standards to 1975 is unlikely
Page 83
Page 84
Page 86
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TRTA one-day conference delegates hear advice on conversions; testing procedures; notification of 'mods': weight distribution; brake standards and tyre ratings.
THE interest shown in the commercial vehicle braking, plating and testing conference organized by the Traders Road Transport Association at the London Hilton Hotel last week (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, June 30) was reflected in the discussion which followed the presentation of the papers. To leave as much time as possible for this part of the day's business the authors did not read their written papers in full but concentrated on the more important aspects. Even so, each discussion period had to be brought to a stop because the allotted time had run out. And afterwards when vehicle manufacturers were available for questioning, further discussions went on for a long time.
In opening the conference at the start of the day, Mr. J. Delicate, TRTA president, said that he did so with mixed feelings: it was a pleasure to see such large numbers but, sadly, these very numbers gave an indication of the problems, confusion and expense involved in connection with the new regulations on braking, plating and testing. During the day, one saw ample justification for these remarks, from both the speakers and the audience's questioning. And one felt that little relief was gained in meeting the problems: although the audience may well have gained plenty of clarification on some points it seemed likely that they left with some extra bits of confusion—despite the efforts of the speakers. Certainly the expense which the industry as a whole is going to have to accept as a result of the regulations was shown to be much greater than most people previously visualized.
After the presentation of Mr. Turvey's paper on the TRTA view of new legislation two members of the staff of the Ministry of Transport spoke. Mr. J. W. Furness, superintending engineer, said he welcomed Mr. Turvey's paper as a practical guide for operators but felt that one or two points needed clarification. Dealing with the technical aspects, Mr. Furness said that definition of the period when interim standards would apply was not yet possible. This question was being put to the MoT brakes working party on July 5.
The basis for quoting 1972-3 as the time when the full standards would have to be met by all vehicles on the road was, said Mr. Furness, an allowance of five years from the start of the new regulations (January 11968) and he felt that the TRTA request for an extension to 1975 was not reasonable. Mr. Furness also saw no reason for a one-year delay in existing-vehicle plating as had been suggested.
What changes are notifiable Mr. Turvey had said in his paper that when type approval came about there could be problems if all changes made to a vehicle had to be subject to prior approval by the Ministry. This was the main point referred to by Mr. I. A. G. Gillies, principal of the Ministry of Transport, when he spoke of legal aspects raised in the paper. He said that there was no proposal, for example, that every time tyres were changed the MoT should be advised. All that was asked was that tyres should be appropriate to the vehicle weight. It was stressed that if a vehicle was plated, an operator could not "fiddle about", as the plate would be, in effect, a Ministry warranty.
Alterations caused a basic dilemma, said Mr. Gillies, as there could not be a procedure requiring notification of all changes of a
Report by A. J. P. Wilding,
AMIMechE, MIRTE
and P. A. C. Brockington,
AMIMechE
minor nature, but any modifications likely to affect the plated weight would need to be notified. The MoT had decided to set up a small working party under the chief mechanical engineer to try to draw up a Code of Practice to advise operators of the sort of modifications that needed to be notified.
And on the same subject of advice, Mr. Gillies said the MoT had accepted that there would be a lot of questions while plating and testing were getting under way. "We want to help as much as we can", said Mr. Gillies and the MoT proposed to issue a leaflet explaining the main points an operator needed to watch—the plain man's guide to plating and testing.
No overloading tolerance In respect of tolerance in overloading, Mr. allies said that he did not accept that this should be allowed, as any tolerance could be used in the recognized normal load. The Ministry of Transport could not dictate to the police on the question of enforcement of plated weights but, said Mr. Gillies, "the police have shown themselves perfectly capable of using discretion".
Many questions were put to the two Ministry men. Answers provided some useful additional information and, in this category, the audience was told that vehicles will not be down rated if they cannot meet the brake efficiency figures because of possible defects in their system. And drivers or mechanics with the vehicle will be allowed to put things right while at the testing station—in the "lane" if minor, and in the parking area if more work is required— and re-tested the same day. No accurate answer could be given as to when the "standard lists" showing the proposed plate weights for existing vehicles would be published. Mr. Furness said it was unlikely that these would be seen in completed form before the end of the year.
Weighing and weight distribution problems were the main theme of the discussion on papers giving operators' viewpoints, and the virtual impossibility of distributing the load of a multiwheeled vehicle, to give correct axle loading was emphasized by a number of speakers.
In reply to a question from the floor Mr. L. G. Reed (UBM) observed that some of the results when checking the axle weights of 24-ton-gross four-axle vehicles had made his hair stand on end, and he advised operators to obtain approximate axle weights with the aid of a weight-registering jack. In an earlier statement, Mr. Reed emphasized the great need for portable weighing equipment, and added that no-one seemed to be worrying about the problem, least of all the makers of such equipment. "We're all in the same boat", he said; even large operators like Mr. Farquharson (ShellMex) who might be able to afford thousands of pounds for a weighbridge, would face the same problem with a decentralized fleet.
