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 
WILL PLATING OCCUR?
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An Old Hand In Road Transport Finds Some Things To Say On a Topical Issue
By G. W. Irwin 'HE spectre of plating is raising its ugly head once I more. This time the goods vehicle manufacturers want to attach an embossed plate to the vehicle showing what is intended to be the gross legal maximum load, one pound beyond which may result in prosecution.
Why the manufacturers are sponsoring the present approach I do not know, since it would seem that the sooner their vehicles wear out, the sooner will they be able to sell others.
One can only presume that their motives are, indeed, concerned with public safety. It is very laudable.
Before the war, when vehicles in the car class were allowed 30 m.p.h, and the heavies were restricted to 20, the pressure for " plating " came from the heavy vehicle operators. They claimed they were being subjected to unfair competition in that their vehicles were built to carry six tons or more, whereas the small, light vehicles Were built to carry only three tons but were, in fact, carrying six.
Incidentally, I never did know why Bedfords called their vehicle a " three-tonner " when it weighed 2-} tons and carried six tons safely.
The heavy vehicle operators even said that if light vehicle operators were restricted in their loading limits it would bring forward the day when the heavy vehicles would get a 30-m.p.h. speed limit.
Now, the vehicle manufacturers are said to be asking for the plating restriction in the interests of safety, but as was shown in a recent editorial, such a restriction could only be applied to new vehicles which are, it is hoped, in as safe a condition as they will ever be during the rest of their lives.
Alleged Danger
In the meantime, with vehicles already in use getting older, the alleged danger will continue.
Before any restriction is contemplated it is wise to consider whether it can be enforced; because a law or regulation that cannot be enforced is a bad law, however laudable its intentions. It is said that as yet there is no really effective enforcement of drivers' hours and rest periods. How long it would take to enforce loading restrictions is anyone's guess.
There are, of course, solid objections against these loading limits being imposed by the manufacturers. If the limit is placed too low, operators will not buy the vehicle. If competition necessitates an unduly high limit, we should be no better off from a safety angle than we are now.
In any event the safety factor depends entirely upon the circumstances of operation and it changes from moment to moment depending upon many variables. It is certainly not something that can be calculated in the drawing office.
A limit that would be perfectly safe in flat East Anglia might be highly dangerous in hilly Wales or on Shap Fell. Only the operator can know the circumstances of his own operating conditions and what sized load his vehicles can safely carry.
I was concerned in an example of load-fixing by manufacturers during the war when, tinder the Government's c30
war-time haulage organization, remuneration was based on carrying capacity. Some Road Haulage Association members were operating Albions with a nominal capacity of .three tons. Others were operating Bedfords and Fordsons with a similar nominal rating but costing half the money.
Whereas the makers of the latter were prepared to agree a normal operating rating of 41-5 tons, Albion would not budge from three tons, to the financial detriment of the operators of that make of vehicle.
It is widely believed that makers guarantee their vehicles to carry X tons, but a study of the guarantee or warranty will show that it does no more than say that the vehicle has been properly built with proper materials and that in the event of failure of the vehicle or any part, subject to certain conditions (which may include load limits) they will replace the part if it can be shown to have failed through faulty . material or workmanship.
Alter Leaving Works
Apart from that, they do not guarantee that their vehicle is safe with any load. As we all know, a week after leaving the factory, •a vehicle can be thoroughly unsafe through no fault of the manufacturer.
I remember a story in the technical Press some years ago of a visitor to the works of a well-known manufacturer.• .He said he would like to see the press shop where the chassis were stamped out. His guide said that as a matter of fact it didn't pay them to stamp their own chassis members; they bought them already fabricated.
The visitor's next request was to see the foundry where they made cylinder blocks and other castings. "Well," said the guide, "as a matter of fact we buy our castings ready-made from a firm that specializes in such work."
In turn the visitor asked to see the glass works where the windscreens were made, the forge where they made the springs, the tyre works, the body works, the transmission shop, the wheelwright's shop and so on, only to be given the same answer. Eventually, the guide said to the frustrated visitor. "Tell you what, I'll take you to the silencer shop. We do make our own silencers."
In a case like that, which of the various suppliers of component parts would be in a positigh to say what maximum load would be safe for the final product?
The Operator's Work If a vehicle is turned out by the original manufacturer with standard tyre and spring equipment and is then fitted by the operator with oversized tyres and helper springs, does that increase the maker's rated capacity?
Wouldn't the operator have just as much right to call the adapted vehicle a "Smith Special" or a "Jones TenTonner and fix his own load limit?
Many operators (as the Transport Tribunal knows only too well) add and subtract axles and turn rigids into artics and vice versa in their own workshops. Presumably they will have just as much right to name and " plate " their products as any maker. And if not, why not?
It will be appreciated that if plating is brought in it will mean a risk of prosecution if the plated limit is exceeded by one pound. What will be the position when. as in the case of the corn trade, one sends a driver to pick up say, 28 quarters of wheat, only to find on arrival that when sacked up it has come out at 29 or 291 quarters?