Jump to content

Sankey Trailer on EBay


Recommended Posts

05HF42     -  VRM seems about  1979 build , it's a FV2361  and that is a narrowtrack , that does not normally have a tailgate.  Seems a bit of a hybrid ,  FV.2381  Widetrack Mk.1  (with tailgate) must have started production before 1979  ?

Lighting if original equipment is nor as narrowtrack.   If ever it had rear stands of narrowtrack design then there should be 4 qty bolts to secure each stand -located between the light fittings & D loops.   I can't see any buffers for the feet on the tail-gate so can only assume no stands ever fitted.  

A proper narrowtrack had a NATO pintle secured with four bolts , only two such holes present - so I can only presume it had the more basic widetrack jaw c/w pin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first link I provided states that later versions had a tailgate and were not watertight, the one on here has a set of four holes either side of the rear crossmember which correspond to the position of the  stabilisers on the water purification unit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think this is any mysterious hybrid experimental trailer or anything to be honest. There is a simple explanation.

That looks like a narrow track (early Sankey with no tailgate) chassis that someone has put a wide track (later model Sankey with a tailgate) tub on. Probably because the original tub rusted away.

The narrow track tub has two rows of cleats for the canvas, and the WT has one - you can see the holes in the sides in the images for a single row of cleats. You can also see the mount for the number plate light which is WT specific. This all points at it being a later tailgate tub.

 

The front draw bar is clearly of NT origin (and therefore the chassis going by other features (rear cross member etc)) - the front A frame is different between the two models. So the chassis is NT

 

narrow track rear

A0E517CE-E5B3-4A90-9C5F-69228AB23965.thumb.jpeg.f2b1f840bc84a6455d96dcad4485faf9.jpeg
 

wide track rear 

D59A9FDC-BC2E-4B17-94B3-2F73B809570E.thumb.jpeg.5aa9a8ab6d90e0d6f6d6579ab0260158.jpeg


narrow track front

FD3AB111-971D-4309-9853-494DE980DEBA.thumb.jpeg.909b552e6ff9463d5485023126e16c23.jpeg

 

wide track front - you can see the difference between the 2

A79FAE47-53BA-4171-90F8-30296470730E.thumb.png.5a6b0366abe26205e951a747e4868cf5.png


mans then side shots so you can see the tub and clear differences (ignore the wolf wheels on the NT

NT

9407414C-862A-49BF-AD01-981E3BE5CE17.thumb.jpeg.272c7ecc4b0fcee92aa4b06786590458.jpeg
 

WT

A79FAE47-53BA-4171-90F8-30296470730E.thumb.png.5a6b0366abe26205e951a747e4868cf5.png

 

so it’s a NT chassis that’s had a later WT tub fitted to replace a rusted out original tub (that wouldn’t have had a tailgate).

NT sankeys were never made with a tailgate, but the later WT ones were made only with a tailgate. 

 

I also doubt this would have been done in service - the correct tub would have been fitted, the army wouldn’t fit a later tub and do all those light and A frame modifications etc - they would have fitted the correct tub or just demob the trailer in a rusty state. So, in my opinion, someone in civi street had a narrow track that the tub rusted out on - that they replaced with a WT tub (they were available as new tubs only from a few dealers for around £100 about 10 year ago) and then modified the lights etc to suit becuase they couldn’t be fitted back on on their bracketry as they didn’t fit with another and wider tub in place.
 

 

Edited by MrEd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also this bit under the tub isn’t right for either NT or WT - it looks like the front A frame has been lowered (probably to suit towing behind a normal landrover with a lower tow bar than a NATO on the rear hitch - like a nato on a DB or something.

you can see the holes that would have held the light and reflector mounts at either end on a NT rather, so my money is on lowered A frame rather than a piece of steel added to raise the tub.

E88A5528-CF65-4731-9327-864FF50C1C5D.thumb.jpeg.94a77ec5262be221cf33fd88f330a8a9.jpeg


I would have to look at my WT etc to see if a WT tub would cover the top two holes of the hitch mount on the rear of the NT chassis, they are quite near the top of the rear cross member and could easily be covered up rather than missing.

Edited by MrEd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ruxy said:

.  

A proper narrowtrack had a NATO pintle secured with four bolts , only two such holes present - so I can only presume it had the more basic widetrack jaw c/w pin.

I think the top pair are covered up rather than missing - look how close they are to the top of the crossmember on a NT and then look at that blue trailer - I think they are covered by the tub lip bit at the bottom because the (incorrect) tub is overhanging the rear so is sitting ‘over’ rather than ‘on’ the chassis - a NT sits on, but a WT sits ‘over’ at the back - I can take a photo later if the detail of the WT

Edited by MrEd
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both nt and wt (Reynolds Boughton)  ,  there is many more differences with wt.  The Mk1 widetrack chassis A frame was more or less same design as narrowtrack , also it had leaf spring suspension as nt.

