[zb]
anorak:
there was nothing of any significance to choose between the 1970s specifications of the civilian Eagle and TL12, and you still come up with this sort of silliness^^^. You’re now polluting a sensible thread with it.
Obviously Scammell rightly thought otherwise in terms of stress for the required output.I’ve got absolutely no intention of going any further with that argument.Feel free to post any evidence of TL12 powered Marathons put to similar work including MBT transport.
We have no idea what the Scammell engineers were thinking about “stress”. Given that the Crusader was a BL product, maybe the engine was different to the one in the Marathon so that the corporation could reach a wider market?
DEANB:
Only ever seen those air intakes on 6x4 chassis. The two 4 wheelers you posted were converted from 6x4 chassis.
I know some 6x4 chassis had them up the back of the cab,so i wonder if they were only fitted on the military ones and export models ■■
I agree with all that. What I am now trying to ascertain is whether it was possible in theory to order (or configure) a 4x2 sleeper with roof air-intake pipes instead of the upright at the back. I can’t see any reason why not.
“Why you would you want to do that?” is the same question you’d have to ask the army. Presumably, to obviate the problem of dust ingress in desert / dust climes. The thing that perplexes me is that I think the military also operated a small number of 4x2 Crusaders so why didn’t they run the pipes over the roofs of these - or did they and we haven’t yet worked that out?
Well heres a turn up for the books Ro !!! Why on earth did we not look through the thread ?
DEANB:
Only ever seen those air intakes on 6x4 chassis. The two 4 wheelers you posted were converted from 6x4 chassis.
I know some 6x4 chassis had them up the back of the cab,so i wonder if they were only fitted on the military ones and export models ■■
I agree with all that. What I am now trying to ascertain is whether it was possible in theory to order (or configure) a 4x2 sleeper with roof air-intake pipes instead of the upright at the back. I can’t see any reason why not.
“Why you would you want to do that?” is the same question you’d have to ask the army. Presumably, to obviate the problem of dust ingress in desert / dust climes. The thing that perplexes me is that I think the military also operated a small number of 4x2 Crusaders so why didn’t they run the pipes over the roofs of these - or did they and we haven’t yet worked that out?
Well heres a turn up for the books Ro !!! Why on earth did we not look through the thread ?
You’re a star Dean! Now I can justify converting this 1:50 Crusader from a 6x4 heavy-hauler to 4x2 long-hauler!
The ICI tanker only has a single overhead pipe, as far as I can see. I would guess that it is part of the conversion that the tractor has undergone- look at the side skirts behind the cab- to make it safe to work with the tank.
[zb]
anorak:
The ICI tanker only has a single overhead pipe, as far as I can see. I would guess that it is part of the conversion that the tractor has undergone- look at the side skirts behind the cab- to make it safe to work with the tank.
Quite right, it’s part of the modifications for carrying hazardous loads, used to be known as petregs. Firescreen, exhaust and air intake moved forward, master switch on electrics plus reinforced rear windows and metal mudguards, maybe other stuff I’ve forgotten!
The ICI looks like a gas tank so probably keener rules than petregs.
[zb]
anorak:
The ICI tanker only has a single overhead pipe, as far as I can see. I would guess that it is part of the conversion that the tractor has undergone- look at the side skirts behind the cab- to make it safe to work with the tank.
Quite right, it’s part of the modifications for carrying hazardous loads, used to be known as petregs. Firescreen, exhaust and air intake moved forward, master switch on electrics plus reinforced rear windows and metal mudguards, maybe other stuff I’ve forgotten!
The ICI looks like a gas tank so probably keener rules than petregs.
Fairly certain the tank is for Chlorine, if it is, the firescreen looks far too big for a Pet-reg shield, as the exhaust is at the front, I’m wondering if the cover and intake is for a dry air compressor for discharging chlorine maybe
stevecook:
Found this on elsewhere online, an interesting story from when men were men!
Steve, Bit more on that Crusader.
Click on pages twice to read.
1
0
Brilliant! Straight from the horse’s mouth: traded his Scania in for a Crusader which gave him 5 years trouble-free work on the Baghdad run, just like the ERF Europeans did. Love it!
The 6 wheel 110 was a fuel company reject, it says. I wonder which one it was? With a 1970 reg, it must have been intended for 44 ton operation, maybe trials at that weight. I bet there is mention of its purchase somewhere in the CM archives.
[zb]
anorak:
The 6 wheel 110 was a fuel company reject, it says. I wonder which one it was? With a 1970 reg, it must have been intended for 44 ton operation, maybe trials at that weight. I bet there is mention of its purchase somewhere in the CM archives.
No that was one photographed that he sold on later. The trucking press were pretty cavalier about the captions - I know, I used to write regularly for them - the text is usually the truer of any two versions .The Scania he exchanged for his Crusader was a V8 140: it says so in the text.
Yes, I get the bit about changing a 140 for the Crusader. The red and yellow 6 wheel 110 is the one I was talking about. I would be interested to find out which oil company had it, and why they specified such a vehicle.
[zb]
anorak:
Yes, I get the bit about changing a 140 for the Crusader. The red and yellow 6 wheel 110 is the one I was talking about. I would be interested to find out which oil company had it, and why they specified such a vehicle.
The 3 + 2 configuration makes sense for tankers regardless because a trailer length of bulk liquid can’t be distributed to take weight off the pin and put on the trailer axles.IE it’s likely to have a heavier pin weight than a general haulage outfit.
[zb]
anorak:
Yes, I get the bit about changing a 140 for the Crusader. The red and yellow 6 wheel 110 is the one I was talking about. I would be interested to find out which oil company had it, and why they specified such a vehicle.
Oh sorry! Yes! The livery doesn’t look familiar. Perhaps it was used to pull trailers with no baffles in the tank, requiring plenty of load support up front.
excellent!
