User login

New Comments

Trade Boxes

4 hours 17 min ago

French boxes, general

21 hours 38 min ago

Trade Boxes

21 hours 53 min ago

-Interior cross hatching

22 hours 12 min ago

Dealers' display cabinets

2 days 19 hours ago

Dealers' display cabinets

3 days 5 hours ago

--25bm Army Covered Wagon, USA market (1950)

4 days 22 hours ago

--29c and 290 Double Decker Bus (1938-63)

5 days 5 hours ago

Dealers' display cabinets

5 days 5 hours ago

Dealers' display cabinets

5 days 14 hours ago

Dealers' display cabinets

5 days 17 hours ago

--29c and 290 Double Decker Bus (1938-63)

5 days 22 hours ago

--29c and 290 Double Decker Bus (1938-63)

5 days 23 hours ago

--29c and 290 Double Decker Bus (1938-63)

6 days 31 min ago

--29c and 290 Double Decker Bus (1938-63)

6 days 1 hour ago

--29c and 290 Double Decker Bus (1938-63)

6 days 1 hour ago

--27b and 320 Halesowen Harvest Trailer (1949-71)

6 days 17 hours ago

--27c and 321 Massey Harris Manure Spreader (1949-73)

1 week 54 min ago

New arrivals

1 week 1 day ago

New arrivals

1 week 1 day ago

New arrivals

1 week 1 day ago

--33a Simca-Cargo fourgon + 33an Déménageur Simca Cargo

1 week 3 days ago

-825 GMC amphibie type DUKW (1963-1971)

1 week 3 days ago

New arrivals

1 week 3 days ago

New arrivals

1 week 3 days ago

New arrivals

1 week 3 days ago

--27g and 342 Motocart (1949-61)

1 week 6 days ago

--29c and 290 Double Decker Bus (1938-63)

2 weeks 1 day ago

--29c and 290 Double Decker Bus (1938-63)

2 weeks 1 day ago

Trade Boxes

2 weeks 4 days ago

-Interior cross hatching

3 weeks 3 days ago

-796 Healey Sports Boat on Trailer (1960-62)

3 weeks 3 days ago

-Interior cross hatching

3 weeks 3 days ago

Trade Boxes

3 weeks 3 days ago

Trade Boxes

3 weeks 3 days ago

Visitors

  • Total Visitors: 1633339
  • Registered Users: 285
  • Published Nodes: 1572
  • Since: 09/19/2021 - 12:36
56 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

dinkycollect's picture
dinkycollect
Offline
DTCA MemberFrance

-622 Foden 10 ton Army truck (1954-64)

Here are the three variations of the marking of the 622 10 Ton Army wagon and the list of variations of the model. The different position of the ejector marks show that there were two dies for this truck. So there may be other minor differences between the castings of each die.

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Here are some photographs of my 622 10-Ton Army Wagon without the centre roof ridge.

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Both the 622 smooth roof and ridged roof together. The absence of the side ridges can also be seen, although these appear very faint.

It is unusual that the smooth roof variation does not appear in Drawing Number 7750 unless the change appears in Drawing Number 7751 which I do not have in my collection, nor does the DTCA have a copy in its archives. Someone may have a copy of this drawing, and if so, we would like to know the date the change to the ridged roof took place. Unfortunately I am unable to decipher the rubber stamp in the lid of the box containing my example, otherwise we would have a time frame.

dinkycollect's picture
dinkycollect
Offline
DTCA MemberFrance

Bruce,

The change was made in 1954, year in which the first three variations made in the first die were issued.

1) Die 1, cab with smooth roof, no driver, Dinky Toys - very rare.
2) Die 1, cab with ridged roof, no driver, Dinky Toys - rare.
3) Die 1, cab with ridged roof, with driver, Dinky Toys.

The ridges may have been on the drawing from the begining but had been forgoten by the tool maker and a first batch of castings was made before somebody noticed the missing ridges which exist on the prototype truck (see photo).

The ridges also appear on the drawing of the box, so they were planed from the begining.

You are very lucky to have found a mint boxed one as they are very rare.

Army Foden 6 x 4 at Duxford military rally on august 1st. 1990 photographed by Robin Taylor.