To me the rear jaw hitch bolt holes are central on the chassis & can't be 2 or 4 used for NATO pintle.    Something else does not tally ,  if it had original equipment a pair of rear stands - then it would have rubber pads or at least the fixing bolt holes visible on tailgate.  Without the circular base-plates would be noisy when in motion - hardly acceptable design.

https://www.emlra.org/index.php/library/trailers/35-elmra-articles-sankey-trailers

This is a old article & a bit short of info.  such as the later nt tubs abt. 1975 being a different welded construction.   This could be a Ex-MOD spare rub , Paddock Spares had dozens finished in red primer stacked in their yard abt. 2005  (I don't think they were drilled for tarp. cleats).

This tailgate has no flap for bowser stem pipe , indicating not a GP Sankey that could double up as bowser.

Widetrack trailers had several  "assemblers"  with quite a few detail differences.

1.Reynolds Boughton

2.Universal Engineering  (South Dorset Engineering)

3. Viking Trailers

4. Arrow Construction Ltd.  (I think they may have only done Mk.1 Contracts)

5.  KING  ,  (these are noted by the word KING pressed across the tailgate, originally in white letters).  Seem few built - I have only seen one from a distance, part of a convoy ISTR.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ruxy said:

I have both nt and wt (Reynolds Boughton)  ,  there is many more differences with wt.  The Mk1 widetrack chassis A frame was more or less same design as narrowtrack , also it had leaf spring suspension as nt.

To me the rear jaw hitch bolt holes are central on the chassis & can't be 2 or 4 used for NATO pintle.    Something else does not tally ,  if it had original equipment a pair of rear stands - then it would have rubber pads or at least the fixing bolt holes visible on tailgate.  Without the circular base-plates would be noisy when in motion - hardly acceptable design.

https://www.emlra.org/index.php/library/trailers/35-elmra-articles-sankey-trailers

This is a old article & a bit short of info.  such as the later nt tubs abt. 1975 being a different welded construction.   This could be a Ex-MOD spare rub , Paddock Spares had dozens finished in red primer stacked in their yard abt. 2005  (I don't think they were drilled for tarp. cleats).

This tailgate has no flap for bowser stem pipe , indicating not a GP Sankey that could double up as bowser.

Widetrack trailers had several  "assemblers"  with quite a few detail differences.

1.Reynolds Boughton

2.Universal Engineering  (South Dorset Engineering)

3. Viking Trailers

4. Arrow Construction Ltd.  (I think they may have only done Mk.1 Contracts)

5.  KING  ,  (these are noted by the word KING pressed across the tailgate, originally in white letters).  Seem few built - I have only seen one from a distance, part of a convoy ISTR.

 

 

 

To answer your points:

1. Look at the rear photo of my narrow track - 03es07 - look at the mount holes for the rear hitch, the lower set of holes are central between the upper and lower edges of the rear crossmember, and the upper set of holes are nearer the top edge than the bottom set of holes are.

I post the photo here again for easy reference. But zoomed in to clearer illustrate my point. I also attach a zoom of the trailer in question with 2 red dots where the holes will be on that (they are obscured by the later tub)

F47451F2-43BF-4C97-B24E-3A671368BB75.thumb.jpeg.33f6b0c4f99c6ea4540018ac3cb65ed4.jpeg

DE139246-D40F-4FEC-8159-14F8290F9095.thumb.jpeg.1a239e3f703d46693d513dcc9a7e213a.jpeg


2. you say that the rubber pads are missing on the tub - and that is correct because they would never have been fitted to a wide track tub. The tub is a wide track tub not a narrow track tub so of course they are missing, the wide and narrow track rear leg arrangements are very different. The narrow track tubs NEVER had a tailgate in them but the wide track did.

If you look at the photo above of my NT you can see the rubber pads behind the legs. additionally on this trailer in question you can clearly see the 4 mounting holes one each side that the rear Jack legs would be bolted to. I have marked them below. These would not be present on a later wide track as the legs swing out to the sides from underneath and stow horizontally, not vertically at the back like the NT - this design change allowed the addition of a tailgate because, as you say, the rear vertical legs don’t work with a tailgate.

0B9F016C-893F-4106-9109-E1028173193E.jpeg.95170e8e8df8298b7feadf0dcbb161cc.jpeg
EC239BFB-1D57-4922-BD60-C7CF2823B30F.jpeg.f47369e3c98dab82bf23dd9fc7becbcc.jpeg


3. the wide track a frame was different to the narrow track, it was wider and not as deep. All wide tracks had leaf springs like the narrow track. There are various other bits in the photos of the trailer that indicate it’s a narrow track chassis and running gear - the rear skid plates, the hand brake mechanism, the front Jack leg, the longer and slimmer shape of the a frame, the evidence of the rear jacking leg mounting points. The absence of a bowser filling hole is a red herring - some had them and some didnt, on narrow tracks it was a modification in service and I have had both NT and WT that had or didn’t have them!

 

4. the tubs you reference at paddocks were wide track - a mate of mine purchased 2 for £100 each. Paddocks still have them, NOS, for £500 each….
 

