Wall weighbridge to be examined
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IISTRATES at Lichfield, Staffordshire were to visit the site of lynamic axle weigher at Wall this week in a case where it is led that the construction of the weighbridge prevents it from hing accurately.
lest Thorpe and Son of viand, Sheffield, has deoverloading the second of an articulated outfit by g, some 8.2 per cent (CM, ber 29).
chael Mottershead, an area ng standards officer, said he verified the accuracy of the weighbridge in October , May 1983, and November without finding any faults. reply to Martin Cowell, deing, Mr Mottershead agreed the Code of Practice for dyic weighing had not been plied with in that there was er than six months between Pf the tests.
idence was given by traffic liners of tests carried out at Nall weighbridge when two .3Ies were weighed and the s of the apron had been deately altered by as much as m. The weight variations resulted were still well in the laid down tolerances us or minus 150kg per axle. ;onard Mills, the traffic miner who weighed the ple in the alleged offence, ed he had not checked the s of the apron before the k. However, he said that he checked the apron, the hbeam, and the side plates for any sign of damage or misalignment.
The managing director of Weigh rite, Leonard Gorman said he had been the project leader of the team that had developed and designed dynamic axle weighers. He had visited the Wall site and there was nothing about the condition of the apron or the postioning of the weighbeam that caused him any concern.
Asked to explain differences in the weight of the same axle of a test vehicle when run over the weighbridge in different directions, Mr Gorman said there was no such thing as an absolutely flat surface and the vehicle would be resting on different pieces of concrete when travelling in different directions.
In addition axles of a vehicle changed weight to an extent owing to such factors as vibration and the working of the springs. Many dynamic weighbridge sites had been constructed with levels outside the plus or minus 3mm tolerance referred to in the Code of Practice, yet those sites gave accurate readings within the limits laid down day by day.
Questioned about differences of eight, 12 and 13 mm in the levels of the apron said to have been found by a surveyor employed by the defence, Mr Gorman said it was certainly not like that when he visited the site in October.
The hearing was adjourned until December 13_