On the vexed question of who could be held responsible for overloading a vehicle or axle—the driver, the loader or the operator— Mr. Reed pointed out that while the operator was responsible in law, both the loader and driver could be involved in a prosecution. Commenting on a statement by a speaker Mr. Reed agreed that collection of containers at a docks could involve severe overloading and claimed that the present attitude of dock workers was to disregard the weight problem. Weighing vehicles would interfere with current productivity schemes, it seemed.
On the same subject Mr. Farquharson emphasized that weight distribution in a container could vary very greatly according to the load. A container carrying a rated load could be heavier at one end and thus cause overloading of an axle.
In answer to a question as to whether the MoT testers' manual would stipulate 90 sec. as the lag allowable on the pressure build-up in a braking system Mr. Farley (Tate & Lyle Transport) said he understood that the manual would be available at the earliest possible date and that it would probably include this stipulation.
In the afternoon session, the Conference heard the manufacturers' viewpoint. In opening this part of the proceedings, Mr. R. Watson Lee (Rootes Motors Ltd.), chairman of the commercial vehicle section of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said there would be general agreement that the principal priorities were the speedy implementation of plating and testing for existing vehicles and the introduction of type approval for new goods vehicles.
Mr. Watson Lee affirmed that manufacturers heartily supported sensible legislation on matters of safety but said it must be recognized that in following this course the cost of vehicles and their operation was being added to. It was essential, he stressed, to get priorities and timings right to avoid very serious disruptions which the nation could not afford in the vital transport industry.
Following these opening remarks three manufacturers' representatives—Mr. L. D. Watts, Leyland Motor Corporation, Mr. H. 0. Doughty, Taskers of Andover and Mr. G. A. Ibbitson, British Motor Corporation—gave their appraisals of the situation, dealing with specific sectors. The types of conversion needed for certain classes of vehicle were explained and it was stated by each speaker that the majority of vehicles on the road would meet the interim standards at the very least.
One of the most important points to come out of the many questions asked was that it is possible that in some cases tyres will need to be changed when vehicles are plated. This will apply even though the plated weight will be the maximum the manufacturer put on the model when it was built and the tyres are to the original specification. The reason is that manufacturers have in the past specified tyres on the basis that the vehicle tyre set equally shares the gross weight. In other words, provided that the rated capacity of all the tyres on the vehicle equal or exceed the gross weight this has been acceptable even though individual axle loads might exceed the capacity of the tyres on the axle. With plating, maximum permitted axle weights will be specified and the tyres' capacity will have to match the figures.
There will also be cases where vehicles will be plated for a higher weight than that originally specified by the manufacturer and, here again, tyre changes may be required. Many speakers referred to this aspect of the regulations and it was stressed by members of the panel supporting the three speakers that manufacturers would endorse the tyres recommended for models but would have to abide by new ratings—which are due to be issued—for tyres on plated vehicles.
It is possible that this problem with tyres will be confined largely to light vehicles but one speaker on the panel intimated that while all goods vehicles will be plated from January 1 1968 there are no plans to start testing—and therefore plating—vehicles under 30 cwt. unladen. It was understood that plating would "some years in the future take in light vehicles".
One speaker said he believed recommendations were being arrived at using 70 m.p.h. as a criterion. At this point Mr. Furness of the MoT came into the discussion and said that the tyre question was still being sorted out and that the MoT had not said 70 m.p.h. was to be the criterion. "Operators should be patient and wait for the results of investigations," he suggested.
Question of plating
ROAD TEST 14/67 in the issue of June 2 contains a choice of words which may well convey a completely erroneous conception, when stating that twin oscillating axle semi-trailers would have been down-rated from 24 tons g.t.w. to 22 tons if C & U Regulations 1966/1288 had not equated single axle semi-trailers to 24 tons.
Twin oscillating axle semi-trailers of which we are pioneers with our Four-in-Line design, have been rated at 24 tons gross since 1955 and there is nothing in 1966/1288 to support your surmise that they would have ever been rated at a lower weight. Indeed this would be an unprecedented and retrograde step, which we know was never considered by the Ministry of Transport.
You are not alone in the confusion, as in the early weeks immediately following publication of Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1964 there were several instances on similar lines to that contained in your article, but immediate rulings were obtained from Area Officers of the MoT that twin oscillating axle semi-trailers were rated at 24 tons g.t.w.
The number of axles in Schedule 7 is by no means the sole factor in attaining the maximum gross vehicle weight laden and the main body of the regulations must be taken into account.
Twin oscillating axle semi-trailers still have an advantage over the single axle type in having an extra ton on the trailing axles, as we believe you article intended to convey.
