Weights of Light Eight-wheelers
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Not Accepted by Mr. Hanlon
FROM G. DUNCAN JEWELL—NEWCASTLE, Monday ("LA1MS that an engineer employed by K. and B. Motors (Newcastle), Ltd., had successfully produced lightweight eight-wheelers of approximately 54 tons unladen and capable of carrying up to 16 tons, led to a clash on the question of witnesses between Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, and Mr. J. Croft, representing McPhees Newcastle), Ltd.
Mr. Hanlon had called on the company, to show cause why special A icences for five vehicles should not be revoked or suspended because of veight discrepancies. British Railways and British Road Services, Ltd., thjected to an application for a public A licence for the vehicles concerned.
4r. Croft said that at the original hear. on November 25, 1958 (The Cornvial Motor, November 28) the LicensAuthority tendered evidence from y Motors, Ltd., that the unladen ght of an Invincible chassis-cab was ms 12 cwt. It had since emerged that was overstated by a ton.
(the five vehicles, three, the unladen ;hts of which were originally around tons, had been fitted with heavier s and springs and a second floor, )1ving increases of 1 ton 13 cwt., 1 ton :wt. and 2 tons 1 cwt. The other two fly came within the scope of the iiry. One involved an increase of ;wt. and the other was 5 cwt. below original special A weight.
Much Correspondence eferring to a Mr. Block, an engineer loyed by K. and B. Motors, Mr. !t said that despite much correspont, his claims regarding lightweight cles were not believed by Guy ors until they had seen what could one.
trne of the ideas had since been incorted in the Guy Light Warrior speciat 6 tons unladen with a payload of ons, one of which McPhees had :ht. Unfortunately it would not carry ons of steel and heavy machinery 3u.t such damage as to make maintenuneconomic.
terations to McPhees' other light -wheelers had been done by thems for the same reasons, and although McPhee, who was responsible for all transactions, had since died, they no reason to suppose there was any Rion by K. and B. after delivery.
Vehicles Safer :. W. Armstrong, McPhees' manager, he vehicles had always carried from tons and were still doing so. The tions had made the vehicles safer. . P. Kershaw, for the British TransCommission, said that in view of latement and weighbills produced, was no apparent increase in carryapacity and the objection would thdrawn.
Hanlon commented, that he did elieve a vehicle of 54 tons unladen apable of carrying 16 tons. Makers' ications were approximately double nladen weight. If these statements being put as evjdence, Mr. Block i be called.
Mr. Croft replied that it was the Licensing Authority's case and he should seek the information from K. and B. Motors. He added that he had not yet heard on what grounds Mr. Hanlon proposed to revoke or suspend the licences. There was nothing set out in the Licensing Authority's letter and it was therefore irregular.
Mr. Hanlon said that it was on the question of a false statement of fact, or intention or expectation under Section 9 (4) of the 1953 Act. It was impossible to tell which until the facts were known. All that was certain was the vehicles were being operated at a greater weight. than specified.
On the information from Guy Motors, the vehicles must have been altered. If a chassis-cab weighed 6 tons 114 cwt., how could it be registered, with a body, at 5 tons 9 cwi?
Asked whether he accepted the amended figures supplied by Guy Motors, Mr. Croft replied that he did not.
Adjourning the inquiry, Mr. Hanlon said he was not going to let the case run on indefinitely, but the attendance of Mr. Block and a witness from Guy Motors would be sought.