The Home-Built Era

Following both World Wars, large numbers of military vehicles became available through government surplus sales. Some were purchased by garages and recovery operators, particularly heavier vehicles originally designed for military recovery duties. The logic was simple: if a vehicle could recover a tank, it was unlikely to struggle with a commercial vehicle.

Most recovery equipment, however, was not bought ready-made. It was built by the operators themselves. Many early recovery vehicles consisted of little more than a simple jib, a block and tackle, and whatever ingenuity the owner could bring to the task.

Some operators became remarkably skilled fabricators, constructing coachbuilt bodies, purpose-made lockers and storage systems for tow poles, chains and equipment. Maintenance was usually carried out by the driver between call-outs, and many considered themselves fortunate if the workshop foreman allowed them a small corner of the garage in which to work.

The photographs below show a typical example. A second-hand Dodge pickup had its original rear body removed before a new recovery body was fabricated and fitted. A crane was then installed, the wiring completed and the vehicle prepared for painting.

The second image shows the finished vehicle operating on the M25 only hours before that section of motorway was opened. Such projects were not unusual. At the time, garages still routinely fitted exhaust systems, replaced windscreens and even relined brake shoes in-house. Building and improving recovery vehicles was simply another extension of those same engineering skills.

Operators took great pride in their creations. Successful ideas were quickly copied, modified and improved by others within the industry. Engines were often upgraded, and one popular 1970s modification involved replacing the Ford Transit V4 petrol engine with the larger V6. By fitting a diesel Transit front panel and moving the radiator forward, operators discovered there was just enough room to install the more powerful engine.

The Innovators

As the recovery industry grew, a number of engineering companies began producing equipment specifically designed for vehicle recovery. While many operators continued to build and modify their own vehicles, specialist suppliers increasingly provided cranes, winches and other equipment that could be adapted for recovery work.

One of the earliest and best-known names was Harvey Frost Ltd of Great Portland Street, London. The company had been supplying lifting equipment since the early years of the twentieth century, with many of its products manufactured by Ernest Lake Ltd.

Among the most famous products was the legendary Harvey Frost Cat 21 Pick-Up Crane, which became a familiar sight on Land Rovers and light recovery vehicles throughout Britain.

The photographs above show two very different examples of Harvey Frost equipment. On the left is a Cat 21 crane mounted on a Land Rover, while on the right is a prototype heavy-lift crane photographed before it was sold to the BBC.

Harvey Frost was not alone. Other notable British names included Mann Egerton, which remained active until becoming part of Westinghouse Brake and Signal in 1964, and Eagle Engineering of Warwick. Across the Atlantic, American manufacturers such as Manley Manufacturing and Ernest Holmes were also developing equipment that would influence recovery operators around the world.

Although much of the industry's equipment was still being built in local workshops, the foundations of a specialist recovery equipment industry were beginning to emerge.

An Industry Is Born

In the early years, most recovery operators built their own vehicles and equipment. Cranes were often fabricated in the workshop, recovered from military vehicles or adapted from equipment designed for other purposes. Bodies were folded, welded and painted locally, often by the same coachbuilders who repaired accident-damaged vehicles.

As the industry expanded, demand grew for professionally manufactured recovery equipment. Operators increasingly wanted ready-made solutions that could be fitted to their vehicles rather than built from scratch.

One of the most influential figures in this transition was Bill Jackson. In 1964 he launched Dial-Holmes, combining the resources of his plant hire business, Dial-Mec, with products imported from the American recovery equipment manufacturer Holmes.

Ten years later the company evolved into the legendary Wreckers International Ltd of Hertford. Under Jackson's leadership it became one of the best-known names in the industry and would eventually reverse the traditional flow of ideas by exporting British-designed recovery equipment back to the United States.

Dial-Holmes could supply everything from a rotating beacon to a fully equipped heavy recovery vehicle. While many customers assumed the company manufactured everything itself, much of the equipment was actually produced by specialist engineering firms, allowing Dial-Holmes to concentrate on design, development and innovation.

Other companies also recognised the growing opportunities within the recovery sector. Brimec (UK) Ltd of Bristol produced some of Britain's first large-scale production slide-back bodies. Originally intended for plant transport, recovery operators quickly recognised their potential.

Suppliers such as Weaver Manufacturing and Engineering found increasing demand for cranes, dollies and trailers, while companies including Dixon-Bate, Tracel Fabrications, Logan Tiffin, Ryders International, Braden Winch and Tennant Motor Services all contributed equipment and expertise to the rapidly expanding industry.

