[ Login ]

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

Merkwürdige Geschichten; Asashin; The Bunnyman Massacre; Motel Nana; Tôkyô zonbi; Amerikanka; Neke druge priče; Quan jia fu; Chu kwong bo hei; El abuelo tiene un plan; Hit and Run; La peau de torpédo; Youth; Premanjaly; Mala šala; (more...)

1954 Morris ¼-Ton O-Type Van ex-Royal Mail

1954 Morris ¼-Ton O-Type Van in Poor Cow, Movie, 1967 IMDB

Class: Cars, Van / MPV — Model origin: UK

1954 Morris ¼-Ton O-Type Van ex-Royal Mail

[*] Background vehicle

Comments about this vehicle

AuthorMessage

johnfromstaffs EN

2018-10-12 16:58

Quote

1954+ Morris 5cwt van built for GPO. Rubber front wings with separate headlights and downward operating windscreen wipers because these vans had an opening windscreen. No ladder brackets so post rather than telephones?

Would be worth a fortune these days.

-- Last edit: 2018-10-12 18:30:19

50sParis NL

2018-10-12 18:40

Quote

http://www.britishtelephones.com/vehicles/minorvans/003.htm

How should this be listed here, I cannot find any similar cars

johnfromstaffs EN

2018-10-12 19:33

Quote

I have always referred to these as Morris Minor 5cwt vans. However this database uses O-type and 1/4 ton, where appropriate and also where inappropriate. There are also 6cwt and 8cwt versions, and Austins, just to make life more difficult. My book also refers to these as LCVs and uses (once) Series II.

-- Last edit: 2018-10-12 19:40:21

johnfromstaffs EN

2018-10-12 22:10

Quote

johnfromstaffs wrote No ladder brackets so post rather than telephones?

Sunbar UK

2018-10-14 14:16

Quote

A very full description of the 1953-54 Post Office vans is found here, which indicates the rubber wings were only for the cheese-grater grille versions and were not used on the slatted grille versions (also confirmed on another web-site).

The origin of the 'LCV' designation and how it stacks up with 'O-series' is not clear to me it could be a continuation of the earlier LC/LC3/LC4 Morris-Commercial types but also just an abbreviation for 'light commercial van/vehicle. I can find no definite source for it.

Interesting that I can see no external rear view mirrors in the movie?

-- Last edit: 2018-10-14 14:18:05

dsl SX

2018-10-14 15:07

Quote

I've got a couple of books which suggest that LCV for 'Light Commercial Vehicles' was used internally for both Minor-derived [O] and Oxford [MO]-derived Cowley-badged commercials as a related family. LCV does not seem to be used as an external designation in any way (model names, brochures etc), but has become recognised in same way that for instance [Arrow] is used across Rootes-jewels. So LCV = [MO] plus [O], but would have become redundant after 1956 when the [MO] Cowleys stopped. However another book suggests the Oxford [MO]-derived Cowley commercials were known internally as MCV (Medium .. etc).

Sunbar UK

2018-10-14 15:19

Quote

Thank you dsl, that source for LCV for being in common usage for 'Light Commercial Vehicles' appears to be most likely.

johnfromstaffs EN

2018-10-14 17:46

Quote

It doesn’t seem to have any rear view mirrors at all. This O-Series thing intrigues me, so very few people seem to use it, try Googling “Morris O-Series” and see what you get. I have read somewhere, but can’t remember where, that it was not applicable to vehicles after the Series II.

-- Last edit: 2018-10-14 18:10:00

dsl SX

2018-10-14 19:20

Quote

^ It makes a sort of sense that O-Series name died at end of Series II as the [MO]s ceased production at that point in 1956, so [O] was no longer needed as a differentiation. "O-Type" has been useful for us to bring together all the different weight-named versions (¼-Ton, 6cwt, whatever export names applied in countries where 6cwt meant nothing) although we don't use it to best effect as it's buried in our titles after the weight designation, so the versions are scattered down the listing.

Is there an appetite to change how we do it?? If folk are thinking about change, I guess the alternatives are:
(a) do nothing. Current system works cleanly. Some people don't understand it, but there's enough of the those who do to keep things on track, and we don't have any dustbin groups of wrong entries.
(b1) keep every grouping we have now, but re-arrange order so that "O-Type" becomes the lead wording, followed by whichever version, so eg here "O-Type ¼-Ton Van" which would give weight clusters
(b2) as (b1) but putting the body before the weight so eg "O-Type Van ¼-Ton" which would give bodystyle clusters, although would fragment a bit with foreign names eg "O-Type Pakettiauto ¼-Ton", "O-Type Varebil ¼-Ton" etc
(c) replacing every O-Type title reference with the word Minor, so "Minor ¼-Ton Van" or "Minor Van ¼-Ton", depending on which order is preferred. Haven't bottomed this, but we'd need to think whether we want to match titles to car usage, so "Minor Series II ¼-Ton Van", "Minor 1000 ¼-Ton Van" and other permutations. And there might be other titular hiccups to resolve. And what would we do with the small bunch of Austins?

I don't have strong opinions for/against change here, as long as the end result is easy to use. Any changes could be done fairly easily by petitioning Sir Admin to press his magic Block Change buttons with precise wording for each heading.

johnfromstaffs EN

2018-10-14 21:08

Quote

I was merely interested to know more of the reasons why the database started to use the nomenclature.

“If it ain’t broke.......”

JCB UK

2018-10-15 08:10

Quote

One of my first few posts was on this very topic :)
/vehicle.php?id=51832

Only reason I can think to change is people searching for Moggy Van pictures may not find them.

-- Last edit: 2018-10-15 08:14:08

Add a comment

You must login to post comments...

Advertising