be seen that could give further clues.

[sickpup]

RAFMT

 

No problem posting here, thank you for replying at all it is appreciated.

If you could keep an eye out for the contract again it would be appreciated.

 

Ruxy

 

I will try and get more pictures for you over the weekend.

[sickpup]

Just had a chance to take a few quick pictures.

 

 

The strange aerial mount as discussed elsewhere.

 

 

Hadn't really considered what these were previously but thinking about it could they be holes for a number plate light?

 

 

I will need to pull it out and check but I seem to remember the split tailgate is painted in different colours to the rest of the bodywork so am I completely wrong and it was a hardtop in service at some point and the tailgate added at disposal? Note its only a hardtop now as I fitted it loosely.

 

Will try and get more pics tomorrow.

Edited October 25, 2014 by sickpup