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 
200-ton Trailer Sought 1:1 iddle C. Cook After "Film Show"
Page 52
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFILM of heavy abnormal load movements was shown to the Northern Licensing Authority, at Stockton-on-Tees last week, when Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., Consett, Co. Durham, sought permission to license two trailers, one capable of carrying 200-ton loads. The application was adjourned.
Representing the applicants, Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw told the Authority, Mr, J. A. T. Hanlon, that his clients were asking for the trailers, one of 50 tons and the other of 40 tons unladen weight, to operate under their normal user of "plantand earth-moving equipment, engineering equipment, mobile cranes, steel rollers and other loads of exceptional weight and dimensions, steel and steelwork to and from all parts of Great Britain." Objections were made by the British Transport Commission, Sunter Brothers (Northallerton), Ltd., and R. Wynn and Sons, Ltd.
Giving evidence, Mr. S. C. Cook, managing director, said that two vehicles had been purchased on special A licences from Tees-side Carriers, Ltd., of Stockton, in 1958. Whilst their weight was not shown they weighed approximately 4 tons each—" They were not heavy trailers; just ordinary platform trailers that went behind eight wheelers," added Mr. Cook.
Mr, Wardlaw: You bought them in the knowledge that you were buying the benefit of the licences—that there was no limit to the weight of the trailers? I merely bought the licences.
Mr. Cook said that since September of last year he had been operating the heavier trailers on the licences, and he handed to the Authority figures of operations of the two trailers concerned, "in case it is going to be suggested that I have never operated such trailers under the licence," He explained that the trailers were not used every day. Altogether there were 90 trailers in the fleet and, like other operators in the heavy haulage industry, they used the trailer which was best adapted for the particular job in hand.
Asked to give details of the two trailers being applied for, Mr. Cook said that the smaller trailer was a Cranes 80-ton trailer. It did not in fact belong to the company but had been on hire from Wimpey's for the past five months "until we see what happens with this licence." He said they intended to purchase a new trailer if the application was granted.
The 50-ton trailer was made up of two 24-wheel bogies. Handing photographs of this trailer to the L.A., Mr. Wardlaw said that it might be contended that they showed not the operation of one trailer, but of two trailers. Mr. Cook insisted that the two bogies made up one outfit, even though there was no physical connection between the two other than brake cables.
Bogie to Fit Mr. Cook said that his company had in its possession a low-loader body which would fit between the two bogies and link them. Looking at a photograph which had been handed to him of a similar outfit operated by McKelvie and Co. (B.M. and P.), Ltd.. Mr. Hanlon asked whether the vehicle was articulated. Mr. Cook replied that it was in fact double articulated. Mr. Wardlaw interjected that he was of the opinion that it was "purely and simply" a trailer. The trailer was one composite unit and was not in any way superimposed on the tractor portion.
After the luncheon adjournment, the court assembled in an adjoining room where a 20-minute colour film was shown of the two trailers in operation. Questioned about the loads shown in the film, Mr. Cook said that they were carrying 60-ton girders three times a week. Some of these were 10 ft. wide and some 12 ft., but all were 100 ft. long. The maximum loads the 50-tori trailer would carry would be 100 tons, while the other one could safely carry an 80-ton load.
He agreed that, in fact, the maximum weight of trailers specified at present on the company's A licence was 20 tons, enabling them to carry 40-ton loads, but they had, in the past, carried some loads of up to 58 tons. Asked how this had been done, Mr. Cook said that they had been carried by coupling two trailers up on a make-shift basis. This was very inconvenient because the two trailers had to be spread out to the ends of the load and when they came to a corner, the load had to he jacked up to bring the trailer forward so as to negotiate the turn. They had carried about three loads like this.
• Work Might Be Lost
Mr. Wardlaw: "Are you telling the L.A. that none of the loads set out on the statement which has been put in could have been carried upon any trailer° at present authorized to you?" Mr. Cook replied that this was so. Putting it another way, if the application were not approved, then all the work which had been done by the two vehicles since September, 1960, would be "lost." He produced letters to show that he had contracted to carry similar heavy loads in the future, if the application were granted.
Mr. I. Robey, for the B.T.C. and Wynn's, said that the heavier trailer could, in fact, carry loads of 200 tons.
Mr. Cook: "I haven't the tractor to do it with."
Mr. Robey: "But you can hire them." When Mr. Robey said that for 2+ years the applicants had been carrying loads on unsuitable vehicles, Mr. Cook replied that they had just not moved with the imes. Even in Manehester and Liverpool f vehicles had not a "sufficient number" A wheels, they were not allowed to pass .hrough.
Not Two Licences . Questioned by Mr. B. G. Montgomery for Sunter Brothers) about the trailers, 1r. Cook would not agree that trailers verated in tandem had got to be teparately licensed, and Mr. Wardlaw ,ointed out that there was no such thing Ls a trailer for the purposes of taxation. Evidence in support of the application vas given by Mr. G. F. Clay, principal if G. F. Clay, Civil Engineering Construeions, Ltd., and Mr. 0. Hall, transport nanager of the Derwent Engineering and 3onstruction Co. Mr, Hall told the kuthority that, because of the cost of ransporting two large excavators which tormally would have been transported by ■ ne of the hauliers at the inquiry, his ompany had found it more economical sell the two machines for scrap.