> Good Morning colonial chum Geoff, and the List,
And to you, stalwart Mr. Notton (pun),
> The usage is peculiar to the UK only according to the Concise Oxford
> Dictionary which is the standard modern work and a fairly weighty tome,
> but without attending the reference library to view the massive full
> Oxford dic., it says:
>
> "Motor truck for the transportation of goods, troops etc., long, flat,
> low wagon; truck used on tramways and railways. 19th century north
> English origin perhaps from the name Laurie."
>
> Domestically, lorry is in every-day use but the military always use the
> term truck and the haulage industry refer to either trucks or wagons.
Thank you for that, sir, and you too, Nigel! The peculiarities of UK English
continue to fascinate us Colonial Barbarians. My Father-the-English-Teacher
used to beat us about the head with his C.O.D. and I don't own one now, but
should!
> You can safely assume from 1900 to metrication in the 70's, for land
> going usage, that any reference to the ton is in fact always the long
> ton of 2240lbs thus making the cwt as 112lbs. and this would always be
> the case for W.W.II vehicles.
I neglected to mention that, and thanks. For the general fund of information
of list members intrigued by the nomenclature of Brit/Canuck WW2 vehs, the
following is a loose approximation, based on capacities in short tons:
8cwt- ½ ton truck
15cwt- 1 ton truck
30cwt- 2 ton LORRY
60cwt- 4 ton LORRY
I say 'loose' because the official published 'laden weight' of each in
pounds is a bizarre number which bears no relation to hundredweights, short
tons or long tonnes. Moreover, these vehicles (CMPs in particular) were
overbuilt to the extent that it was normal practice to exceed the rated
capacity by spectacular amounts sometimes. One wonders how the puny
powerplants of the time stood up...
As an example, one might be disposed to call the 15cwt a ¾-ton truck, but
its capacity was just shy of 2,000lbs; 60cwts are often referred to as
'three-tonners', but in actual fact their rated capacity was well in excess
of 7,000lbs. Clear as mud? Ford and Chev vehicles otherwise identical except
for engines and axles, sometimes had widely differing rated capacities as
well. Better?
> Further sub-divisions in common usage were Quarters (1/4 cwt or 28lbs)
> and Stones of 14lbs. commercial vehicles pre and post war were required
> by law to display their gross and tare weights sign-written on the body
> and it took up a fair area properly displayed as: x-tons. y-cwt.
> z-qtrs. v-st. n-lbs.
>
> (The nightmarish stuff of school mathematics, manually doing division
> and multiplication with every factor in a different base; as I well
> remember.)
That, driving-on-the-left, and pre-metrification money drove me nuts...
> Apologies for rambling on,
Never and you know it! :-)
Thanks again,
Geoff Winnington-Ball
Maple Leaf Up! ==>
Zephyr, Ontario, Canada
http://www.netwave.ca/~whiskey/ortona/
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.