Fordson WOT 1 Tanker / Fuel Bowser

[earlymb]

This unrestored Fordson WOT 1 (with double rear-axles) tanker / fuel bowser is in a friend's collection. It seems to be in quite good condition with lots of the original paint left (service brown?), especially inside the cab.

However, I can't find any information or even a photo of a WOT 1 tanker anywhere so if anyone could shed a light on it we would be very grateful! The tank has remnants of SB paint too so I think it's not a post-war addition; the only thing that seems to be missing is the pump-unit at the rear end and the original headlights. If it's indeed an original fuel bowser I guess it's most likely ex-RAF? Where can I find the chassis number?

Sorry for the poor photos, the Fordson is currently stored in my friend's building and there's almost no room around it so they were the best I could do. All photos were taken with flash.

 

 

 

 

[ltwtbarmy]

 

What a lovely vehicle.

Some detail differences, but there are two pictures here -

http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4991&page=5

the fuel gauge has been replaced with an american item, but the rest seems to be original. 

 

[earlymb]

Thanks! Indeed different in a few small details but these are the first original photos I have seen. It seems this is a rare variant but at least some evidence it's not a post-war setup.

Edited March 6, 2018 by earlymb
spelling

[earlymb]

Nobody else has any info or know where to go look for some?

[wally dugan]

It may pay you to contact the archives at the NATIONAL MOTOR MUSEUM at BEAULIEU as they hold some of the FORD/FORDSON  archives

[earlymb]

Thank you, that is an excellent suggestion!

 

Anyone have an idea where the chassis number is located?

[Nick Johns]

5 hours ago, earlymb said:

 

 

Anyone have an idea where the chassis number is located?

The engine number 5486330 stamped on the Ford plate is probably the chassis number too,  it is same engine/chassis number used on Ford cars, this is certainly a rare variant of a WOT 1 and good to see so much original paint.                                          

The Ford archives may only show when the Truck was built at Dagenham as a chassis /cab, but I would think it likely it then went elswhere to have the fuel bowser and other related equipment fitted

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Nick Johns

[Baz48]

Until this thread I didn't know of a Fordson WOT-1 tanker and so far the only reference I have found to a Fordson WOT-1 as a tanker is in training pamphlet to do with rafting and bridging published 1944 in the section RAF vehicles saying Fordson WOT1, 6x4 Petrol 1,000-gal  but no equivalent under Army. As the pamphlet is April 1944 listing bridge classifications of vehicles other than "A" vehicles and mechanical equipment it gives a fairly comprehensive listing of vehicle makes, types and their use along with trailer manufacturas types and use for both the Army and RAF. I know Bedford QL  950 and 1,000-gal tankers accompanied the 2-nd Tac Air Force so possibly did the WOT-1 tanker support the vehicle logistical side of the Air Force post D-Day as in the photos I can't see any pump gear.

[earlymb]

Thanks for your replies!

It could very well be that it was fitted with the tank somewhere else than at Dagenham. I think the pamphlet Baz48 quotes from confirm this example was build under RAF contract (as are most WOT1's). I do assume though that the RAF would contract complete trucks and not just rolling chassis & cab combinations? In that case it might be possible to find out how many WOT1 tankers were delivered to the RAF. It can't have been many, from the looks of it.

Below is the original photo that was in the link ltwtbarmy referred to above. It is different in a few details but it also doesn't seem to have a pump unit at the back either. Next time I go visit (I expect coming week) I will check and see if there is evidence if something was ever mounted at the rear-end.

If engine number and chassis number are indeed the same, is there a list with dates available somewhere?

 

[Pete Ashby]

You could try posting here  https://www.facebook.com/groups/859603390775800/  with a couple of photos to see if any more information is forthcoming.  You will need to apply to join the group before you can post but you will have no problem being accepted well worth a try.

Pete

 

[earlymb]

Thanks, I'm not on FB myself but the owner of the WOT1 might have an account so I'll ask him!

[earlymb]

I checked and there is no sign of anything ever having been mounted at the rear of the chassis. I think petrol is only pumped by hand or gravity, never with a motorized pump?

There is also no sign of a firewall like the one visible on the official photo's ever having been mounted.

[LarryH57]

If the vehicle is for sale, I wonder if our HMVF member T CORBIN (Tony Corbin) might be interested?

Edited March 14, 2018 by LarryH57

[earlymb]

No, not for sale. It's part of a private collection of 100+ classic trucks, cars, tractors and diggers.

[Lauren Child]

There was a WOT1 300 gallon water tank in RAF use, but it’s a different back.

[Lauren Child]

While you may be thinking RAF, Bart Vanderveen’s historic military vehicle directory states that around 120 WOT1s went to the army as search light carriers and fuellers.  (page 176 if you eant to look it up).

[earlymb]

4 hours ago, Lauren Child said:

There was a WOT1 300 gallon water tank in RAF use, but it’s a different back.

Thanks for the pic! Very interesting but that's a completely different tank; it seems it only takes about half of the space, with the remainder used for wooden storage lockers.

 

3 hours ago, Lauren Child said:

While you may be thinking RAF, Bart Vanderveen’s historic military vehicle directory states that around 120 WOT1s went to the army as search light carriers and fuellers.  (page 176 if you eant to look it up).

That is a possibility. While it still seems to be in the original paint, I couldn't see any trace of markings but it's very dark in the warehouse. I'm going to try to persuade the owner to move it to the workshop and see if we can get it running. That would also give the opportunity to inspect it better.