More mystery WD trucks

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Anyone got any idea what this is please..note the mudguard and wheel design?

http://www.gmhistorian.btinternet.co.uk/aaw858a.jpg

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

200-gallon...water tanker or fuel tanker?

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

What was M 415667 please?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
200-gallon...water tanker or fuel tanker?

Water tanker. I don't think they made fuel tankers on 15-cwt chassis, and fule tankers had special provisions like a fire screen behind the cab.

HTH,
Hanno

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
What was M 415667 please?

David,

This number falls in a group (400000 to 500000), which were "Not taken up" according to the Chilwell list.

The MCC CS8 is definitely a water tanker, you can see the filter up behind the cab.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Thanks! I have in fact got a photo from Bovington (# 718/D2) of a 250-gallon petrol tanker CS8T. This is from the Third, 1936 Report of the WD Mechanization Board:

The C.S.8T Series III was a standard WD truck (one ton useful load) developed from the Series I and II referred to in the 1935 Report. As the design was approaching finality a full description appeared in the 1936 Report. The chassis was constructed as far as possible from standard commercial components, and had a standard wood body. The engine was a six-cylinder 3,485 litre petrol engine developing 63.5 bhp and maximum torque of 1,740 lbs/inches, driving through a four-speed gearbox to a bevel drive rear axle. The tyres were 9.00-16 cross-country tread and combined with a 3.2-ton gvw implied a tractive effort of 1,250 lbs/ton and power:weight ratio of 19.5 bhp/ton. Average road fuel consumption was 11.5 mpg; tank capacity was 22 gallons. Trials commenced at Farnborough with a WD vehicle and then further tests in North Wales and Farnborough with two randomly-selected WD vehicles from a then-current contract. The production models’ successful reliability and performance equalled the pilot model. Experience with Series I and II trucks in Egypt indicated a mere 1,600 miles life of the engine and so Vokes C.5 air cleaners were fitted consequently, with WD-pattern air cleaners on subsequent production. Dustproof carburettors replaced the original type and crankcase oil fillers were connected to the carburettor intake. A few cases of front axle failure in Egypt were rectified by a replacement stronger pattern. Trials had been conducted in 1936 with a 250-gallon Thompson Bros. (Bilston) Ltd petrol tank and 190-gallon water tank. In both cases the rear axle exceeded that which occurred with the normal one-ton load and the frame members were damaged through contact with the rear axle casing. Further running was carried out with stronger and progressive rear springs and double-actimng shock absorbers. During the year trials took place by Fisher & Ludlow Ltd steel body on a truck chassis, which proved satisfactory but the proposal, with justification, raised questions of wartime steel supply and the facilities for field repair, which were then under investigation. During the year contracts for 1,597 of these chassis were placed: 59 with drawbar gear for towing the 2-pounder anti-tank gun and 44 with cavalry portee bodies (Z 354970 to 355013 under contract V.2911).

I have just been sent a scan of the original photo and the detail is amazing! The Census Number is evidently Z 39 etc., which means three possibilities as to the contract number.

[cletrac (RIP)]

"The engine was a six-cylinder 3,485 litre petrol engine developing 63.5 bhp and maximum torque of 1m740 lbs/inches"

Must have been some kind of engineers to only get 63.5 hp out of a 3485 litre engine. British, you say?

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Same engine as used more-or-less in the contemporary CS11/30...63.5 honest British horses.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

This number falls in a group (400000 to 500000), which were "Not taken up" according to the Chilwell list.

Thanks!

[cletrac (RIP)]

David, you missed my point. 3485 litres is around 775 gallons. Somebody forgot a decimal point.

Originally posted by cletrac
"The engine was a six-cylinder 3,485 litre petrol engine developing 63.5 bhp and maximum torque of 1m740 lbs/inches"

Must have been some kind of engineers to only get 63.5 hp out of a 3485 litre engine. British, you say?

Quite so, but bear in mind for mil use they had an updraft mil spec carburettor and an intentionally restrictive velocity governor between the carburettor and manifold set to 2500rpm max.

In civvy guise with a single SU and no restriction or governing about 30% more was on tap.

All the WWII 15cwt trucks were given between 60hp - 70hp, doubtless considered quite adequate at the time, even the WOT2's V8s were held back to 60hp.

