AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

South Eastbrn LA criticizes BRS system*

13th September 1974
Page 60
Page 60, 13th September 1974 — South Eastbrn LA criticizes BRS system*
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Quality, Inspection

FOR the, second titrk Within a year, Southern British Road Services Ltd last week had five vehicles curtailed from its Operators' licence for two months for poor maintenance at a public inquiry at Eastbourne.

Giving his decision, the SE Licensing Authority, Maj-Gen A. F. J. Elmslie, said that he had taken into consid4ration that the company had inherited unsatisfactory maintenance facilities and that, beino a1,vare of this,'it was taking steps to remedy the position. He appreciated that this took time. He also noted that the company had disposed of its trailers of similar type to that which had provoked the fleet inspection and subsequent inquiry.

However, said theiLA, the preventive maintenance documentation left something to be desired and the company must make up its mind as to what constituted a satisfactory procedure. During the inquiry it had become apparent that inspection and remedial action had terided to run in together so that it was not possible to determine what defects had been found, what action had been taken to remedy them and by whom both the inspection and the remedial action had been undertaken.

In evidence, vehicle inspector Mr Richard Surtees said that he had conducted a fleet, inspection in December last year, at the company's Burgess Hill depot. This had followed the discovery, at a roadside check, of one of the company's trailers on which the turinable coupling was so loose as to be liable to become detached at the next roundabout. During the fleet inspection, examination of 21 vehicles had resulted in the issue of two immediate and three delayed prohibitions. One of these involved another trailer with a loose turntable connection. The facilities at Burgess Hill were considered unsatisfactory by Mr Surtees and the documentation was not satisfactory either.

In relation to the records, Mr Surtees said that the system seemed to be to inspect the vehicles and remedy any defect where found then to tick all the items listed on the defect report as if no defect had been found.

This was contested by Mr David. Keene, appearing for Southern BRS, and two inspection sheets showing defects found and remedied were produced. However, Mr Surtees pointed out that these sheets were not signed.

Vehicle examiner Mr J. T. Lyon gave evidence of a fleet inspection at Dover in February at which a vehicle with a serious brake defect was discovered and prohibited. Mr Lyon thought that this was probably an isolated incident as no indication could be found of when the defect had occurred and the vehicle was due for its monthly inspection on the following day. However, neither the facilities nor the records at Dover were satisfactory.

Mr Jack Mather, Ind of the company, outlined its maintenance policy and said that a depot at Cuckfield had been designed to maintain the vehicles at Burgess Hill and that plans for the improvement of facilities at Dover depot had been finalized after four years negotiation with British Railways. Over £11/4m had been spent on maintenance in 1972, £1.9m in 1973 and £1.7m to date this year, said Mr Mather-.


comments powered by Disqus