H. LARKIN, Managing Director, British Trailer Co. Ltd., Manchester 17.
• The Technical Editor writes: It is accepted that the Ministry of Transport never considered reducing the gross weight allowed on an outfit with a twin-oscillating semi-trailer. But the fact remains that plated outfits with a trailer having this configuration or a normal single axle are not differentiated between under the new regulations. If there had not been an alteration to the weight limits quoted in Schedule 7 of Regulations 1966: No. 1288, outfits comprising a two-axle tractor and twin-oscillating-axle semi-trailer put into service from January 1 1968 would have been limited to 22 tons. As it is, such an outfit registered after January 1 next with an outer-axle dimension of less than 18 ft. will be limited to 20 tons whereas now these can operate at 24 tons. Schedule 7 is the ultimate deciding factor of maximum gross weight for a plated vehicle.
Give a dog a bad name . . .
IT IS GRATIFYING to note that your correspondent, Mr. Tye (June 9) has mellowed to the point where at least he admits to the existence of anti-jack-knifing methods other than the device in which he seems to take almost a proprietary interest.
The "recent demonstration" of load-sensing valves to which he refers is presumably that arranged by Taskers at the FVRDE proving ground at Chobham on May 16.
Many of your readers will have seen on television the film made by ITV on that occasion, and been struck by the fact that artics fitted with load-sensing valves can and do stop safely and quickly, even on flooded surfaces, and irrespective of whether the vehicles are travelling in a straight line or cornering, and whether fully-laden, part-laden, or empty.
The basic difference between load-sensing valves and antijack-knifing devices is that the valves strike at the very root of the trouble, and preclude the conditions which can cause both jackknifing and tail-swing.
Anti-jack-knifing devices, on the other hand, attempt to prevent a dangerous condition from becoming worse.
Moreover, load-sensing valves can be fitted to existing prime movers and artics more easily and cheaply than Mr. Tye's "device" and with far less structural alteration to the existing vehicle.
It is not always realised that, after this device is fitted to the semi-trailer, most makes of fifth wheel on the prime mover have to be modified, either to enable the design to function, or in some cases to permit the prime mover and trailer to couple up at all. Your correspondent's letter refers to "the accidents caused by jack-knifing which one reads about or sees reported on television news at least several times a week".
There is in fact ample evidence to show that: (a) by no means all accidents involving artics are caused by jack-knifing, and that such accidents would have occurred equally if a rigid truck had been involved, and (b) some accidents are reported as involving an artic, when in fact the vehicle concerned is a rigid truck.
As an example of the latter, only last week on the BBC News, it was stated that the driver of an artic lost control of his vehicle, which ran amok, causing death, injury and damage.
The picture they showed, however, clearly indicated that the vehicle was a van-bodied truck, and on inquiry, this was confirmed by the police.
Give a dog a bad name . .
If any of your readers would like further information on the causes and cure of jack-knifing, they are invited to apply for a copy of Taskers new booklet Are you going straight?
F. W. KNIGHT, Sales Director, Taskers of Andover (1932) Ltd.
Children and road safety
I THINK the "kids stuff' advertisement on page 43 of your June 23 issue does a disservice to all concerned with the education of children in road safety.
It is generally accepted as wrong to encourage children to play around stationary vehicles, and a false sense of security could easily be generated in the minds of the children recruited for this photograph by their thinking that whenever they recognized a motorist they knew, no harm could befall them even if the vehicle was moving, and part from other traffic that might pass.
C. R. BURR, 40, Hillside Gardens, Northwood, Middlesex.
'Let's fight NFO plans'
IN A LIFETIME in road haulage I have seen many restrictions imposed by governments and they have always been fought by haulage men. But this latest move is the craftiest of the lot and does not seem to worry them.
Mrs. Castle's National Freight Organization plans worry me and I have been reading about them with great interest. It seems to me haulage men are playing into her hands through the promise of being able to use NFO .terminals.
What nonsense it is. After all, most of this traffic was private hauliers' before, and most seem content to let British Railways have the cream, while the haulier does the work, loading and unloading. According to the licence applications, BR want this as well. Already a large Scottish meat contract has gone to Freightliners and I know of valuable oil contracts going to them.
In my opinion it is the backdoor way to nationalization. It has had a great deal of publicity before and not worked, but now nobody seems interested in objecting. I wonder why? Is it because drivers, in a rounuabout way, are cutting their own throats? After all, if this is a success less journeymen will be required. But of late, we all know the trouble some of them cause—high wages for as few miles as possible. Or is it industry wanting a good service for a low rate? And in that case, of course, the railmen will mess it up for BR.
Whatever the answer, I think, as the way things stand at present, the writing is on the wall. I fought to stamp out dictatorship, but judging by Mrs. Castle's threats that is what Mr. Wilson's government is. I intend to help support any hauliers fight the NFO to the end.
H. E. G. WORTON (junior), Director, Worton Motor Services (1953), London Branch, 303 Alexandra Park Road, N.22.