The Underlift Revolution

One of the most significant developments in heavy vehicle recovery was the arrival of the underlift. Today the concept is taken for granted, but when the first examples appeared they represented a major change in recovery techniques.

Looking back on the period, Mike Cowan of Cowan Transport Engineering says with a smile:

"They were an under-funded back-street comedians from Newport Pagnell who became the first (and probably only) UK importers of the BRO heavy under-lifts from Sweden in the early 1980s."

The BRO units were almost identical to the EKA range that would later be built under licence on Foden chassis for the British Army. Cowan Transport Engineering imported a variety of models ranging from large 30-tonne units supplied to operators such as Cowan Motor Group and West Midlands Fire Service, down to smaller 6, 4 and 2-tonne units.

Some were assembled in Sweden on British chassis shipped overseas, while others arrived in kit form and were completed in the United Kingdom.

Mike recalls that before the arrival of the first BRO unit in 1979, the only heavy underlift operating in Britain was a 20-tonne EKA mounted on a Volvo F88 and operated by Dawson Freight, the Volvo dealer at Leighton Buzzard.

"With almost nothing but dozens of Holmes 750s around, nobody had seen anything like them before."

The introduction of these vehicles marked the beginning of a revolution in heavy recovery. Bill Jackson quickly recognised their potential and soon began developing his own range of underlifts at Wreckers International.

The Major Suppliers

As demand for specialist recovery equipment increased, a growing number of manufacturers and suppliers entered the market. Some built complete recovery vehicles, while others specialised in cranes, trailers, lifting systems, winches, lighting or ancillary equipment.

Notable names included:

• Boniface Engineering – Thetford
• Bushey Hall – Hertfordshire
• Crane Fruehauf – Kings Lynn
• D G McAllister – Aldershot (MFC Air Cushions and, for a period, Mobi-Jack)
• Edbro – London
• Hazelwood Engineering – trailer manufacture, particularly for the AA and RAC
• Heyflake Systems – Newbury (transporters used extensively by the AA)
• Marquiss of Scotland – manufacturer of the famous "Fagin" transporter
• Peter Cosby – Lincolnshire
• Sedelmayer – UK supplier of the German-built Move It range
• TY-Rite Ltd – Basingstoke (webbing straps and later the Danish-built Easylift range of spectacle lifts)
• Willingham's of Thorngumbald – manufacturers of Mora recovery equipment supplied through CVE Limited of Farnham
• Roger Dyson Recovery Systems

It was of the Marquiss of Scotland "Fagin" transporter that Ernest Smith famously remarked: "Ten Thousand Rivets travelling in close formation down the M1."

Together these companies helped transform recovery from a largely workshop-built activity into a specialist industry supported by dedicated manufacturers and suppliers.

Operator Safety

In the 1960s and early 1970s, recovery operators thought little about their own safety. The job was widely accepted as dangerous and few people considered that much could be done to reduce the risks. Experience, quick reactions and a healthy respect for passing traffic were often regarded as the only real protection.

Many operators developed their own unwritten survival techniques. If tyres screeched behind you while working beside a busy road, there was little time to look around. The safest reaction was often to move first and ask questions later.

The AA and RAC had long provided their patrols with distinctive uniforms. The AA's military-style outfit (left) was often regarded as less glamorous than the RAC's RAF-inspired equivalent (right), although AA patrols generally considered it warmer, drier and better suited to the realities of roadside work. In time, even RAC patrols were issued with a heavy overcoat that became highly prized throughout the trade.

Motorcycle patrols were additionally equipped with gloves and basic crash helmets. Attempts were made to encourage the use of reflective strips and later reflective waistcoats, but these were often ignored.

It was not until the mid-1980s that the hard shoulder services began recording and analysing the number of fatalities occurring on Britain's roads. The figures revealed a worrying picture and prompted a much more serious examination of operator safety.

Statistics released by the Health and Safety Executive in 2004 reported that three out of five serious motorway incidents involved a broken-down vehicle on the hard shoulder. One trade association estimated that between four and eight recovery operators or patrols lost their lives each year while carrying out their duties.

The dangers faced by recovery operators can be seen in the photograph below, taken in 1983. While reflective jackets had begun to appear, many quickly became covered in oil, dirt and road grime, reducing their effectiveness.

Life On The Edge

It became increasingly clear that improvements in safety equipment alone would not solve the problem. Operators needed better training and a greater understanding of the risks they faced while working at the roadside.

