simon stolly Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Grumpy goes off road!!!! Alternative Militant uses; 1/ Ditch digging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Of course its a bit ironic that the "Recovery Vehicle " is in need of recovery. Look like it came to grief by giving way to let some other vehicle pass by ? If you can call that other than a path Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon stolly Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 The Grumps had just done a 110 degree turn and due to the high voltage pole ( definitely not one to be hit!!) and a large tree on the other side of the road ( picture 1) he needed to swing out to get the trailer round. All was going well until the ground decided that it had enough of 22 ton of Militant on it and dropped a couple of feet. There was a big duck pond on the other side! Maybe next time, eh Grumpa's? John's Valentine tank came to the rescue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 And for his next trick? Got to admit though, good style me boy! Good style! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptopshed Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Glad no damage was done Yep. I think i would have put him in the hole he left if he had bent the cab after all the work we put into in over the last few weeks. :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Thanks to grumpy, simon and poptopshed for transporting John Pearsons valentine and FV438 to woverhampton steam show and back as you can see we had to recover grumpy's Militant before we could load the valentine! We all left in an convoy John in the 438, Myself and John son in the saracen, simon in a landy and grumby loaded with the valentine it was an impresive site driving around the centure of woverhampton on a friday night! and grumpy did not get stuck! He is now going to read up on off road driving with the militant. Thanks for the help and we will do it again, it was a great weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon stolly Posted June 12, 2008 Author Share Posted June 12, 2008 Alternative Militant Uses; 2/ Grading Here El-Grumpo demonstrates how to grade out some hard core using the the ground anchor of his Milly. Reference is made in the owner's to this practice, along the lines of " should not be attempted under any circumstances!!" After all this we get down to tank moving, which it does very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 How many tons does the Valentine weigh ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 35,840 lb's or 16.25 ton for a standard Valentine according to my book ! DD may be different I suspect ! Andy F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 How many tons does the Valentine weigh ? If you are thinking what I am then I have already done the maths:nono: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Isn't that trailer rated at 12 tons capacity, I had one and that is what it siad in the manual, as far as I can recall. I can't see how you can carry a Valentine on that trailer without exceeding maximum permissable tyre loadings.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Isn't that trailer rated at 12 tons capacity, I had one and that is what it siad in the manual, as far as I can recall. I can't see how you can carry a Valentine on that trailer without exceeding maximum permissable tyre loadings.. Correct, 10t nominal, 12.5t emergency maximum. Trailer alone weighs just over 7t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) Is it good for the image of our movement to risk getting caught and done by the Police for an overloading offence such as this? Worst still what if tyres blew out on the journey causing an accident resulting in loss of life. The legislation that could follow would cripple Vehicle preservation.... Edited June 13, 2008 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Wise words Mike the Government seems to enjoy hasty legislation so it would probably be a disaster for all of us ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) I don't know whether a movement order was booked for this trip but the trailer is 2.74Metres wide. The maximum permitted width for a trailer (not being a refrigerated trailer) is 2.5Metres. To be caught A) being severly overloaded and B) possibly not running under special types, STGO with a movement order is inviting having the book thrown at you. When I ran one of these I always notified it as overwidth, ie with two days advance notice to the police. Edited June 13, 2008 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 It would be very easy to keep out of this and possibly leave the impression that it is just antarmike who is over reacting by being too cautious in his concerns. He's not, and I agree with what he has said in respect of running legally 100%. It's hard to put one's finger on when a change occurred but in the last few years there has been a noticeable tightening up, and enforcement, of all regulations and laws applicable to road users. The days when you might have had a friendly chat with a copper and got away with a warning have gone. Now it's the police and they WILL prosecute you. Being out on UK roads in 2008 is a very serious business. You'd better be sure that you're completely legal or don't go on the public highway. No one wants to be thought of as a kill joy, and the stuff we've all got away with in the past doesn't bare thinking about, but there's a bigger picture to be thought about now. What if, as has been asked in a recent post, an illegal or unroadworthy preserved heavy vehicle causes a fatal accident ? Maybe runs down a couple of kids, or a mum pushing a pram, something the papers could latch on to and cause questions to be asked. If this ever happened, and it could, how long before weight, vehicle age limits, special tests or even a ban came into force ? Not very long I'd say. If you're HMV isn't completely safe and legal keep it off the road until it is because you're jeopardizing all the rest of us as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 This thread has been cleaned up due to certain legalities, HMVF is closely watched by certain parties... it's suggested that you on carry on the conversation via PM's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeEnfield Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 This thread has been cleaned up due to certain legalities, HMVF is closely watched by certain parties... it's suggested that you on carry on the conversation via PM's :???:??? :confused:..............and whats this sponsered link, thing,......'US Military Singles',.........wasthatabout........