Grumpy

Not in the recovery handbooks, but the Stolly manuals call for a special spacer to be installed when removing the sun gears for suspended tow. Never met a recovery mech who has used them. It only takes about 10 mins per side to remove the sun gears and usual practice to hang them from the mirror arms so each is kept to the correct side (not interchangeable). Refitting the sun gears takes a little longer and you need the gagging tool, but would still only be about 15 mins per side.

Have a chat with Mark Chapman think he has the drawings for the spacers.

we're near Lichfield.

 

Cheers :-)

Hi Bob welcome - we are based at Muckley Corner - not too far away I recon:-D

ah okay, sounds like it will be easier to run a mini silent generator for about 3 kva....

24v - 240v inverter?

Now sold

All very interesting, Grumpy's comments from my experience all knock the nail on the head with regard to legality, interestingly i called the manager of our local HGV VOSA testing station this year to check his views on testing my 1955 Jauns trailer, two questions were mainly asked, does it have a load sensing valve and sprung suspension, in my case no to the first and walking beam to the second. I have confirmation this is classified as a plant trailer and excempt from test,so my assumption is that a Rogers may fall into the same category.

It could be classed as a Plant Trailer and these are run under the STGO Engineering Plant category, however this category has some pretty severe limitations to its use.

I think to summarise and answer the original question – the Rogers trailer is not required to be plated and Tested under two accounts. One is its age if used un-laden, two and this being the key factor here, is due to its width it falls outside the scope of the C&U regulations.

This second point is important to acknowledge, because it falls outside the C&U regulations there are certain limitations to its use on a public road as detailed in the STGO regulations (see my original link). Its doesn’t stop you using it, but you need to be aware and understand these limitations, in fact it is a bonus because you can use it laden and still be exempt from Plating and Testing. One the down side it cannot be used any where near its original design gross weight due to its axle configuration.

The third option of gaining an IVSO is unlikely as these are for vehicles that fall outside the C&U and STGO regulations and justification would be hard to prove.

Personally I would run it as a recovery trailer under STGO, this enables to you take it to place where recovery may be required, and we have often gone to a show with a recovery vehicle and ended up recovering something that has broken down while at the show. We have also in the past taken a vehicle needing repair to a show to meet up with experts in that particular vehicle and repaired at the show.

Hope this helps.

I was told a long time ago by a chap from the abnormal load office of West Mids Police, that as long as it was not being used for hire and reward you could apply for an exemption cirtificate from stgo regs for a loaded vehicle/trailer combination that is outside CU regs. But by virtue of it's weight if your over 44t you still have to notify your route to the relevent authority/agencies IE. Highways auth, Police, Network Rail Ect.

Weather this is true or the rules have been changed since then I do not know.

 

 

Quote..

From what I can gather the status of “Historic Vehicle” does not exempt it from C&U regulations.

 

A Dt 981's age. top speed and the fact it is a ballast tractor makes a difference with regards to C&U regs.

 

Quote..

I'm afraid you are re-opening a frequently-visited can of worms with this thread. There is a lot of info already on HMVF about trailer use with older vehicles, with specific regard to the laden/unladen question.

 

I know the subject has come up on other threads but I have not found anything regarding historic vehicles that would come under STGO regs

 

Regards ...Steve.

The exemption you were told about is the IVSO, notification is easy now using the ESDAL website, last one I did took five minutes.

The age top speed etc of your DT981 does not exempt it from C&U regulations, just different sections apply unless of course you are running under STGO or IVSO where those regulations apply.

Historic Vehicles is just a tax classification, they still have to comply with one of the three regulations you can run under.

And just to round off Grumpy's post, would it be correct to state that it can be used UNLADEN, towed by for example a DT980, by virtue of forming part of a 'Historic Vehicle' and therefore exempt from C+U Regs?

From what I can gather the status of “Historic Vehicle” does not exempt it from C&U regulations. To my knowledge there are only three ways to run a vehicle on the road legally, comply with C&U regulations, run under STGO or in extreme cases apply for Individual Vehicle Special Orders. Such an order would cover vehicles outside the scope of C&U regulations and STGO something like a Chieftain MBT springs to mind. I might be wrong but at first glance a DT980 towing a Rogers can only be used on the road under a STGO category or under IVSO, whether you can still use the Historic Tax status seems to be a grey area, unless someone knows different?

A related question please - if a Historic Vehicle tows a more modern trailer, I guess that trailer would have to be tested? What is that date cut-off for exemption of trailers from testing?

Over 3.5 ton - pre 1960 or if fitted with overrun brakes only.

Sorry the Rogers are 2.895 meters wide and therefore fall outside the construction and use regulations – it cannot be plated in the usual way. It can only be used legally on the road under STGO either as an indivisible load carrier or as a recovery trailer, both of which are MOT exempt; however both have restrictions to their use. Have a look here for details http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1998/contents/made

It’s not as useful as an indivisible load carrier due to axle weights being limited to 12 ton per axle, and not being able to carry a load that can be transported by conventional means. As a recovery trailer you are only limited to a carrying a vehicle needing repairs and able to transport said vehicle to a place of repair.

