1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
READERS WRITE
Page 99
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Tri-axle tankers WE WERE very interested to read in your section "Readers Write" on March 31 about the 3-axle tank trailer of Vaux Breweries which is claimed to be the first of its kind in operation.
Mr. E. G. Cork, of London W.13, stated that some weeks before Christmas he was engaged in an extended demonstration for Wincanton Transport Services, and it appears that Mr. Cork is under the impression that this was the first of its kind.
The facts of the matter are that by the end of October 1966, this company had supplied the first tri-axle tank used for heavy oil to a firm called Tanker Hire Ltd., of Scunthorpe. This unit was quickly followed by a further five which have all been in continuous service since well before Christmas.
To the best of our knowledge, we were, in fact, the first company in this country to supply tri-axle tankers for use in this country, and we would be very interested to learn if any other readers can better this delivery date.
A. A. PICK, sales manager, HWP Engineering Co. Ltd., Doncaster Overcoming that 'omission' THREE TIMES in the last five years the Transport Tribunal have refused to hear appeals because of what has been called a technicality or omission in the Road Traffic Act, Section 176(2).
On these three occasions the appeals had been made by licenceholders who had applied to vary licences which were about to expire and which did in fact expire before the appeals were heard. On all occasions applications had been made for continuation of the licences without variation. Presumably these applications for renewal had been accepted without question and published as the Act demands, and since unopposed, granted without inquiry. The licences to be varied were then dead.
No doubt applicants are delighted to have such speedy and efficient service from the staff of the Licensing Authority, but one would expect that somewhere on the production line a halt could have been called since a variation had been made on the expiring licence and cannot be presumed to be cleared until the statutory period for lodging objections (one month from date of publication) has expired.
In these circumstances I am tempted to suggest that there is no omission in the Act but only in the handling of applications.
By the simple expedient of holding the application made before the expiry date—Section 175(4)—the Act can be made to work as it now stands, obviating the need for new legislation. The applicant having made an application for continuation before the expiry date has ensured that the licence will contrive beyond the expiry date until a decision is reached. I feel that this is the intention of the Act and that publication of the application for continuation of the licence should only be made when all variations outstanding have been cleared by the Licensing Authority at Higher Court.
It then follows that all continuations would be in the same terms as the expiring licence and as granted at appeal.
"TRAFFIC U S Kent Weighty question WE SHOULD like to bring to your notice statements contained in the last paragraph of your answer to the first Q and A question in COMMERCIAL MOTOR of March 31. Reading this answer it would appear that the weight differences you mention refer to engine weights, but we feel sure that these should relate to complete chassis weight differences, due in the main possibly to different gearboxes, axles. etc. For example, you state that the 6LW engine is about 4 cwt. heavier than the 5LW engine and the 6LX engine about 44 cwt. heavier than the 6LW engine. The actual differences in the engine weights shown in our catalogues are 190 lb. and 143 lb. respectively. We thought that it would be worth while bringing this to your notice, since readers of your excellent publication could be misled.
Incidentally, the same question was placed before us on February 13, probably from the same correspondent, and our reply was very similar to yours, reading as below:—
"We thank you for your letter on the subject of proposed power to weight ratios. As you obviously appreciate, this is a very difficult subject and we cannot anticipate what rules the MoT will lay down, although it is generally felt in the industry that the figure of 6 b.h.p. per ton may be used as a basis and, indeed, vehicle manufacturers to be on the safe side would advise that operators consider this figure when purchasing new vehicles.
"While the vehicle builders are in a better position to advise than we are on this subject we would consider that it would be prudent for you to fit the 6LX engine into your 24-ton plated tractor unit, although it may be worth while your taking a gamble and fitting a 5LW into the four-wheel 16-ton g.v.w.'s as it would mean only a small derating of pay load to comply with 6 b.h.p. per ton if this were made law. The 5LW engine is rated at 94 b.h.p. at 1,700 r.p.m. and at 6 b.h.p. per ton this would work out at a g.v.w. of 15.65 tons. Should you not be willing to consider removing this pay load then obviously you would have to purchase the 16-ton four-wheel rigids fitted with 6LW engines."
T. S. WOODS, Chief Contracts Engineer, L. Gardner and Sons Ltd., Manchester Open to argument The CM article "Routines and Records" (March 24) is generally extremely good. But I feel that some of the instructions given with regard to vehicle inspection are, to say the least, open to argument.
Perhaps, the most important is the instruction concerning brake adjustment. Very few, if any, modern brakes should be balanced by adjustment as suggested. Shoe adjustments are provided merely to maintain a correct shoe-to-drum clearance; any unevenness in braking can only be caused by some other feature of the actuation, whether it be by air or hydraulics. Seized expanders, oil on linings etc., will not be rectified by tightening or slackening off offending brakes.
Secondly, the suggestion that the brake back plates are drilled, although undoubtedly time-saving, could result in problems of water ingress and it should be remembered that in many cases braking loads are transmitted through back plates, so that drilling should not be carried out before consulting manufacturers.
Next, the method suggested for steering examinations: I have always found that far more faults can be located by leaving the weight of the vehicle on the front axle, than rocking the steering wheel. This will quickly show such items as loose steering box mountings and worn steering joints etc, that would easily be missed if there was no load on the components. Of course, I agree that hub bearings and swivel-pin wear can only be checked with the axle raised.
Finally, the suggestion that U belts should be tightened to the point before they yield could result in stripped threads or worse! As these items are nearly always semi-seized and corroded, they should be slacked off, lubricated, then retightened to the manufacturers' specified setting, with a torque wrench--the latter information and tools being made available to the fitter before the job is attempted.
C. ESSEX, Fox Meadows, Thundersley, Essex.