This is not any type of interesting rare trailer. It is simply as I stated above, a narrow track chassis that has had its tub replaced by a later wide track version.
To facilitate this the rear Jack legs have been removed as the later tailgated tub would not be compatible with the rear vertical legs and they aren’t really needed in civi street so it’s would be an easy decision for someone to decide to remove them. It’s a bit of a cobbled together job tbh and far from original but probably quite useable if all you want to do is drag stuff about!


Narrow track tubs were definitely of a better construction to the wide track tubs though - having welded up both types! I can definitely vouch that a wide track tub will fit onto a narrow track chassis with some fiddling about - I have offered one up before, but decided against it and just sold the bare NT chassis.

Edited by MrEd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes , you are probably correct.  Surveyor should consider himself lucky that he missed this trailer as it was withdrawn from sale.  As he has  a Defender , he should look for a more in-keeping time line (and tyre size / track) of a widetrack.  At least he will be more aware of a bitsa lash-up , although practicable with the tailgate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ruxy said:

Yes , you are probably correct.  Surveyor should consider himself lucky that he missed this trailer as it was withdrawn from sale.  As he has  a Defender , he should look for a more in-keeping time line (and tyre size / track) of a widetrack.  At least he will be more aware of a bitsa lash-up , although practicable with the tailgate.


yes agreed, he has dodged a bitsa!
having towed both NT and WT with a defender, a WT is perfectly manageable and can be reversed, a NT is a bit of a nightmare behind a defender to reverse tbh as you can’t see it in the mirrors until it’s jack-knifed.

NT is great behind a series vehicle though 

Edited by MrEd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the RB  Mk.3 widetrack a PITA to manhandle - so don't use it often unless I have a use for the tailgate getting a heavy lump inside.  I have had it sheeted over a few years with a 2.1/4 diesel stored inside.  IIRC the tailgate flap must be open to allow the towing jaw to pass through, well that was somebody's explanation but I don't recall doing so.

ISTR the wt dub difference is only by 3" extra width.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ruxy said:

I find the RB  Mk.3 widetrack a PITA to manhandle - so don't use it often unless I have a use for the tailgate getting a heavy lump inside.  I have had it sheeted over a few years with a 2.1/4 diesel stored inside.  IIRC the tailgate flap must be open to allow the towing jaw to pass through, well that was somebody's explanation but I don't recall doing so.

ISTR the wt dub difference is only by 3" extra width.


yeah the width difference isn’t much but makes a surpringly difference! 
 

I can’t remember who made my WT - I think universal, but will check tomorrow.

 

you don’t need to have the flap, the tailgate is designed in such a way that it avoids the towing pintle on the rear when swung down as can be seen in this photo (which is a mk3 WT)

C02D196C-29DE-4CC1-8753-00F1825B32F9.thumb.jpeg.484105955459599d157de0ff939b260d.jpeg

Edited by MrEd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ruxy said:

Yes , you are probably correct.  Surveyor should consider himself lucky that he missed this trailer as it was withdrawn from sale.  As he has  a Defender , he should look for a more in-keeping time line (and tyre size / track) of a widetrack.  At least he will be more aware of a bitsa lash-up , although practicable with the tailgate.

Its a 110 I have but was upgraded in operation Tithonous and was in 2 minds if a sankey would be better or stick with my Penman.

Reading this even though my one has a full clansman kit think i will stick to the penman

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Surveyor said:

Its a 110 I have but was upgraded in operation Tithonous and was in 2 minds if a sankey would be better or stick with my Penman.

Reading this even though my one has a full clansman kit think i will stick to the penman

Stick with the penman off you have one. Much more modern trailer! I would have one if I could justify the cost :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Penman is very good , I was surprised when they were disposed of so soon,  however  - I am surprised at the MOD shifting the Wolf fleet and not having IMHO a suitable replacement, probably why  wt went  Gone for a Burton.  Even the BAE Pinzgauer are going ! or gone  ?     Just last week I was stood on crest of a small hump-back-bridge talking to somebody & we almost jumped in the river as a 6x6 Pinz. took air !

To me a Penman is the one to have if you have a Wolf , design top notch + better for timeline.   Defender , well I have the widetrack for my 90" 57KG59  (Tornado Falklands)  -  a narrowtrack to me would be naff behind the 90".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Penman was introduced , I emailed them and queried if they would sell me one Ex-Works ,  answer =  yes, and the cost was somewhere 14k to 15k  !        I suspect the MOD got a BIG bulk  % discount.

Unfortunately for all their good work with specialist vehicles etc.  Penman Ltd. went bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ruxy said:

When the Penman was introduced , I emailed them and queried if they would sell me one Ex-Works ,  answer =  yes, and the cost was somewhere 14k to 15k  !        I suspect the MOD got a BIG bulk  % discount.

Unfortunately for all their good work with specialist vehicles etc.  Penman Ltd. went bust.

Even to the day they went bust they didnt change the price, was in about a week after and apart from 2 damaged ones the stock had gone some where, and yes I had permission from the receivers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...