bestbooties:
I suppose this fits in this thread somewhere, how about a 24 X 24 road train!
Don’t know what the transmission layout was.
This was the first Australian road train, a truck built by AEC in the '30’s. to do the job previously done by camel train.
Scroll down to the video.
It must certainly have been a very hard job for the 130 bhp engine to drag that beast in soft sand! I knew the existence of the AEC road train, but not that the axles on the trailors were driven! Most interesting!
Froggy55:
bestbooties:
I suppose this fits in this thread somewhere, how about a 24 X 24 road train!
Don’t know what the transmission layout was.
This was the first Australian road train, a truck built by AEC in the '30’s. to do the job previously done by camel train.
Scroll down to the video.It must certainly have been a very hard job for the 130 bhp engine to drag that beast in soft sand! I knew the existence of the AEC road train, but not that the axles on the trailors were driven! Most interesting!
It did say that progress was slow, but in those days they didn’t have the power available today.
The first Scammel 100 tonner built in the '30’s was only about 80 bhp, but it was so low geared to pull that weight over the Pennines, speed was only about 2mph.
newmercman:
As strange configurations go, this is up there with the strangest.
I believe Bedford did one too.
Yes Bedford did do one as well here is a couple of pics of it in the workshop.
A French proverb says “why make it simple when you can make it complicated”! With a hydraulic transmission, two engines must be easy to synchronise, but with conventional clutches and 2 gearboxes, driving must be a nightmare!
Found a pic of the vehicle I’ve mentioned earlier.
Cheers, Patrick
Froggy55:
A French proverb says “why make it simple when you can make it complicated”! With a hydraulic transmission, two engines must be easy to synchronise, but with conventional clutches and 2 gearboxes, driving must be a nightmare!
It’s doubtful that any twin engine set up would involve two gearboxes.Linking clutch actuation would probably be easy enough but logically the output from the two engines would then need to be brought together somehow before the gearbox into a single transmission/driveline input and then output to the drive axle.It’s surprising how Bedford at least wouldn’t have used old proven existing technology,to link the two engines together,available from its Detroit parent to do that.
youtube.com/watch?v=adEy5j4XiJk
0.43
pv83:
Found a pic of the vehicle I’ve mentioned earlier.Cheers, Patrick
Ah! Now isn’t there a black-and-white picture somewhere on here, of an AEC or Maudslay with the same layout, taken in the 1930? Robert
robert1952:
pv83:
Found a pic of the vehicle I’ve mentioned earlier.Cheers, Patrick
Ah! Now isn’t there a black-and-white picture somewhere on here, of an AEC or Maudslay with the same layout, taken in the 1930? Robert
Don’t know mate, I reckoned it was quite a newish idea/solution…
Not a lorrie, but twin powered indeed 
Wasn’t there an old AEC MM with front wheel drive! Edward box, or pickford’s? It had a low centre section of the bed for high loads IIR
richellis78:
Wasn’t there an old AEC MM with front wheel drive! Edward box, or pickford’s? It had a low centre section of the bed for high loads IIR[/quot
Pete.
windrush:
richellis78:
Wasn’t there an old AEC MM with front wheel drive! Edward box, or pickford’s? It had a low centre section of the bed for high loads IIR[/quot
Pete.
THAT’S the one I meant (see further up the page)! Thank you. Robert
It would certainly be very interesting to have a look at its transmission!
windrush:
richellis78:
Wasn’t there an old AEC MM with front wheel drive! Edward box, or pickford’s? It had a low centre section of the bed for high loads IIR[/quot
Pete.
Aah, nice found Pete! Not a newish idea at all then it seems…
Froggy55:
It would certainly be very interesting to have a look at its transmission!
It’s difficult to see how it could work with anything other than a truck sized version of the old Citroen Traction Avant design gearbox and diff or possibly some type of chain drive set up between crankshaft output and transmission like the old Morse Olds Toronado set up.In either case old or new there doesn’t seem to be room to fit the only other logical idea of engine and gearbox output going into a transfer box sending the drive back to the front wheels only.While that’s just in the case of it being an 8x2 let alone 8x4.It gives me brain fade just looking at it. 
Carryfast:
Froggy55:
It would certainly be very interesting to have a look at its transmission!It’s difficult to see how it could work with anything other than a truck sized version of the old Citroen Traction Avant design gearbox and diff or possibly some type of chain drive set up between crankshaft output and transmission like the old Morse Olds Toronado set up.In either case old or new there doesn’t seem to be room to fit the only other logical idea of engine and gearbox output going into a transfer box sending the drive back to the front wheels only.While that’s just in the case of it being an 8x2 let alone 8x4.It gives me brain fade just looking at it.
It must have worked, like that DAF that pv83 posted. Look at the front tyres- there is more rubber there than on an ordinary GB front axle.
The Czech Tatra range has that odd spine frame construction where the prop runs inside the central chassis spine.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Froggy55:
It would certainly be very interesting to have a look at its transmission!It’s difficult to see how it could work with anything other than a truck sized version of the old Citroen Traction Avant design gearbox and diff or possibly some type of chain drive set up between crankshaft output and transmission like the old Morse Olds Toronado set up.In either case old or new there doesn’t seem to be room to fit the only other logical idea of engine and gearbox output going into a transfer box sending the drive back to the front wheels only.While that’s just in the case of it being an 8x2 let alone 8x4.It gives me brain fade just looking at it.
It must have worked, like that DAF that pv83 posted. Look at the front tyres- there is more rubber there than on an ordinary GB front axle.
The DAF at least looks like it’s possibly an 8x2 with the front axle being a hub reduction drive. The whole concept seems bizarre and mind boggling given the question of how do we get the crankshaft output to the front wheels including the gearbox and diff all within the length from the front to rear of the cab.
While nmm’s suggestion,of a propshaft possibly running between the chassis rails to the rear axle/s,seems out of proportion relative to the centre line of the axles and the load deck height to provide the required clearance.Also the rear axles don’t look like they are driven in any way unlike the front one.While if,as seems the case,they’ve done it that would certainly be a chapter in truck design which was unknown to me until now.Although I could understand why anyone would go to all the trouble if they absolutely needed a rigid low loader to get into places that a trailer couldn’t.
Which leaves the question I wonder if the rear bogie on either the later or older types is also removable to help loading. 
One thing I do not know, is if the Mammoth’s engine protrudes out of the back of the cab. If it doesn’t, there could be enough space to squeeze a gearbox fitted with a special prop shaft just below the clutch, and thus driving the first front axle. Then the main question would be is there enough space under the engine’s sump to fit a driven axle?
Having posted pics of the twin engine Ford, the AEC and Daf FWDs a year or two ago, hopefully this will settle some of the questions being put forward.
The Daf see here ditzj.de/html/en/trucks/othe … titan.html
The Ford see here flickr.com/photos/aussiefor … otostream/ the photo was taken by William Rome who was the “test” driver.
Can’t find the pic I had of the AEC which did have some info about it.
Oily
Edit…found the article I was looking for re the AEC.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … -18-tonner
and not FWD now I read it again.