As someone has suggested you can permanently fix a load to the trailer, this will then become a “Mobile Project Vehicle” and also MOT exempt, hover a MPV is covered by the C&U regulations which in your case you cannot comply with due to width. Our local VOSA office has confirmed that a permanently fixed load is one that can only be removed with workshop facilities.

Hope the above helps, it can be used on the roads but only under STGO, being MOT exempt however does not stop you taking it for any voluntary test such a brakes etc. You should however comply with the STGO regulations, have a read of the above link and post up any questions you may have, I’m sure someone on here can answer them

Private use exempts you from the requirement to use the tacho.

Only if the vehicle is 25+ years old or below 7.5 Ton, over 7.5 Ton or newer now requires a tacho and driving hours apply even for private use.

If a vehicle is exempt from tacho its also exempt from driving hours, strange one really.:???

It's been done, I think.

 

I believe the Budge diesel Stolly had four viscous couplings on each of the four 'corner' wheel drive units. Only the centre axle was driven directly as original.

 

Anyone ?

Yes STAL2-708 had four couplins - not sure if they were viscous or not - There was also a French owner that fitted four dog clutches, I'll see if I can dig out the pictures he sent me and scan them to post here

I had a problem with the pressure reducing valve on the scammell so decided to eliminate it to get it rolling. As it turns out, With the whole system running at 90 - 100 psi braking is a pleasure and steering very easy. just with a 15- 20 psi increase in pressure:D

Yep it starts at the compressor and making sure you have full pressure all the way down to each brake chamber - good advice.

Iain I'll give you a call over the weekend

This sort of thing has been done before but with air operated dog clutches. The main problem is there is very little clearance between the drive shafts and the hull (about an inch), another problem is by reducing drive to the outer bevel boxes places more load on the cetre ones.

99% of bevel box failures are due to poor maintenance or shock loads, wind up is not as bad as everyone makes out. The most important thing is equalizing tyre circumference on each side and tyres pressures. Another Stolly quirk is the centre bevel boxes are fed from the transfer box, the oil dip stick is marked wrong and if filled to this mark the bevel boxes will be starved of oil, the oil needs to be about an inch above the level mark.

The bar grips tyres don’t give the best of traction on the road and help alleviate the problem. I’ve had a Stolly since 93 and driven hundreds of road miles, never had a failure due to wind up – reaching out to touch some wood quickly.

:thumbsup:

My whole intention in my posts was to encourage the guy who wanted to do a voluntary brake test to do so and not to be put of by doom and gloom merchants who say he has no chance of succeding. i am 99 percent sure if it is checked over and in good order it will pass. I know it is a recovery vehicle and as such dont need to do a test but what harm will it do to have one.

My other gripe re excuses etc was (stress not having a go at grumpy here) was certain people will not accept that they have vehicles that are not street legal for reasons of CU regs or purely because of poor maintainance but hide behind a defence of well its not what it is i have registered as this or its exempt from MOT because its recovery/date.

Dont happen?? i picked up a ferret scout car that was been driven down the road with two pair of mole grips on diagonally opposite brake pipes because the wheel cylinders where U/S

Quite right too. We (on this forum, at least) need to be seen as the good guys, helping and advising each other to raise the standards of maintenance on our "vintage" vehicles.

 

Too often you see an advert for a "classic" and the caption reads; Now registered for show use only and MOT exempt, or some such wording. Meaning it hasn't a chance of passing a proper test because it is falling apart. How many times have you been to a show, looked at a vehicle and thought " I wouldn't want to drive that round the block, let alone bring it to a show!"

 

Yer man should take his Militant for a test, and shouldn't be scared of the big bad ministry man. The average VOSA examiner is a decent geezer, who will help you out. Yes he has rules to abide by, but at the end of the day the main question is: Is the vehicle safe to use? and the only way to find out for sure is to test it.

Trying to get back on topic and the original question without getting bogged down with the “Holier than Thou pub talk”.

Its pointless taking a vehicle for a brake test that is only reading 35% efficiency with a Taply meter at present, it wont give a higher reading on the rollers and is not at the minimum requirement of 50% - it will fail! Waste of money and time. It’s like taking your car for an MOT with two bald tyres :nut:.

It will probably take quite a bit of work and probably be a struggle to get it to 50% because they were border line when new, its now 40 years old and obviously needs some TLC on the braking system (has any one on this thread changed an air compressor on a Mk 3 Militant – not an easy task). It can be done but “Rome wasn’t built in a day” – there again I wasn’t on that Job :-D.

No one has suggested he drives it on the road with the brakes needing work so why has yet another thread turned into loop holes, miss-registered vehicles, and people waffling on about dangerous vehicles. I thought this forum had moved away from this sort of useless banter :thumbsup:.

