N.O.S. Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Whatever they design criteria for the Mountaineer was it was being used in civilian Heavy Haulage and found wanting, before the Constructor came on the scene. Not much doubt about that, I can't imagine that any truck has ever been used in heavy haulage and NOT found wanting!! They must have all been loaded up until their limit has been reached. It's all part of the evolutionary process And the Constructor was designed to do what the Mountaineer had been tried at and failed. Have you not considered the possibility that the Constructor might have been designed to also do things the Mountaineer had never tried, and never been intended to do? It would be far more correct to state that the Antar Mk2/3 had been designed to do what the Mk1 had been tried at and failed And what about the good old Pioneer? That was hauling heavy loads before and after Mountaineer came on the scene. Surely the Constructor could be seen more as an evolution of that old stalwart (which by the '50s must also have been found wanting :sweat:) than a re-design of Mountaineer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) It would be far more correct to state that the Antar Mk2/3 had been designed to do what the Mk1 had been tried at and failed [/COL] The mark 2 Antar was mechanically identical to the Mk1. it had the same engine, gearbox (and gearbox ratios) and axles. Some literature refers to versions of the Mk2 as the mark1b, they are so similar. I therefore totally fail to understand your statement. There was a few detail changes to the mk1 to produce the mark2 Namely a different winch, resited fuel tanks and a wooden ballast body instead of a steel one. And versions of the Mk2 were built as an Artic tractor. The Mk 3 was a redesign but it had less gears, and generally was less well liked, but it did have more power. The Mark 1 and 2 had a stated gross train weight of 140 tons, wehereas the mark3 was rated at 106.5 Tons. The Mark 3 couldn't do what the mark 1 and 2 could! The mark 3 was designed because the Army wanted to move away from Petrol as a fuel. The Gearboxes were redesigned to make the Antar easier to drive, by giving it only one gearstick (but lossing half the ratios as a result), It had long been recognised, that the two gear lever arrangement of the Mark 1 and 2 needed physical strength and stamina, and a fair amount of skill. The design of the Mk 3 wasn't forced on the Army because the 1's and 2's couldn't do the job. All three marks continued to run alonside each other for years. The mark 3 was modernised for fuel harmonisation, and to improve the driver's lot. It resulted in a less capable, and more unreliable vehicle. The Mk 3 saw the gear ratios of the Auxiliary box altered. This was to increase road speed. This result of the changed ratios (less reduction) was to reduce the available tractive effort available, and this somewhat countered the increased engine power. The Mark 3 was designed to move a 50 or 52 ton tank at a reasonable speed (average about 12 mph.) It was only ever sold as a tank transporter, never for general heavy haulage. The Mk1 and 2 grew out of a civilian design that exceeded the Army's requirement and the mark 3 with less gears was argueably less capable than the Mark 1 and 2. In fact apart from engine there is virtually no difference between the Snowy Mountain Antars and the Mark2. The Army mark 1 and 2 Petrol Meteorite actually raised the gross train weight of the Civilian Diesel meteorite engined Antar from 130 to 140 Tons. The Antar that was the direct inspiration for the Mk1 and 2 was sold as "Britain's biggest road tractor., used by engineering contractors for the moving of heavy individual loads . Recommended at a gross weight with trailer of 130 tons." which is why I say it exceeded the Army's requiremnts and they were able to downrate to the Mark 3 [at 106.5 Tons]( with it's limiting choice of gear ratios)for moving Cents and Cheftains. Even Conquereor was a lighter load than the Mark 1 and 2 had been designed for. But Conquereror was out of service at about the same time the Mk3 entered service, I don't imagine that the design of the Mk3 invisiged its use with the lame duck Conqueror. And the mk3 had a weight penalty of 2 to 3 tons heavier in the tractor unit weight compared to the Mk 2, so the actual load it could shift within the permitted Max combined weight was even less! "It would be far more correct to state that the Antar Mk2/3 had been designed to do what the Mk1 had been tried at and failed " ... sorry afraid not. Edited November 8, 2008 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Pickfords bought some of the first Mountaineers with an expectation of what they would do. They did not meet their expectations and were all sold very quickly, replaced by Constructors. I fully accept that the Constructor was designed and expected to out perform the Mountaineer, but I still maintain that the Mountaineer was originally offered as a heavy haulage tractor, and it wasn't very good at the job. (although some famous ones like RUP 900 did many years of outstanding work.) Edited November 4, 2008 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 (although some famous ones like RUP 900 did many years of outstanding work. What, even while fitted with "flawed" Scammell gearbox ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Even while fitted with a gearbox designed for an 80 HP petrol engine (or whatever it was)! Edited November 4, 2008 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Well my understanding is that the Mountaineer was a 4x4 development of the Oilfields truck, and built primarily to service an export market far, far greater than our own heavy haulage market at the time - they were used for all manner of applications. And yes inevtiably they eventually found their way into the UK heavy haulage market. I believe they were sold as a 60T GTW tractor for UK haulage applications - and at this loading I'm sure they were quite adequate. I'm sure you are right that Pickfords found them wanting - no doubt they really wanted something bigger and were obviously wrong to think they could do the job of an 80 tonner 6 wheeler, be it 6x4 or 6x6. Their fault, not Mountaineer's! It seems they had to wait until Scammell saw an export market big enough to justify development of a new breed of truck.....CONSTRUCTOR! We have a lot to thank the rest of the world for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Even while fitted with a gearbox designed for an 80 HP petrol engine! It's taken a while but I'm so pleased to see you've finally come round to our way of thinking and acknowledged what a really superb piece of design the Scammell gearbox is. I knew you would in the end. You're any Scammell enthusiast's best mate now. Good for you. It makes me feel I ought to say something nice about the Antar in return and I'm sure, when I can think of something nice to say about that big girl's blouse of a lorry, I will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Scammell gearbox fine, Transposing box for the Constructor, not so fine.....I am not that won over yet..