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) Sorry I didn't mean to cause problems but I do want to see the long term future of vintage vehicle preservation and in particular the right to continue to use them on the road. I was only trying to draw peoples attention to possible implications of things that may get done when people get carried away with enthusiasm and knowing what their vehicles can do, and don't appear to be thinking things through to possible consequences. We have to remember that the Army only now choose to stick within construction and use regulations. In the past the Army disregarded C and U . The Armed forces are still exempted from complying when they run under STGO. Once a vehicle becomes an Ex military vehicle C and U does apply. I felt I had to say what I said. Edited June 14, 2008 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 All I have only just been made away of the misinformed comments regarding my transportation of a certain vehicle last weekend. To clarify things a little; My Militant and recovery trailer are operated under Special Type General Order CAT 2 (STGO) STGO makes provision authorising certain types of vehicles to be used on roads notwithstanding that they do not fully comply with the requirements that generally apply to vehicles permitted on roads. The Order specifies the requirements that must be met by vehicles seeking to rely on such authorisation. The rig is authorised by its construction and design for a train weight of 60 tons and axel weights not exceeding 12.5 ton per axel @ 40 mph. The vehicle being transported is listed in various books as weighing anywhere between 16 to 19 ton in a battle ready state including ammunition. I will not divulge the actual weight, as the vehicle does not belong to me; however I can confirm my trailer axel weights were well within my authorised maximum. The trailer is listed as a ten ton recovery trailer, and was used by the army for the recovery of tracked and wheeled vehicles within the 10 ton classification. For those people who assume that a 10 ton class vehicle only weighs 10 tons fully laden then they are totally misinformed. In civilian use this trailer is in fact rated higher than when used by the military as most ex-military vehicles are. Our armed forces are NOT exempt from the C & U regulations unless they are operating under STGO or at war. For those who wish is study the Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1998 The Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003 you can view the full document here; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031998.htm Yes we all want to see the long term future of vintage vehicle preservation and in particular the right to continue to use them on the road, however misinformed comments being posted on an open forum does as much damage to our cause as the incorrect use of our vehicles. I would respectfully request that the moderators restore this thread to enable me to respond to all of the comments made regarding my actions as I feel this forum should be open and uncensored, allowing members to defend themselves against accusations made on this public forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I would respectfully request that the moderators restore this thread to enable me to respond to all of the comments made regarding my actions as I feel this forum should be open and uncensored, allowing members to defend themselves against accusations made on this public forum. Ok will restore the comments but we will keep an eye on it, please keep it civil chaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 (edited) My comments related to tyre loadings and Axle weights, and I know that tyres are exempt under STGO, but in order to run under STGO for more than the width of the trailer, you have to demonstrate that the load you are carrying cannot be split into smaller parts, or that it cannot be carried on a trailer that does comply fully with C and U. It is my understanding that at that sort of weight, and width, a Valentine could be safely carried on any number of trailers that do fully comply. Choosing to put it on a trailer with only two axles when multi axle trailers are readily available is in my belief, a mistake. I display STGO plates on my vehicles when I travel. I did not say you hadn't notified, just that you may not have done, I didn't see STGO plates on the Photos posted that is why I thought that a certain situation may have existed, even if it now transpires that it didn't. Edited June 14, 2008 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 (edited) It is also my understanding that the minimum number of axles for Cat 2 is 5. I stand to be corrected but I think this means the number of axles supporting the load. On a Semi-trailer this would normally be the 2 back bogey axles of the tractor and 3 on the Trailer. If the Tractor is not carrying any part of the load, (ie with a drawbar rig) then you need the 5 axles to be on the trailer. I know the Millie has 3 axles and the trailer has 2, but I don't think VOSA would accept that only 2 axles carrying the load is acceptable for Cat 2 I welcome a knowlegable answer to this point since I admit I might be wrong. Edited June 14, 2008 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 (edited) I also understand that for a trailer to be used under STGO it has to be designed to be so used, Later trailers need to carry a plate showing their maximum design weight, older ones do not but the determination as to the max load carryied on a trailer even under STGO is governed by it's designed weight. I beleive that the manual states the trailer is designed for the recovery and transportation of a weight of 10 Tons. I believe this to be saying it's designed max weight is 10 Tons (load)+ 7 tons 15 Cwt (empty weight) ie 17 3/4 Tons ( and the Valentine has to be close to this figure itself... I don't know where you get the information that the trailer was designed to carry more than the Army used them for and that Civilians can use them at this higher rate. I have never seen such information. I am not saying you are wrong, just I have no evidence that the trailer was designed to carry a greater load than the Army handbook states. When I used to attend Banbury steam rally there were two people who year on year carried 432's to this event on these trailers. One did not have the trailer plated and he showed no interest in finding out whether he was legal, , the other decided to get it plated, but he could only get it plated at a rating that would not allow him to carry his 432 so he sold the trailer. I admit that I might be wrong about this and would love to see documentary proof of the design maximums for this trailer from Rubery Owen or Brockhouse if they exceed the Army Handbook figures. I will willingly hold my hands up and say I "I was wrong" . What I have said during this debate is based solely on the Army Handbook WO code 13154 since that is all I have to go on. I believe the trailer to have been designed solely for Mititary use. I am unaware that any were ever offered for sale to civilians. Any that have found civilian usage are of Military origin. Edited June 14, 2008 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 (edited) "The trailer is listed as a ten ton recovery trailer, and was used by the army for the recovery of tracked and wheeled vehicles within the 10 ton classification. For those people who assume that a 10 ton class vehicle only weighs 10 tons fully laden then they are totally misinformed. In civilian use this trailer is in fact rated higher than when used by the military as most ex-military vehicles are." The Army may have used them for this purpose, I do not argue with that, but they were using it beyond it's designed capacity. We as civilians cannot do that. This is a copy of the Army manual for the trailer. It does not say it is for carrying a laden 10 ton truck. It says the trailer is designed to a carry a load (wheeled or tracked) that is limited to 10 tons in weight. I have included the Bridge Classification in the copy from the manual because I beleive this is relevant to how the Army intended the Trailer to be used. Edited June 15, 2008 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts