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 
letters
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
We welcome letters for publication on transport topics. Address them to Commercial Motor, 40 Bowling Green Lane, London, EC1.
Breakdown vehicles
We have been very interested in the various letters published recently in Commercial Motor on breakdown vehicles, especially that of Mr. Jackson of Dial-Holmes (England) Ltd. (CM January 30) where he ridicules the article by your Mr. R. Cater on our vehicle (CM January 2).
Although we agree with many of the points raised by him, we feel that his letter is as misleading as some of his vehicle advertisements. In his letter he states (quite correctly) "A purchaser who buys a 3-ton breakdown vehicle expects it to lift 3 tons, without the use of five railway sleepers to hold the back up". We wonder how many sleepers we would require had we purchased the 40-ton vehicle that Dial-Holmes advertised in CM December 12, 1969. The old saying is very true—people living in glasshouses should not throw stones. Apparently Mr. J. Beard (CM February 13) has the same views.
A large proportion of our breakdown jobs need a suspended tow and having this in mind, we produced this unit to cope with the problem. The fact that it may or may not be necessary to invest £7,000 to accomplish this is entirely irrelevant: much depends upon the extent of the working equipment and ancillary "tools" carried on the back, and to a greater extent, the safety factors necessary to cope with present-day vehicles and road conditions.
Mr. Jackson will appreciate the fact that the vehicle in question was selected by us for the purpose and converted in our own works with no intention of making a resale and without the need for "cheese-paring".
The safety of all concerned was the first consideration and the ability to tackle most jobs a close second.
Many times in the past we have seen "breakdown vehicles" with nothing more on the back than a length of chain and a shackle—(evidently purchased without the "optional extras").
Although the rated capacity of our T.F.L Hydraulic Crane is 20 tons maximum lift, we appreciate that adapting this to actual working conditions means losses of no mean proportions. If it were possible to jack the rear end effectively and to obtain a clear direct lift, this capacity would undoubtedly be possible. But being realistic, perfect conditions never exist in this occupation and no type of "A frame" or trapeze sticking out from the tailboard will achieve this.
We have completed a positive controlled test by hoisting a 10-ton load dragging against angled sleepers, without rear jacks, which gives a clear indication of its potential. A 6-ton load was also lifted without jacks, with a fully extended boom giving a clear 8ft from the back and still steerable. These are the sort of circumstances that are likely to be encountered.
This we think is the crux of the problem and we would only add that some agreement ought to be worked out where the deadweight lift is calculated at some distance behind the rear of the vehicle as we do not think that a lift over the tailgate is practicable.
P. HOUSTON, Managing Director, The Criton Engineering Co. Ltd Grays, Essex
Recovery claims
In answering Mr. Beard's letter (CM February 13). I can only hope that he never has the misfortune to break down anywhere near the Forton Service area on the M6, because whether "Mary Anne" wears "falsies" or not there is nothing false about her performance, as any of her operators will readily explain to Mr. Beard.
I am glad you published his letter because it serves to emphasize why I wrote to you in the first place—to point out the considerable lack of understanding that exists about claims made for recovery vehicles.
You will note in his letter the words "they also claimed a lift-and-tow of 4/40 tons". We have never claimed a lift-and-tow capacity of 40 tons. We do have a wrecker which, if bolted to a test bed, will lift a test load of 40 tons, but we cannot find a vehicle big enough or tough enough on which to mount it Frankly, as all our wreckers are made with at least a 25 per cent safety margin we do not bother to distinguish between American or English tons.
Any of my salesmen working a long day at the Earls Court Show can be forgiven for treating flippantly any man who merely wants to pass the time of day with them, having previously said he is not going to buy, by asking rather theoretical and indeed hypothetical questions.
On one point Mr. Beard has certainly got his "finger on a soft spot" for we were claiming a 40-ton recovery capacity for our 850 wrecker but because the British Factory Act lays down more stringent requirements for wire rope breaking strain than our American manufacturing friends, we did reduce our claim to 36 tons to comply with the Trade Descriptions Act. Before Mr. Beard buys himself a drink to celebrate he should remember that our wrecker will lift 40 tons just the same, but we don't like to boast about it.
I really don't know who Mr. Beard is or what he is, but if at any time he feels that this company is making unrealistic claims for our recovery vehicles—and I must admit that at times they do seem to be slightly exaggerated, but then our wreckers are, after all, the best—if he likes to come here by appointment and witness a test on our dynamometer and if we cannot live up to our claims I will give him a wrecker and he can find out the rest for himself. WM. C. JACKSON,
Managing Director, Dial-Holmes (England) Ltd, Hertford. [This correspondence is now concluded–Ed.]