The faint lines on the cabs without the three ridges are die partition lines. They prove that the ridges were planed from the design of the die, otherwise these lines would have been hiden in the raised line a bit lower.

janwerner's picture
janwerner
Offline
DTCA MemberNetherlands

I have always wondered why the Foden 10-ton Army Truck always had the ridged Dinky Toys hubs and for instance the no. 676 Armoured Personnel Carrier always had the grooved Dinky Supertoys hubs.

I do not see the strict necessity in order to have a better match with the real-wold prototypes.

Can anybody make sense of that? Or is this just another case of Meccano 'logics' ?

Kind regards, Jan

dinkycollect's picture
dinkycollect
Offline
DTCA MemberFrance

Hello Jan,

The Supertoys hubs certainly look more like the real Saracen wheels. For the Foden, I would have used ridged hubs at the front and Supertoys on the rear axle but remember that the girls asembling the Dinky were paid by quantity and they would have certainly mixed the wheels.

Bruce would have gone mad with wheel variations.

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Jan, you are not alone with the same question! I wonder what the thinking was from the powers that be at Meccano as it makes no sense, although the 676 does look great with the smaller Supertoys hubs. But the 622 would have looked even better with ST hubs!
Another question on Jacques' great photograph of an actual example. Did the civilian models have these ridges? If not, what was their purpose on the military version, apart from strengthening the roof? Was it to enable the roof to be walked on?!
The 622 is another example whereby the maker's name was not included on a military model or its box.
Kind regards
Bruce

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

dinkycollect wrote:
"Bruce,

The change was made in 1954, year in which the first three variations made in the first die were issued.

1) Die 1, cab with smooth roof, no driver, Dinky Toys - very rare.
2) Die 1, cab with ridged roof, no driver, Dinky Toys - rare.
3) Die 1, cab with ridged roof, with driver, Dinky Toys.

The ridges may have been on the drawing from the beginning but had been forgotten by the tool maker and a first batch of castings was made before somebody noticed the missing ridges which exist on the prototype truck (see photo).

The ridges also appear on the drawing of the box, so they were planed from the beginning.

You are very lucky to have found a mint boxed one as they are very rare.

The faint lines on the cabs without the three ridges are die partition lines. They prove that the ridges were planed from the design of the die, otherwise these lines would have been hidden in the raised line a bit lower."

Jacques, Thanks always, as I knew you would provide the answers. One can see the drawing on my model's box to see it had the ridges.
I picked up my example from eBay in 2002. I knew what I was looking for, (thanks in part from a friend in the UK at that time who specializes in Dinky Military) and the picture accompanying the auction was all I wanted to know. The final cost including getting it to Australia was far less than a hundred pounds. There was another example on eBay in recent months but I do not know if its final price matched its rarity.
Finally, I think "someone" has posted another comment on about different wheels on the 676 and 622 while I have been on this post. Nope, different wheels on the front and the rear are the province of another collector in our midst! I am quite satisfied with my model and its box thank you very much! B)
Kind regards
Bruce

dinkycollect's picture
dinkycollect
Offline
DTCA MemberFrance

Bruce,

Not easy to find a good picture of a Foden type fg showing the cab's roof but on this civilian one, one can see the three ribs.

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

The next question that comes to mind, slightly off-topic but nonetheless dealing with Fodens, if the Foden DG had the three roof ribs, and the three ribs meant a great deal for the 622 otherwise production would have continued with its smooth roof, it is odd that the Dinky Supertoys Fodens did not also carry these ribs, or have I got the wrong model Foden prototype? By the way, great photograph of that Foden and thanks for sharing it with us.

starni999
Offline
DTCA MemberUK

Hi all,
The British Army used very few Fodens before the 1970's, the Dinky was based on a demonstrator supplied by Foden to the MOD for evaluation, but never bought in quantity, the MOD continued to buy Bedfords in quantity until the demise of the TM. The Duxford flatbed Foden is of a type of lorry where most of the MOD fleet were AEC's.
I did once however have the pleasure (?) of driving a Foden Heavy recovery tractor of late 40's vintage that was Ex MOD, crash gearbox and virtual brakes with a top speed of 25mph downhill with a tailwind, but enough torque to pull a house down.
Chris Warr.

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

janwerner wrote:
"I have always wondered why the Foden 10-ton Army Truck always had the ridged Dinky Toys hubs and for instance the no. 676 Armoured Personnel Carrier always had the grooved Dinky Supertoys hubs.

I do not see the strict necessity in order to have a better match with the real-wold prototypes.

Can anybody make sense of that? Or is this just another case of Meccano 'logics' ?

Kind regards, Jan"

Jan

At the risk of receiving another "comment" about wheels, one other military model we have forgotten that has smaller Supertoys hubs, is the 626 Military Ambulance. Jan's point is taken as to the reason these were given ST treatment and the larger 622 did not.

Just an observation!
Kind regards
Bruce

janwerner's picture
janwerner
Offline
DTCA MemberNetherlands

Yes, you're correct Bruce, I forgot that one.

By the way, it's rather the inconsequent use of ridged hubs combined with medium size tyres and grooved hubs combined with large tyres which was my point, and not so much the relation with the real world vehicle.
Do other 'civilian' Dinkies exist that tend to be fitted with small or medium size tyres and nevertheless have grooved (diecast) hubs? I cannot recall at this moment.
This issue is can also be a matter of scale in some instances, as is the choice of tyre size. A very restricted choice of three sizes in the 1950s available only, given the variation of scale between generally 1:19 (4-wheel Hand Truck) and 1:76 (buses etc.)!
Kind regards, Jan

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Jan
Yes, your point in relation to the model are my thoughts also although one factor that may have influenced Meccano to use the ridged hubs on the 622, is that the size of tyres coupled with the ridged hubs gives the impression of an even larger, off-road tyre, more "real" as the Army trucks out here (most likely the same in the UK) always had larger "balloon" type tyres, to manage sand, mud etc.
Kind regards
Bruce

ADDITIONAL CASTING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VERSION 1 AND VERSION 3
Anyway, I have had another closer look at my smooth roofed 622 and I have noticed there is a casting difference behind the cab onto the chassis. In the Version 3, there is a large, slightly curved section from the cab to the chassis with a small section in the middle that is lower. In Version 1, the cab itself is slightly curved as it meets the chassis and on each end is a smaller slightly curved extension that meets the edge of the upper chassis. It might be my imagination, but the distance between the cab and the cargo "tray" seems minutely longer on the smooth roof version, about .5 to 1mm. Faint outlines of the roof side ridges can be seen as well as the commencement of the centre ridge, which may be noticeable on the pictures I have posted. The roof itself is not completely smooth either.I will try to take some photographs that hopefully show the casting difference behind the cab and hopefully the distance difference as well and I will add them to this post.

buzzer999's picture
buzzer999
Offline
DTCA MemberUK

And don't forget the 692 5.5" Medium Gun:

Perhaps we should just call them Hubs not Supertoy Hubs

Dave

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Good Grief Dave!! I had completely forgotten that the 692 was shod with Supertoy hubs! :lol: I knew the 693 had the same hubs as the 965, 437, etc. but I had completely forgotten about the 692.
Call them Hubs with the capital "H"? Mmmmmm, perhaps grooved hubs for them, ridged for the remainder, spun, etc.
But we digress!
Today is a nice (but expected high temperature day of 38 degrees! :( ) So will have to be quick with my natural lighting photography of the chassis to cab differences between the 1st and 3rd Versions of the 622.
Bruce

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Further to my previous post, here are several images showing the casting change at the rear of the cab where it meets the chassis. This what I wrote previously:

ADDITIONAL CASTING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VERSION 1 AND VERSION 2

Anyway, I have had another closer look at my smooth roofed 622 and I have noticed there is a casting difference behind the cab onto the chassis. In the Version 3, there is a large, slightly curved section from the cab to the chassis with a small section in the middle that is lower. In Version 1, the cab itself is slightly curved as it meets the chassis and on each end is a smaller slightly curved extension that meets the edge of the upper chassis. It might be my imagination, but the distance between the cab and the cargo "tray" seems minutely longer on the smooth roof version, about .5 to 1mm. Faint outlines of the roof side ridges can be seen as well as the commencement of the centre ridge, which may be noticeable on the pictures I have posted. The roof itself is not completely smooth either.I will try to take some photographs that hopefully show the casting difference behind the cab and hopefully the distance difference as well and I will add them to this post.

Please excuse the poor casting of the driver's door for the Version 2 model on the left!

I am sorry if these images are not crystal clear and sharp as a tack, but my camera does have limitations for close-up photography. However one thing is apparent, the purpose of this feature is to strengthen the chassi-cabin in the same way as other models, the Bedford O series, and the Euclid to name a couple.

Kind regards

Bruce

janwerner's picture
janwerner
Offline
DTCA MemberNetherlands

Coming back a moment to the hubs, if you don't mind: I think the Medium Gun's hubs/tyres meet expectations, as do for example the ones of the Armoured Command Vehicle. The hubs/tyre size 'ratio' is alright - even though they are baptized as Dinky Toys. The Foden remains a real exception, with its (post-1952 used) ridged hubs and large tyres. The other ridged hubs exceptions are the 1950s racers, but I believe that is a matter of scale, because they are 1:38 (and in fact some of their wheels are a tiny bit too large due to the use of the large 20mm tyres).
By the way, Dave, your photo of the Medium Gun shows nicely that the whole model has been sprayed after complete assembly - see the axle ends.
Kind regards, Jan

buzzer999's picture
buzzer999
Offline
DTCA MemberUK

Whilst doing some research into post war military vehicles earlier this year I spent a lot of time with a curator at the REME Museum in Arborfield. He told me that the Army used the Doden DG extensively in WWII, but only ever had two of the post-war vehicles on trial but they never went into service. The army chose the AEC Militant.

Here is the Foden taken from Page 91 of "The Observer's Fighting Vehicles Director World War II"

Note the relative size of the wheel hubs and tyres. The tyres are particularly chunky.

Dinky had a dilemma when introducing the Foden to the military range in 1954. With their 'big Foden' range (901.902etc.) they had already changed from the Type 1 cab to the Type 2 cab so they would have felt it a retrograde step to do the military version with a Type 1 cab.

They obviously chose the more modern cab on the military version rather than base it on a wartime vehicle. In retrospect Dinky might have been basing this vehicle on the AEC truck.

Going back to the choice of hubs, to get the desired chunky appearance they used ordinary hubs and large tyres.

All this of course is conjecture but it does make sense.

Dave

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

buzzer999 wrote:
"Whilst doing some research into post war military vehicles earlier this year I spent a lot of time with a curator at the REME Museum in Arborfield. He told me that the Army used the Doden DG extensively in WWII, but only ever had two of the post-war vehicles on trial but they never went into service. The army chose the AEC Militant.

Here is the Foden taken from Page 91 of "The Observer's Fighting Vehicles Director World War II"

Note the relative size of the wheel hubs and tyres. The tyres are particularly chunky.

Dinky had a dilemma when introducing the Foden to the military range in 1954. With their 'big Foden' range (901.902etc.) they had already changed from the Type 1 cab to the Type 2 cab so they would have felt it a retrograde step to do the military version with a Type 1 cab.

They obviously chose the more modern cab on the military version rather than base it on a wartime vehicle. In retrospect Dinky might have been basing this vehicle on the AEC truck.

Going back to the choice of hubs, to get the desired chunky appearance they used ordinary hubs and large tyres.

All this of course is conjecture but it does make sense.

Dave"

Dave

What you wrote about Meccano's choice of tyres and hubs, bearing in mind that this, as you wrote, is all pure conjecture, matches my comments a little earlier:
". . . one factor that may have influenced Meccano to use the ridged hubs on the 622, is that the size of tyres coupled with the ridged hubs gives the impression of an even larger, off-road tyre, more "real" as the Army trucks out here (most likely the same in the UK) always had larger "balloon" type tyres, to manage sand, mud etc. "

Bruce

dinkycollect's picture
dinkycollect
Offline
DTCA MemberFrance

Do I understand exactly what David has writen ?

There were some trucks with the type one cab in the Army before the war and only two were build for evaluation with the type two cab like the Dinky.

Meccano France did the same with the 80 d Camion militaire Berliet only one or two have been build by Rochet Schneider but Berliet got the order for a variation. Meccano modeled the prototype and not the production model.

buzzer999's picture
buzzer999
Offline
DTCA MemberUK

I will try to explain this better.

The dinky Foden that was introduced in 1947 as catalogue number 501 is what we all know as the "Type 1" cab, this was a vehicle introduced by Foden during WWII. What we know as the "Type 2' cab was a post-war Foden vehicle.

Dinky obviously wanted to introduce a six wheeler to the military range and they chose the Foden.

This was their dilemma; did they use an obsolete cab which had been in use by the military for some years, or did they use the current cab which the military had chosen not to adopt.

Whilst I love the post-war range of military vehicles more than any other range of Dinky Toys I cannot see the logic in what they actually made.

Dave

dinkycollect's picture
dinkycollect
Offline
DTCA MemberFrance

David,

Thank you for clarifying. Meccano probably has good contacts with Foden and not with AEC at that time.

My opinion is that models of vehicles that one sees on the road are more popular than many very nice models which one has never seen before.

buzzer999's picture
buzzer999
Offline
DTCA MemberUK

Absolutely correct Jacques

There are many conundrums, why did Dinky never do a model of the Morris 1000 or the Ford Thames. Two incredibly popular vehicles seen every day on overy road and street.

I feel a new thread coming on for the vehicles Dinky never had in their range.

I will kick it off later today or tomorrow.

Dave

Chris1
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

I was very pleased to acquire this hard to find version of the 822 Foden 10-ton truck. It has the smooth cab roof and is excellent condition. The box has some rubbing marks on the lid but otherwise is in good condition. 

The date on the inside of the lid appears to be 01454.

 

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Chris

Delighted to hear that you too have acquired an example (and a mighty fine one at that) of this uncommon variation.  Thank you too for including a picture of the quality inspection stamp. It actually reads GU 4 54. The month is identical to my example as well as many others.  Interesting that a model WITH the ridge lines was also quality inspected the same month, its quality inspection stamp being EZ 454. So obviously, both castings were going down the assembly line at the same time, or rather during the same month.

You will also see the casting variation on the chassis behind the cab and hopefully your model does have this difference as well. By the way, does the box have an original price written anywhere?

Kind regards

Bruce  (#150)

7 December 2015

 

dinkyfan's picture
dinkyfan
Offline
DTCA MemberUSA

Just a brief followup to this interesting discussion of the Foden 10 ton Army Truck.  Here is another, very good image of the earlier DG Foden, appearing to be the real Foden 10 Ton Army Truck.  As Dave has pointed out, apparently Meccano decided to go with the newer design/look instead of modeling what was actually used by the army.

      Regards,  Terry

 

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Terry

Thanks for adding this image, and thanks to Dave B for his vital contribution.

Bruce (150)

7 December 2015

Chris1
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Bruce,

Thanks for your comments. There is no price on the box but I think there must have been a price sticker on the top right-hand corner of the lid where it is damaged. I did also see the difference in the casting behind the cab which you pointed out in an earlier post.

Referring to the earlier posts about the fact that this toy only ever had standard wheels instead of Supertoy wheels, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to create a version that did have Supertoy wheels.

Having a well played-with 622 I cut off the axles and wheels and replaced them with the axles and wheels from a wrecked 661 Recovery Tractor. Initially, as suggested by Jacques, I did leave the front standard wheels and just replaced the rear wheels - see photo 1. Then I replaced these with the Supertoy wheels - see photos 2& 3. It certainly gives the model a more rugged look.

Chris

Dinkinius's picture
Dinkinius
Offline
AustraliaDTCA Member

Chris

You are quite correct in that the substitution of the ST ridged hubs with ST grooved hubs certainly makes the model more rugged and "militarily" looking, which begs the question, "why didn't Meccano use their ST Grooved hubs on a model that was later classified as a Supertoys anyhow??!! 

Add that one to the ever-growing list of questions concerning decisions made by the Company!

Kind regards

Bruce  (#150)

7 December 2015

Richard's picture
Richard
Offline
DTCA MemberFrance

Hi Friends.

Here under is my contribution.

Unfortunately, no smooth roof !cryingcrying ! ... for the moment !wink

One driver is late !!cool

 

Pages