RAAF Derrick Trucks

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Richard,

My comment on the Ford build was based on the DND 'body data book', the updated version issued in 1945, so given the cessation of CMP production soon after, I assumed it was correct (see... the dangers of assuming anything!!!)

I'll look forward to chatting with him about it, in person, in July.

All the best from a mild winter in WA state....

Mike C

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

My comment on the Ford build was based on the DND 'body data book', the updated version issued in 1945, so given the cessation of CMP production soon after, I assumed it was correct (see... the dangers of assuming anything!!!)

I'll look forward to chatting with him about it, in person, in July.

All the best from a mild winter in WA state....

Hi Mike,
In the reprint of the 1944 Canadian Vehicle Data Book, only the Cab 13 F60S is shown. Probably difficult to find a full definitive listing of all variations in the build period of CMP's.
It is mild here ........ and wet. You have been lucky not to get that freezing weather they have further East.

We will warm the beer up for you in July

cheers Richard

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Sorry, Tony, but to a Canadian, the truck in Pic 3 is officially defined as a 'Lorry, 3 ton, Derrick' or 'Lorry, 3 ton, 4x4-134"wb Derrick' and they were only built (in Canada) on Ford chassis.

There were various body configurations: 3A3 on Cab 12; 3A5, 4H2, 4H4, 4H6 on Cab 13. The Canadian DND vehicle model suffix was DRCK-1 through to 5, depending on fittings, winch type, etc, (where DRCK stands for 'Derrick').

Agree, see the thread 3 Ton Derrick.

But: one manual lists a "3-Ton 4x4 Engineers' Lorry with Body Type Winch". In the listed thread no definite conclusion was drawn whether the Derrick and Engineers Lorry were the same type of truck or not.

H.

[Mike Cecil]

Interesting......

The '3 ton Engineers Lorry' is actually defined as the 'Lorry 3 ton 4x4-134"wb Winch' in the DND body book, body type codes 3A2, 3A4, 4H1, 4H3 and 4H5. These are an 'all steel 10 foot special engineers body having full length wheelwell seats along each side...'

Comparing the descriptions of the body types eg 3A4 (winch) and 3A5 (derrick), it appears the same base body is used for both the Winch and Derrick trucks, with the difference being the fittings etc required for mounting and stowing the derrick poles.

I notice that the Gregg Vehicle Data book (a repro of the March 1944 DND list) lists only the Derrick, noting that it has the capacity to be used as a recovery winch (without the derrick legs in place). Maybe by then the 'Lorry, Winch' was dropped in favour of producing one truck, ie the Derrick, which could do winching AND lifting, ie a more versatile truck? In any event, the body data book lists two sets of body identification numbers, so the Winch and Derrick trucks were clearly differentiated at some time.

Mike C

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

Steve Stone had one, but I thought it was on a C30S chassis, same wheelbase as a '60S, but his was a Cab 12.

That concurs with the photo in David's 2008 post, which shows a Cab 12 Derrick on 16" wheels and what look to me like Chev diffs. I note also this image is titled "8441 Derrick Lorry" - does 8441 identify a C30S?

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Sorry, Tony, but to a Canadian, the truck in Pic 3 is officially defined as a 'Lorry, 3 ton, Derrick' .....The DND description of the vehicle and its use also uses the term 'derrick' several times.

So I suppose we are seeing yet another difference of word definition and usage between English speaking nations.

Yes I realize that's the official designation Mike, I was merely pointing out that it's a misnomer. My purpose in doing so was to identify the TRUE source of confusion which invariably sees the Australian nomenclature called into question, as seen again throughout this thread. However my use of upper/lower case was perhaps too subtle, so I shall restate more clearly: The vehicle in pic 3 is definitely a Derrick, but is definitely not a derrick!

On the question of national word usage - in this case we're dealing with a word chosen solely by a WO committee, and thus enforced in relation to this particular vehicle. Therefore we can't assume common usage, as we might if we encountered the word in general literature. I'd be interested to hear from Canadians on this question, but I'd be surprised if they use the word "derrick" interchangeably with "crane", any more than we do in Australia. Certainly the word itself is clearly defined in English dictionaries, and in no way does it apply to the simple crane found on the Lorry, 3 ton, Derrick:

"a kind of crane with a movable pivoted arm for moving heavy weights, especially on a ship."

"a boom for lifting cargo, pivoted at its inner end to a ship's mast or kingpost, and raised and supported at its outer end by topping lifts."

"A machine for hoisting and moving heavy objects, consisting of a movable boom equipped with cables and pulleys and connected to the base of an upright stationary beam."

