Weighbridge verdict soon
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE CONTROVERSY over the accuracy of the dynamic weighbridge at Wall in Staffordshire will be resolved on March 21 when Lichfielc magistrates will announce theil decision on an overloadinE charge against Ernest Thorp( and Company.
The company of Thurgoland Sheffield denies exceeding thE permitted weight of the seconc axle of an articulated outfit t:h 839kg — about 8.2 per cent (CA December 24, 1983).
Geologist Charles Roscoe saic that in his opinion the sites hac not reached full settlement yet Reinforced concrete could benc and if the bearing capacity wa; inadequate the slabs making ut the apron would rock.
Evidence was given by Briai Thorpe, the company's manag ing director, that when th, vehicle was weighed befor. starting its journey at the Britisl Steel Corporation works a Tinsley, the train weight hal been 6 90kg less than tha recorded at Wall.
Evidence was given concerr ing the method of weighing an the accuracy of the Tinsle weighbridge by employees c British Steel.
Definding, Martin Cawell sai that failures to comply with th code of practice in relation to th level of the apron at Wall thre; doubt on the accuracy of th weighbridge.
Even in tests carried out by th prosecution discrepancies of a much as 600kg had ariser which showed that th weighbridge was not operatin within the laid-down tolerance of plus or minus 150kg. No e; planation had been offered as t how those discrepancies arose.
The tests had shown that was possible to weigh a vehicl travelling in one direction with 150kg excess yet when weighe travelling in the opposite dire. tion the excess was 410kg.
Prosecuting for the West Mi lands Licensing Authority, Pet Wiseman said that the code practice was a non-statutory d cument and it was only an aid.