B Vehicle Contract Cards?

[ajmac]

I found all of the Loyd Carrier contract cards stored at the Tank Museum, which museum hold the same cards but for B vehicles such as 3-ton lorries?

[Richard Farrant]

Royal Logistics Corp Museum, they have a webpage for vehicle enquiries .     https://www.rlcarchive.org/VehicleSrch

 

 

[wally dugan]

lf you are after the contract ledgers and not vehicle histories then the RLC  have very little

[simon king]

You probably know this but the RLC B Vehicle records are referenced through the post-war two number/two letter/two number VRN. If you’re lucky, the WV3 Chassis/rebuild plate, which gives the post war VRN will still be attached to the truck.

The records “usually” (but not in my own particular case sadly) cross reference the post war VRN to the original wartime period census number.

[ajmac]

The armour contract cards just cover the placement of a contract by the government with the manufacturer and will state when the contract was fulfilled and if it was actually cancelled before any vehicles were produced.  Not consulting these leads to erroneous vehicle production numbers being banded about...for generations! 

The Loyd Carrier is a case in point.  Everyone uses the Chilwell census number blocks which show Ford built 7660 ish machines across two contracts, in actual fact, consulting the contract cards shows that the second order was cancelled before production even began and the first order was cancelled once 4200 machines had been built.

[wally dugan]

the trouble with the 44 chilwell allocation list it only  gives part of the story not the whole picture

[rewdco]

Has anybody ever tried to decipher the date codes on these cards? On most cards the number of vehicles is recorded on a day per day basis. The days are numbered DD/MM. But all of a sudden they start using a single number, in the example below the writing went from red to blue ink at the same time:

It would be logical to assume that this would simply be the day of the year (e.g. Jan 1st = 1; Dec 31st is 365). But this can't have been the case, in the card below the year ends approximately two weeks before Sylvester:

Maybe they didn't count Sundays? In that case the last day of the year would be 365-52=313...

The cards above are only one example, but there are many similar examples. I'm defeated... 🤨

Edited January 9, 2023 by rewdco

[79x100]

It's a puzzle, Mr. REwdco !  The highest number that I've seen on any motorcycle card is 349...16 short of a full year.

England and Wales had nine public holidays per year at that time.

Nine public holidays and a seven-day shutdown would have been correct for pre-war industry...but would Chilwell not have worked 365 /365 during wartime ?

In answer to the original question, the 'B' vehicle  RAOC Chilwell 'Receipt Cards' are mostly at Bovington too, with the exception of most of the motorcycle deliveries. They don't just have armour. Records are very skimpy for any early-war RASC rather than RAOC contracts.

[10FM68]

1 hour ago, rewdco said:

Has anybody ever tried to decipher the date codes on these cards? On most cards the number of vehicles is recorded on a day per day basis. The days are numbered DD/MM. But all of a sudden they start using a single number, in the example below the writing went from red to blue ink at the same time:

 

It would be logical to assume that this would simply be the day of the year (e.g. Jan 1st = 1; Dec 31st is 365). But this can't have been the case, in the card below the year ends approximately two weeks before Sylvester:

 

Maybe they didn't count Sundays? In that case the last day of the year would be 365-52=313...

The cards above are only one example, but there are many similar examples. I'm defeated... 🤨

What year are these records from?  If you know that, you may be able to find a pattern of, for example, missing days (Sundays, perhaps, or bank holidays), which might start to provide an answer.  

[rewdco]

I've been looking at these numbers "for hours", but I can't find a pattern... 🙁

[Noel7]

There are gaps, and also multiple entries for the same date, which vary in number from two to six, and are commonly by more than one writer. I would think that these listings were made at some central office from data supplied from elsewhere, and dated on the day they were made. The numbers vary from a low of 1 to a high of 225; it therefore seems possible that missing days may be because there was no return on those days, which would also account for the short year ending with day 349.

There is a problem with the change from red to blue ink. The last legible date in red is 18/10, followed by one I can't read, followed by 281, but, unless my addition has gone haywire, 18/10 is day 291, or 292 in a leap year, so is 281 an error which was then carried on??

The wide variation in numbers recorded looks odd as well, with the range from 1 [or possibly 0] to 225; it seems far too variable for any form of vehicle...