"lifts and moves heavy objects; lifting tackle is suspended from a pivoted boom that rotates around a vertical axis."

"a jib crane having a boom hinged near the base of the mast so as to rotate about the mast, for moving a load toward or away from the mast by raising or lowering the boom."


Thus we find that a derrick is defined by a boom which both elevates AND rotates - neither of which the Lorry, 3 ton, Derrick can do! However I'm led to revise my earlier assertion that the Trucks, Derrick (AUST) was the only CMP derrick produced - there was in fact one other variant fitting this definition, in a much more famous configuration featuring not one but TWO derricks!

Something else I learned about the derrick: "The device was named for its resemblance to a type of gallows from which a hangman's noose hangs. The derrick type of gallows in turn got its name from Thomas Derrick, an English executioner from the Elizabethan era." Fascinating!

[Mike Cecil]

Yep, missed the subtlety of the first post ..... but not this time round!

Mike C

[Richard Farrant]

In the past I worked with cranes a lot, on repairs and testing, one of the actions on the old rope controlled jibs (no hydraulics) was Derrick In and Derrick Out, this was dropping or raising the jib. My understanding of it, and the fact some are on a turntable is non-consequential. The CMP Derrick lorry does just that, it raises and lowers the jib/derrick.



Also ...just to throw another spanner in the works, the old oil wells with the pylon like structure, was called a derrick and all it did was to hoist up and down within the structure.

[Lang]

Richard,

I think we are getting in to navel gazing on this nomenclature. I reckon the bottom line is, the Brits named things and wrote their manuals with their language usage along with such weird (to the rest of the world) "accumulators, stranglers and dynamos" for batteries, chokes and generators. Just like we think an accumulator is a rich man and you thought back in the 40's battery was a criminal offence while we thought the same for stranglers.

A number of Australian versions of military vehicle manuals have a translation page with Australian, British and American columns for the names of various parts of a vehicle. It runs into dozens of items with Australian general usage being split halfway between British and American terms.

The only time you will hear Derrick here is in reference to boats, historic railway station cranes and sometimes high rise tower cranes are formally referred to correctly as derrick cranes.

I think "Derrick in and Derrick out" for raising and lowering a boom - sorry jib -is not a sustainable description for current use. Nearly all cranes now have extensions and unless we use "Erect and Flacid" for booms extended and retracted the terms "In and Out" must be sensibly used for the extension function and "Raising and Lowering" the boom used in their proper sense also.

The main thing is the people using the gear know what it means and even if the manuals used a Russian term for the equipment everyone would know what it was very quickly from common usage. How many M1's are there in the American system referring to equipment ranging from rifles, signal equipment, food processors to trucks. Nobody says "Private, wash the M1 Rotary potato peeler, 4 horsepower, portable" the cook will know from usage what the sergeant meant when he says "Private, wash the M1".

I will see you all at the Pedantics Anonymous meeting at 4.33 and 23 seconds at the town hall.

Lang

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Lang

I think "Derrick in and Derrick out" for raising and lowering a boom - sorry jib -is not a sustainable description for current use. Nearly all cranes now have extensions and unless we use "Erect and Flacid" for booms extended and retracted the terms "In and Out" must be sensibly used for the extension function and "Raising and Lowering" the boom used in their proper sense also.

Hi Lang,
I am not really pedantic, but it seems that from some peoples interpretation the word Derrick must be a lifting apparatus that traverses, left and right, well that would have been unlikely on Mr Derrick's gallows
We were talking about 70 year old vehicles so equipped so nothing to do with current use.
To change lanes, the army here had Leyland recovery vehicles in the 1950's and they had hydraulic crane jibs, the action of elevating up or down was called "luffing". Not a term you see used on cranes.

Interesting discussion anyway

[Mike Cecil]

..... and a few more spanners, since we are continuing on this topic, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

'Derrick, a type of crane; the name is derived from that of a famous early 17th century Tyburn hangman, and was originally applied as a synonym (see Cranes). The derrick of the petroleum industry is a skeleton framework or tower of wood or steel for hoisting or lowering from a fixed point. It is used to raise or drop the drilling tools and also to insert and remove the well casing or pipe.'

And from the Shorter Oxford: the original definition was simply 'A hangman; hanging; the gallows' . And on that note, I think I've 'hanged about' in this thread long enough.... I'm off to the Town Hall to meet up with Lang!

Mike C

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

I'm off to the Town Hall to meet up with Lang!

Mike, I would join you two at the Town Hall, but you will probably be gone by the time I got there, its a long walk from here

[Lang]

Richard,

I think it is to do with both universal traditional (bastardised) and local dialect usage. You seem to have different usage of terms.

Luffing is the universal term for raising and lowering crane booms and all cranes in Australia and those sourced from USA and Japan have Luff Up and Luff Down on their controls. Riggers and Dogmen if talking to the crane driver always say Luff Up or Luff Down. Raise and Lower are the terms for the rope/hook but when working, drivers know if it is not preceded by "Luff", the more commonly used "Up" and "Down" refer to the rope/hook.

Obviously if you have a non-extendable boom and do not have a running rope (just a hook on a pole), "Luff Up" is exactly the same as "Raise" -or just "Up" -and "Boom in" so the dogman has a choice of 3 correct instructions for the same movement!

Enough from me.

Lang

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

I'm off to the Town Hall to meet up with Lang!

Hurry up guys, I'm here waiting for you! I'm worried about my demountable crane, should I be calling it a derrick instead?

[Lang]

Tony,

As you are in Australia it is definitely not a derrick (no slew).

I think the logging guys would call it a lifting pole but if you want to get posh a crane would cover it.

Lang

[Keith Webb]

I'd just call it very useful.

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Hurry up guys, I'm here waiting for you! I'm worried about my demountable crane, should I be calling it a derrick instead?

[Tony Wheeler]

Thanks Lang, I'm relieved to hear it's still a crane in Australia, it's not easy being an international pedant!

[Mike Cecil]

And what an UPLIFTING thread..... takes the WEIGHT from my shoulders .... certainly no LET DOWN .....

Mike C

[gordon]

... till the Americans get here with their 'gin poles'

Business is picking up

[Hanno Spoelstra]

I think we should assign this case to Oberinspektor Derrick!

He would find this discussion sehr erhebend

H.

[Lang]

My wife, who can be a bit of a shackle but is still a comely winch, while craning over my computer, said although I slew Richard's argument I should not become hooked on making jibs at Englishmen. Derrick had his name roped in on this lifting deal and Richard has a long line of history to balance his argument.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

I love the English language!

H.

[Keith Webb]

Where's the Groan icon to deal with those who are a 'poet but don't know it'?

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

I love the English language!

H.

Hanno, it is a good language but some of the colonies have distorted it over the years

Joking aside, it can lead to the odd misunderstanding.

Lang, I enjoyed your little literacy piece.

regards, Richard

[Grant Bowker]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

it is a good language but some of the colonies have distorted it over the years

I admit I'm from one of the former colonies so I might be biased in this but I would have thought there were quite enough versions of "English" spoken within the United Kingdoms to make comprehension a challenge.

People from Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Kent, Oxford/Cambridge, Cockney, and other regions, dialects and slangs not to mention imigrants from all over with their own unique flavours of English.
You don't need Texans, New Yorkers, Quebecois, Newfies and Australians to have confusion.

More seriously, I am constantly amazed by the high quality of English spoken by the Europeans I deal with while arranging aircraft handling. For most of them there isn't any need for them to learn English as a third or seventh language except to deal with us foreigners - and then they apologize for not speaking English better than they do when I can't speak one word of their language (except perhaps beer/bière/bier/birrë/biero/beior/bjór/bir/bia/biir which seems to work in many languages).

[lynx42]

Originally Posted by Grant Bowker

(except perhaps beer/bière/bier/birrë/biero/beior/bjór/bir/bia/biir which seems to work in many languages).

In Queensland they can't even spell BEER, the BEER there is spelt thus "XXXX

Rick.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

Hanno, it is a good language but some of the colonies have distorted it over the years Joking aside, it can lead to the odd misunderstanding.

Richard, if you're stuggling to understand Strine you could try banging your head against the wall very hard, although there's no guarantee what language you'll wake up speaking:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/rea...-1226798644381

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Grant Bowker

I admit I'm from one of the former colonies so I might be biased in this but I would have thought there were quite enough versions of "English" spoken within the United Kingdoms to make comprehension a challenge.

hi Grant,
I know we are deviating from the thread here, but just to say, what I meant about a common language and odd misunderstanding was not about speech, no problem there it is the written word and where it is used to describe different things in different countries and also the spelling has been changed.

regards, Richard

[Mike Cecil]

Hey, Jared ..... and all you wanted to know about was Derrick trucks.... see how ... 'educational' MLU can be?

Wow! I should visit here more often.....

Mike C

[Richard Farrant]

A postscript .........

Seen here, a pre-WW2 Crossley IGL8 Derrick lorry, one of the various types of bridging vehicles. Pre-dates CMP's.