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Was down at Steve Guest's this W/E and finally saw the ex Cypruss RAF constructor, (I must admit I thought "wonder if he wants to sell that?") so there may be some hope yet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Scammell gearbox fine, Transposing box for the Constructor, not so fine.....I am not that won over yet..... Transposing box......yeah, well, everyone has an off day, even those creating the Watford Works of Art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 Wow, Les - ALL THAT FROM ONE PHOTOGRAPH! Yet nobody suggested it might have been taken in 1966 in the New Forest, and that the long timbers were destined to become a radar mast..... Got any more like that? :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 wow, les - all that from one photograph! Yet nobody suggested it might have been taken in mid 1966 at Boldre Wood in the new forest, and that the 30 ton 98ft long timbers were destined to become a radar mast once they had been to Burt Bolton's timber yard for treatment got any more like that? :-d :-d:-d:-d:-d:-d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazungumagic Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 (edited) Can this one be in the Gallery, too ? It has been restored by a local fellow and was at a country Veterans Re-union (in West Australia) earlier this month, together with the Cent. Jack Edited November 14, 2008 by mazungumagic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 What a pair of beauties ! Thanks for posting mate ! :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekawrecker Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Can this one be in the Gallery, too ? It has been restored by a local fellow and was at a country Veterans Re-union (in West Australia) earlier this month, together with the Cent. Jack A very nice Dorchester ACV. Have you got any close up shots Jack? 17 years or so ago, I heard there was just a body in WA and the owner was looking for a Matador chassis to mount it on. I wonder if this was the one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 It has been restored by a local fellow and was at a country Veterans Re-union (in West Australia) earlier this month, together with the Cent. Hello Jack, Is that the ACV that Bob Dimer was restoring? It looks great.....please pass on my regards when you next speak to him (we were both on BTTT and Trackers 2000) Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazungumagic Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 (edited) ekawrecker/Richard, This is the vehicle that Bob assembled from (large) bits he found around the country - but it has changed hands twice, since then. The current owner has done significant work on the cosmetics of the vehicle and continues to put in major effort on the mechanics. I understand that there were 7 of these things in the country during WW2, but imagine that this might be the only survivor. I took part in the Trackers 2005 run to the Alice and am thinking about 2010 ... A couple of pics I took some months ago are below: Edited November 15, 2008 by mazungumagic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 This is the vehicle that Bob assembled from (large) bits he found around the country - but it has changed hands twice, since then. The current owner has done significant work on the cosmetics of the vehicle and continues to put in major effort on the mechanics. Thanks Jack, I had seen photos of the inside before restoration and it has been transformed now, credit to all those involved. :tup:: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekawrecker Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 A very early Matador with the double curved cab roof and only 2 winch rollers. Very nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les freathy Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Not such good quality these but it shows the Hills 0843 from the other side and a bit better view of the Mountaineer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 So, has this 6x6 been shortened up a little or has someone cobbled an alien bogie onto a Matador? Looks a well-balanced truck whichever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 So, has this 6x6 been shortened up a little or has someone cobbled an alien bogie onto a Matador? Looks a well-balanced truck whichever. Sorry N.O.S. I don't know anything about this AEC. This picture and a few others I've recently posted were sent to me by a friend. I'm just trying to find out some background from him and will post details if and when I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 (edited) Sorry N.O.S. I don't know anything about this AEC. This picture and a few others I've recently posted were sent to me by a friend. I'm just trying to find out some background from him and will post details if and when I can. I feel sure it is this one that turned up at Charlbury Rally Oxon three years on the trot. I know the Constructor ballast body was taken off and sold. Explains the plywood body. The Cab roof is three flat panels, and someone has now screwed a curved panel in front of the roof to disguise it's odd lines! It is a genuine O854, with proper rear bogey, and when I last saw it was still full length. Is this photo a trick of the eye, foreshortened by use of a telephoto lens perhaps? Wheelbase looks the same to me and that is full length... Edited November 22, 2008 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.