I know you have or had a militant did you ever take it for a test. If not (i know it was or is exempt testing) think to yourself i was or could be knowingly riding about with substandard brakes. Oftence trying to stop a lot more than the its designed wieght.

also as i said you wont get a prohibition order due to moderatly low efficency only if certain brakes arnt working or the vehicle is down right dangerous. I admire the guy for trying to satisfy his own mind

Yep still got it, the best we have managed to get it is 53% but believe me it bloody hard work, I think up rating the front chambers from type 20 to type 30 would help but not sure the drums will take it. Experience tells you when the brakes are going off, annual test tell you nothing really and I doubt many do an efficiency test at each maintenance inspection.

The Militant is not the only ex-military vehicle with poor brakes in fact a lot of old vehicles struggle to meet the requirements for test in lots of areas, its all part of the joys of ownership.

As far as knowingly using a vehicle that does not meet a particular standard or regulation – I thought this forum had got past this sort of self inflicted damage to our movement.

Hi Jules

Must admit I have a soft spot for the MK1, and most that I have driven have had good brakes. Problem with the Mk 3 recovery is the shear weight of the thing, its 22 ton before you start to load it. The rear brakes are larger on the Recovery than the Mk 3 cargo version but the cargo’s do stop better even with the smaller brakes.

Just to clear up the figures,

Minimum Service Brake Efficiency:

2 axle Rigid pre 1968 – 45% DGVW

More than 2 axle rigid or tractor unit pre 1968 – 40% DGVW

Any vehicle pre 1915 - one efficient braking system required

Any other vehicle – 50% DGVW

Vehicle to be loaded to minimum of 65% design axle weight. (I have never had a vehicle loaded above 70% during test)

The above is taken from the 2011 Heavy Goods Vehicle Inspection Manual, this is what the inspectors must test to.

So the requirement for the Mk 3 Recovery is 50% DGVW

As far as Prohibition (PG9) at test, the following is listed regarding service brake efficiency, Note the last paragraph:

“With the service brake applied:

There is little or no brake effort at any wheel

Braking effort from any wheel on a steered axle is less than 70% of the brake effort from another wheel on the same axle

Efficiency significantly below legal requirements (before issuing the examiner must consider whether the vehicle, as presented, would pose an immediate danger to road safety) ”

Hope this helps

:thumbsup:

Again only speaking from experience with Mk 3 recovery brakes, you can spend days on them and still not get any where near 50% efficiency. One quite well known owner was horrified when he tested his after a refurb. If it’s reading 35% now nothing much will change when at the DOT.

They were borderline when new, its forty years old now, I don’t know the history but unless the brakes have been fully refurbished, personally I don’t think it will pass, but this is only a personal opinion and perhaps looking at the black side. But it’s not unknown for the inspectors to issue a PG9 following a test.:cry:

Go on then mate prove it with calculations, I really can’t be bothered to get the tape out and measure the cantilever points on a Militant.

Let’s agree to disagree; poor blokes only asked a simple question no need to turn it into a "whose dog is blacker". :yawn:

PS If you really want to do the calculations, don't forget to factor in the reactor that is fitted to most Mk 3 Recovery's

You have little to no advantage over a normal cargo truck, Militant has a gross design weight of 28 ton and weighs 22 ton c/w CES, it’s nearly up to weight before you start, its design train weight is 50 ton. Because of the short wheel base and how the crane is positioned on the Militant, a 4.5 ton suspend tow will place no where near 10 ton on the rear bogie, the draw back of this is the ability to wheelie when loaded. Ask any one who has had to stop on a bend half way up a hill loaded – ask Poptopshed about a wheeling Militant and the Police car :-D

It would probably fail, even fresh out of the factory they struggled to meet the braking standards. De-glaze the shoes and drums and let them bed in again and see what you get then. The brakes on the Mk3 Recovery are not the best, we looked at putting type 30 spring brake chambers on the back to improve things but you haven’t got room due to the ground anchor.

35% is about right for a Mk 3 recovery, you will struggle to get any where near 50% without a lot of work. It can be put on the rollers but you may have grip problems with the 1600 x 20 tyres.

Didn’t realise the Explorer was that much shorter than a Militant, sorry folks :red:

Yes you need them, have a look here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made

Schedule 1 table 1

On another note regarding side marker lights, if they are within a meter of the rear of the vehicle they can be coloured red instead of amber, very handy on the back of a long trailer or truck, helps you see where the rear end is in the dark / rain.

It's all here http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/forms/~/media/pdf/forms/V112G.ashx

Is that yet another new V112G?:nut:

was HGV now LGV :-)

Form V85- Application to tax a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) still calls it a HGV – and it reads HGV on your tax disk if applicable.

Don’t think the term LGV is in the SI’s yet, so legally its HGV not LGV.

Download V85 here: V85- Application to tax a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV)