Ah yes, happy days, the legendary Highwayman. Mine must have been slightly later than that though as it’s front mudguards were flat across the top of the wheel, maybe with the headlights incorporated. 
Didn’t the two styles run alongside each other? One for general haulage and the other for heavy offroad stuff?
Highwayman, what a strange looking truck. The barest, minimum of required parts assembled with the entire styling budget spent on the windscreen. 
1 Like
I don’t know, I always assumed the posher, more complete versions were an improvement and therefore, later.
1 Like
Apparently you could have either. The cycle-type mudguards steered with the front wheels and were favoured by operators like Pickfords because they were more manoeverable in tight spaces.
Next time I get into a tight spot in a pub argument, I’ll remember to whip out my Scammell mudguards.
My cup runneth over. 
Is Sid Harrison at Rotherham still running his? Surely not, a real enthusiast if ever there was one. 
BTW some, or many(?), of the tankermen had their trailers bolted to the frame didn’t they? No landing legs.
A lot of them used the old-fashioned Scammell couplings when more modern designs were already on the scene, so perhaps it made sense to stick with one trailer. But I suspect the real reason was the combination of the set-back cab and that very short wheelbase, which meant that most trailers would foul on the back of the cab no matter what coupling they had.
Where would the legs be on those set ups? Would they be set so far back, to clear the rear of unit, that the trailer would be unstable when dropped? So fixed legs would be useless??
1 Like
Scammell legs automatically folded back as the unit slid underneath IIRC. Legs in usual place.
could never understand why leyland didn’t opt for that face lift and them wings look rot proff. Surly that face lift would of worked.
Good point. So, they could be mounted further forward than fixed legs.
My FiL reckoned they were handy, if you were sneaking up a one way street, the wrong way, then saw a copper. 
1 Like
I have driven lighter units with those automatic couplings, but not sure that was what the tankers I saw had. I had the distinct impression that there were no legs at all because I saw one that had been dropped on oil drums. Could have been a one off I suppose.
My brother and I, starting our small haulage business were offered a Redline with a 33 foot light stepframe van trailer by my former employer, W.E. Andrew and Son, for £500, £100 down and paid off over 4 months, but we turned him down because, with the Scammell coupling, we would be hindered if we ever needed to hire a trailer.
Yes, there were some Scammell Handyman units that were married to their trailers and had no landing legs. Mostly though I think they did, if for the only reason that if you needed to run the unit into a workshop you could discard the trailer.
Here’s one:
This one appears to have Scammell coupling but you can still just see the landing legs.
The Scammell Scarab versatility along with trailer coupling explained in detail.
1 Like
Always thought the tankers had no landing legs so they couldn’t be dropped just in case the front pot was still loaded.
The film shows that the reason they appear to have no landing legs is simply because they are not easily visible when retracted.