The operator's viewpoint .
Page 68
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MR. .1. E. FARLEY presented the first paper in this section of the proceedings and confined his remarks to vehicles over 12 tons gross.
The objective of Tate and Lyle, he said, was to comply with all the legal requirements adequately, and if necessary to maintain a higher standard at an economic rate. The aim entailed understanding the requirements of the law, how it affected the fleet, standards of performance currently achieved and recommendations for what must be done to comply. Particular attention had to be paid to effects on productivity and maintenance, total costs, both long and short term, capital allocation needed and the effect of the replacement programme.
Annual testing, maintenance records and plating were dealt with by Mr. Farley. On plating, he said that the London area seemed poorly served by testing stations although the ones proposed would be of large capacity and should be able to cope. The actual test would in the main be visual, but should not place too much reliance on human judgment. To minimise the chance of rejection, vehicles should be checked before the test and the chassis cleaned.
Additional costs in labour and equipment were entailed and Mr. Farley listed the expected expenditure of putting a single vehicle through a test. It totalled £36 10s.— £2,600 a year for a 100-vehicle fleet excluding any rectification work or retesting. Brake testing equipment was essential, he said. A simple meter cost £.23 and a roller-brake tester £2,250.
Mr. Farley pleaded for guidance from the MoT and its assessment of a "suitably qualified person" as referred to in the maintenance-records clauses of the Road Safety Act. He said that the vague wording of the Act must be causing concern.
In efforts to find out what was the existing position in the Tate and Lyle fleet with regard to braking requirements, tests had been carried out on samples and the results were pleasantly surprising. Tests on vehicles loaded first with a normal payload for today and then with the gross weight at the expected maximum showed a 10 per cent improvement at the lower weight.
Mr. Farley said the main job on braking was to find out the picture for the existing fleet and then to decide what had to be done. The interim standards were such that most should meet the requirements on the service brake at least, but deciding what to do for the full standards and the secondary brake required careful thought. The Tate and Lyle view was that in general it was worth modifying any vehicle purchased after 1962 to full standards. But if the date for this was 1975—not 1972 as was rumoured—the need for major conversion was reduced. It was necessary to make sure an operator was not recommended to take drastic action by a manufacturer with vested interests in encouraging unnecessary chassis changes. SOME OF the points made in the first paper covering the operator's viewpoint were referred to also by Mr. L. G. Reed who commented mainly on the greater part of his own fleet, composed of 5, 7 and 8 tons payload four-wheelers. When the main provisions of the latest C. and U. Regulations and the Road Safety Bill became known, UBM Transport, like other companies, reviewed the position in depth. To establish standards, weight and brake checks were made on various types of vehicle. For the most part results were as expected but there were some surprises.
There was not much cause for concern with the 5-to nners but there were problems to be solved with the 7and 8-ton capacity trucks. Rear-axle overloading was a problem and the solution of using longerwheelbase chassis was not always acceptable because of considerations such , as manoeuvrability in confined areas and building sites. The 8-ton vehicle appeared to be the answer to the problem in this class.
A very real factor now presented by the plating of heavier two-axle rigids—not so evident in the fighter machines—was possible axle overloading. At present, providing the legal maximum gross weight was not exceeded and the vehicle not loaded dangerously, the law was satisfied. But with fully effective plating there would be axle-weight limits as well as a gross limit. Quite a number of operators needed to look at loading methods, particularly those in multi-delivery work. It was possible under some circumstances with certain classes of vehicle, that although legal at the start of a trip the front axle could be overloaded during the day if loads at the rear were removed first.
Larger-capacity vehicles might be required when plating was effective. It was certain, said Mr. Reed, that all solutions would increase transport costs. A typical example was a tipper operator using a vehicle weighing 4.25 tons to carry 9.75 tons. Legal gross rating when plated would be 11.25 tons, The resultant loss of 2.75 tons payload, or 28 per cent, meant seven plated vehicles would be needed to do the work of five trucks on the old basis.
Another way in which plating would affect operators was frequent weighing. His company anticipated some vehicles would be weighed perhaps two or three times a day instead of going over a weighbridge only once in their existence. Methods were being investigated to enable frequent check weighs to be made, Weighbridges could only be considered where the concentration of trucks warranted the cost of installation and UBM Transport had numerous small fleets of five or six vehicles in small towns where there was no public facility. Portable wheel weighing equipment was the answer— although it was felt that eventually load cells built into the spring pads on each axle would give the best results as they would enable the driver to read off the individual weights from a dial in the cab. If the cost was economic it would be feasible, said Mr. Reed, reminding his listeners that the maximum penalty for overloading, which was now £200, made some form of insurance necessary.
DETAILS OF action taken by Shell-Mex and BP to meet the new braking and plating regulations were given by Mr. F. K. Farquharson in his paper. Dealing in general terms, he said that planning of the work needed required consideration of the following points:—
(1) To discover what was required.
(2) To establish how much time was available to meet the requirements.
(3) To establish actual current braking performance where any doubt existed.
(4) To consult with manufacturers as to their suggested modifications to braking systems.
(5) To survey the age and performance of the existing fleet to establish certain factors: (a) By age and performance which vehicles should be withdrawn before the onset of annual testing.
(b) Which vehicles of lesser age justified expenditure, to meet the interim standards.
(c) Those newer and still adequate vehicles worthy of modification to the final standards.
(6) As the result of the foregoing to estimate the cost of the modifications.
Mr. Farquharson was grateful for the extension of the interim braking requirement period beyond 1972 as some vehicles would be out of his fleet by then. But the final decision on application of the final standards must soon be made available since the present atmosphere of uncertainty did not help in forecasting costs and replacement programmes.
Like the other speakers, Mr. Farquharson said that his company had tested vehicles at full operating weight to ascertain the situation: he was surprised that some manufacturers had been unable to indicate laden braking performance for individual models. Manufacturers had been dealt with direct to ascertain conversion requirements and although planning had begun early, progress was to date reported as being so slow that Shell-Mex and BP "cannot hope to be ready by New Year 1968".
It had been made clear by the larger manufacturers of heavy vehicles that they were prepared to carry out prototype modification but that their service facilities could not deal with a large influx.
Even at this late date prices for parts kits and man-hour times were still not available but his own feelings were that his Group would spend about £80,000.
He dealt specifically with the work needed to be carried out on certain articulated vehicles. Smaller-size artics quoted required none or relatively minor modification to meet the interim standards but major work was felt to be required on some 30 AEC Mandator tractive units with tank semitrailers having Carrimore running gear. Pre-1965 Scammell Highwayman artics were said to present the greatest difficulty and the manufacturers were said to "feel they have a solution".
Mr. Farquharson was hopeful that the proposals might enable the achievement of the final brake standards and if this was the case heavy expenditure on early vehicle replacement would be avoided. It was hoped to have a prototype modified soon but due to the usual lack of special parts, and taking account of the number of vehicles involved, he could not hope to have all the outstanding modifications to this section of the fleet completed by the end of the year.