In response, representatives from the recovery industry, the motoring organisations and the Institute of Vehicle Recovery (IVR) collaborated to produce a series of training films. Funding was provided largely by the motoring organisations.

The result was a highly influential series entitled Life On The Edge. Combining practical instruction with realistic roadside scenarios, the films highlighted the dangers recovery operators encountered every day and demonstrated safer working practices.

To date, seven programmes have been produced and it is fair to say that they have helped save many lives. Those involved in creating them can be justifiably proud of the contribution they made to improving safety standards throughout the industry.

A New Look for Safety

By the early 1990s it had become clear that improved training alone was not enough. Recovery operators needed protective clothing designed specifically for the unique hazards of roadside recovery work.

In October 1994, Frank McAllister, then Chairman of the industry's Standards and Safety Committee, began championing the idea of a recognisable national safety image for recovery operators. This would include both protective clothing and suitable head protection.

Frank later recalled that ideas came from every corner of the industry. While there was broad agreement that change was needed, there was considerably less agreement on what that change should look like.

Helmet design proved particularly contentious. Many operators still preferred the familiar construction-site helmet, while others questioned whether specialist protective equipment was necessary at all. As Frank remembers, there was even a degree of what he described as "big girlie" opposition to the proposed designs.

After what seemed like countless meetings, attitudes began to change and support gradually grew for a dedicated recovery industry standard.

The results of those discussions can be seen in the centre of the uniform comparison image shown earlier. The modern recovery operator's clothing bears little resemblance to the attire worn by AA and RAC patrols during previous decades.

The new helmet incorporated a secure chin strap, ensuring it remained in place during an impact. It also featured a shatter-resistant visor that could be raised or lowered depending upon the task being undertaken.

Compare the 1983 recovery scene shown earlier with the modern protective clothing displayed in the centre of the image above and the change is immediately apparent. Recovery operators were becoming more visible, better protected and far more aware of the risks they faced.

The helmet shown in the centre image is actually the first prototype production unit. Frank proudly wore it at trade shows, official events and, as he jokingly recalls, "opening supermarkets". The accompanying two-piece uniform was one of a popular range manufactured by Dickies (UK) Ltd and supplied through Cardno Ltd.

Seen To Be Safe

Protecting the recovery operator is important, but giving approaching motorists advance warning can be equally valuable. The sooner drivers become aware that something unusual is happening ahead, the more time they have to react safely.

The simplest way to achieve this was to switch on an amber warning beacon while approaching or working at an incident. Although now taken for granted, warning lights have evolved considerably over the years.

Until the 1970s, many recovery vehicles that carried a warning beacon used a single Lucas rotating light similar to the example shown here. Some operators did not even have that and relied entirely upon the awareness of passing motorists.

Early Lucas beacons used the same 21-watt filament bulbs found in vehicle indicator and brake lamps. They provided reasonable warning at night but were far less effective in daylight. Being a single rotating light, it only took a tree, road sign or lamp post to obscure the warning from approaching traffic. Later versions adopted more powerful halogen bulbs, greatly improving visibility. The drawback was increased electrical consumption, particularly when vehicles were left idling at incident scenes for long periods.

The webmaster still remembers driving an Instant Services of Surbiton Ford Anglia service van fitted with two small rubber-mounted truck indicators on the roof. Positioned like a pair of Mickey Mouse ears, they served as warning lights of a sort, although their effectiveness was open to debate.

During the 1970s, dual-head and later four-head warning units began arriving from the United States. These were followed by the first full-width lightbars, providing a far larger illuminated area and making it much more difficult for warning lights to disappear behind roadside obstacles.

British manufacturers soon entered the market. Britax produced an economical fibreglass lightbar, while companies such as Tennant Motor Services began manufacturing British versions of the American systems they were already importing.

Unfortunately, brighter lights brought new problems. Electrical consumption increased dramatically, with some systems drawing more than 50 amps. Even with the engine running, it was possible to flatten a battery surprisingly quickly — not something any operator wanted to discover on a winter night high on the Yorkshire Moors.

Modern warning systems solve many of these problems through the use of LED (Light Emitting Diode) technology. LEDs produce intense, highly visible light while consuming only a fraction of the electrical power required by earlier systems.

Today's lightbars often incorporate additional features such as rear warning displays, directional arrows and powerful scene lighting. The modern unit shown above even includes integrated work lights, allowing operators to illuminate the recovery scene safely while remaining highly visible to approaching traffic.