[64EK26]

Hi

There are two sets of numbering system used on these cards, I don’t know why that is

1)      Day/Month

2)      Day number in year

The number recorded is the number of “items” received on that day, note there may be multiple entries for one day as “items” weren’t received at a single location. The received “items” were then transcribed onto the contract record card. I suspect that these cards were the “master” index and more detailed records were kept by the contracts department.

The front of the contract card normally gives an outline delivery schedule and sometimes when the first “item” was delivered. The front of the contract card also gives details of quantity, type and what Census numbers have been allocated.

In general chassis numbers and census numbers are in ascending order thought the duration of the contract. There is normally a reasonable correlation between chassis number and census number, but a one to one correlation cannot be assumed. Chasses were often taken off a heap/storage and also if any had to be re-worked this also put things out of sequence. Another point to make is that there may be other contracts for the same “item” running at the same time. I don’t know if census numbers were allocated at the start of or end of build.

This is an example of chassis number vs. Census number from contract V3733 for Bedford MWD’s. The data points cone from the key cards that are held by the RLC. With this information and the corresponding contract card, you can obtain a reasonable estimate of the date of delivery and census number. I do have a reasonable amount if information on Bedford MW’s, and any MW key cards would be useful to gain a more accurate picture.

Sadly I think that all the individual records of chassis number, census number and delivery date have been lost.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Richard

[79x100]

It seems that across all makes of motorcycles (I haven't studied anything else), the system changeover date was around or just after 18th October 1941. In the example below, we jump from 18/10/41 (which was a Saturday) to 'Day reference' 280. 1941 was not a leap year. As Noel has pointed out, this should have been Day 291 but it became Day 279 or earlier so by mid-October, on this system of day codes introduced towards the end of a year, a difference of more than ten days had already been built in.

 There are some other clues here. Total receipts were checked on Saturday 14/3/1942 (the 73rd day of 1942), after day 67 had been booked in and prior to day 68, so by mid-March, there was already a 'dislocation' of five days, assuming that 14/3 was Day 68 and the check was carried out prior to booking in that day's arrivals.

From another contract, I can see that Friday 10/4/1942 was day 93...it should have been Day 100 so between 14/3/42 and 10/4/42, two extra days had been lost. Good Friday and Easter Monday 1942 fell on 3rd and 6th April....but the 16 day discrepancy can't be entirely the result of public holidays. Were there some stock-taking days added perhaps ?

 

 

[rewdco]

I think the DD/MM code is easy for everyone to understand. Don't know who gave the order to start using the more abstract "day of the year code" though. Much easier to make mistakes... And no doubt this is what happened (errare humanum est, and the clerk may not have been the sharpest pencil in the box). Think we have to allow a margin of approximately two weeks for all the entries in this system.

 

[79x100]

The change was probably insisted upon by the 'Time and Motion' people...It would have made it easier for them to calculate factory productivity etc. without having to worry about different days in months or whether Easter had passed.

I'm inclined to suspect that it was a Ministry of Supply thing, rather than RAOC Chilwell and it's pretty likely there would have been large calendars / reminders on the walls to make sure the correct days were referred to. Quite possibly automatic stamps too for the ledger columns. Sadly we'll probably never see the "WD Book" referred to.

[wally dugan]

I assume the comment WD book refers to me first l have always helped any one who asks for help with any thing that l have As to if this information will made available some time in the future is up to me and was my intention after l have had time to put all the bits in some  order to make sense of this will my last post on this forum thanks to those who have become friends 

Edited January 10, 2023 by wally dugan
spelling mistakes

[79x100]

6 minutes ago, wally dugan said:

I assume the comment WD book refers to me first l have always helped any one who asks for help with any thing that l have As to if this information will made available some time in the future is up to me and was my intention after l have had time to put all the bits in some  order to make sense of this will my last post on this forum thanks to those who have become friends 

No, honestly, although it would be great to see it..It was a reference to the note "Checked W.D. Book. Complete" on the back of the one of the contract cards. I'm assuming that these were the actual ledgers where vehicles were booked in by chassis and serial number...Presumably long-since destroyed. I certainly wasn't having a dig at anyone !