R.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
Anyone got any idea what this is please..note the mudguard and wheel design?

David,

Is this the Mystery Picture competition?

From what I can see, it looks to be a Morris Commercial CDF or CD

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Is this the Mystery Picture competition?

It is indeed, as I ain't got a clue! I would suggest then CDF?

The use of "," instead of "." is of course a European thing! Very confusing at times!

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
The use of "," instead of "." is of course a European thing! Very confusing at times!

Well, as long as you stick to the GBP it is not really a problem as £1,000.00 equals €1.500,00. Now what happens if you change to the Euro?!? Will €1,500.00 in the UK equal €1.500,00 in Continental Europe?!? You would be rich!



H.

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
Well, as long as you stick to the GBP it is not really a problem as £1,000.00 equals €1.500,00. Now what happens if you change to the Euro?!? Will €1,500.00 in the UK equal €1.500,00 in Continental Europe?!? You would be rich!



H.

???? You bin' on them fizzy orange fun cylinders?

£1 = 1.5€, you must be joking.

The base paper rate which neither of us get is £1 = €1.38869

A subject near to my heart with the approaching sight of moving my house in cash next year; we projected last May at €1.47, the current rate is presently a non-starter.

R.

[Nick Balmer]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
Anyone got any idea what this is please..note the mudguard and wheel design?

http://www.gmhistorian.btinternet.co.uk/aaw858a.jpg

Its a Morris Commercial CS11/30F of about 1935.

Regards

Nick Balmer

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by Nick Balmer
Its a Morris Commercial CS11/30F of about 1935.

Nick,

I do not think so because that model had WD pattern divided wheels, with 10.50-16 tyres. The one in the photo is definitely not fitted with those.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Any idea what this truck is please? #1

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

I have just come across references to a Leyland 3-ton 4 x 4, firstly with petrol then diesel engines. I have no other details and I assume that they never went ahead to production? Anyone got any ideas please?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by David_Hayward

Any idea what this truck is please? #1

I'd say Beford MWD 15-cwt.

H.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Any idea what this truck is please? #2 It appears that the Census # is L 4502000 or 4502080. QL or Ford?

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Goodness knows what this is!

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by David_Hayward

Any idea what this truck is please? #2 It appears that the Census # is L 4502000 or 4502080. QL or Ford?

Bedford QL

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by David_Hayward

Goodness knows what this is!

As I said, I'd say Bedford MW.

Am I Good?

H.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by David_Hayward

Any idea what this truck is please? #2 It appears that the Census # is L 4502000 or 4502080. QL or Ford?

David,

Definitely, 100%........a Ford WOT6. Recognition points are the body rubbing strip is full length and the step on front mudguard. (I have just rebuilt one!)

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

Definitely, 100%........a Ford WOT6. Recognition points are the body rubbing strip is full length and the step on front mudguard. (I have just rebuilt one!)

There you go, being up close and personal pays off!!

H.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

L 4501602 to 4504101 Contract V.4150...well done!!

And thanks for th MW that is swiMWing!

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by David_Hayward

L 4501602 to 4504101 Contract V.4150...well done!!

David,

In all your Ford records, do you have lists of chassis numbers and associated contracts, for the WOT6?

[Les Freathy]

i would agree bedford MW and Ford WOT but what ever i would be surpised if they did not drown, hey Richard remember what you said to us the other day re the Ford WOT if you hit a puddle it gives up so how the hell is that one going to survive. David just going back to the morris water tanker take a look at your latest article in VR and the location of the mobile laundry, the Morris is in the same place, these 200 gall tankers were part amd parcel of the unit, by the way any more pics of the laundry trailers
cheers
Les

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Les Freathy

i would agree bedford MW and Ford WOT but what ever i would be surpised if they did not drown, hey Richard remember what you said to us the other day re the Ford WOT if you hit a puddle it gives up so how the hell is that one going to survive.

Hi Les,

Quite correct, if a Ford V8 sniffs a puddle, it stops but these vehicles have been fully water proofed for wading. If you saw the instructions to do it, nothing is left to chance, a gungy compound, waterproof fabric, grease, bostik, were all things used in the process. I think that on the MW photo, a snorkel pipe is just visible over the cab.

One of my old colleagues from REME, used to tell me about a Bedford 28hp engine that was used in a display, running in a tank of water.