utt61

That Foden looks like the ex-Frodsham Motors of Morcombelake (Dorset) one - same colours etc. I was told that it was a Foden prototype and never went into army service. If it is the same one, it is a cracking motor.

Hear hear!

I researched this extensively about ten years ago in the context of load carrying goods vehicles, and found definitions in (possibly superseded) legislation to the effect that a vehicle is "unladen" is if it carrying only the fuel, fluids, spares and tools essential to its propulsion. So it is unladen if you are carrying a full tank of fuel (but not additional fuel in cans), spare tyre or tyres, and such tools as might reasonably be considered necessary such as wheel changing equipment. A passenger is not considered a load. Your lunch, however, is. Similarly for trailers - spare wheel, tools, OK, anything else = load. The situation is less clear for something like a reocivery vehicle. I think the letter of the law would likely be that anything that was not part of the vehicle structure and was not essential for the process of getting the vehicle from one place to another did constitute a load. So the crane in an Pioneer would not compromise a load, but tools for repairing a casualty, fuel in cans, loose lifting tackle and chains, removable ballast, and things of that nature would. Please bear in mind that this is my educated assessment based on research I carried out some time ago and does not consitute legal advice!

FWIW this is my understanding too. Clearly it is no longer possible for a car on an 'A'-frame or rigid drawbar to conform to the latest trailer regs (auto-reverse brakes etc.) and therefore as far as I am aware it is no longer legal to do this in this country nor probably anywhere in Europe (even though it still happens, especially behind giant motor-homes). Similarly, I believe that it is no longer legal to use the traditional Harvey Frost "towboy" type recovery unit or any other form of towing dolly to move vehicles on the road (a fact conveniently 'forgotten' by those people who sell them on ebay nowadays). This is once again mainly due to the braking arrangements being non-compliant. If you tow a broken down vehicle using a rope, chain, or rigid bar then it is not a trailer, it is still a motor vehicle, and it is my understanding that you are only allowed to do this for the minimum possible distance that removes the hazard from the place of breakdown. So, you can tow a car on a rope to the next lay-by but not to the next garage if there is a lay-by nearer than the garage. (You must also conform to the limit on length of rope, requirements for markers on the rope, an "ON TOW" sign, and the towing vehicle numberplate displayed on the rear of the towed vehicle). There must be a licensed and insured person steering and braking the casualty. Under many circumstances even this will now be impossible, since the casualty must be roadworthy; if, for example, it relies upon a brake servo to achieve the necessary brake efficiency and the engine won't run, or if the wipers or lights don't work, etc etc, it would not be legal to tow it on its own wheels at all. An 'A'-frame recovery I believe does make the casualty a trailer, and could only possibly be legal if there was an arrangement to apply the brakes on the casualty (unless the casualty weights under 750kgs). For an air-braked vehicle this could be done with suzys but for a light vehicle it is very difficult. A further problem is the fact that an 'A'-framed vehicle cannot be reversed. It is almost certainly illegal for there to be anyone in the casualty (as far as I know the only case where people can be carried in a trailer is in the back half of a bendy-bus*). Best advice is probably not to use an 'A'-frame. The law now is skewed towards allowing (just) the emergency removal of a casualty to the nearest safe place only; any further movement should be undertaken on a trailer or recovery vehicle. * I can clearly remember when bendy-buses were first trialled in the UK, in Oxford. The law prevented anyone from being carried in the back half - the trailer - so the buses were limited to carrying about the same number of passengers as a large minibus. Bonkers!

That looks like a Coles 'Milo' 16 ton diesel-electric crane alongside the Ablion in the first picture, probably c.1950-53, and quite rare. Undoubtedly it is also the crane whose jib is visible in several other pictures. Again it would be well worth saving if possible.

I notice reading the Special Types regs that a 'mobile crane' and 'engineering plant' can be up to 6.1 metres wide and 30 metres long and weigh up to 150,000kgs! That would be quite something to meet coming towards you.

Mike, First off, very many thanks for the sterling work you have done on behalf of all of us on this matter, it is appreciated more than mere words can adequately express. Thank you. I have mentioned briefly earlier in the thread my Iron Fairy crane (briefly since despite being ex-ROF it is not really an MV and I worry that as a result I am straying outside the scope of this group) in the belief that it is a Mobile Crane - this is indeed what DVLA/VOSA seem to believe at present. However, after reading the Special Types regulations I am now convinced that it is NOT a mobile crane! I am not sure exactly what it is, but a mobile crane is required to have suspension and an Iron fairy does not. It is possible it may be engineering plant, but I need to have a better look through the ST regs to try to figure this out. It weights 12 tons, cannot carry a load (except on the hook), has a top speed of 12mph, has no suspension (but is on pneumatic tyres), has number plates, lights etc, is taxed as Historic vehicle, insured (actually as 'van' since the insurer has no better matching description). It is completely impractical to drive it to the nearest MOT test centre without causing traffic chaos and falling foul of the Drivers Hours regs. I have absolutely no idea where I stand at the moment! I believe it to be MOT exempt at the moment, but no longer really know why! The chances of me ever wanting to drive it any distance on the road are remote, but I do need to be able to make regular short journeys (1/4 mile each way) to move it between yard/storage areas. If in the future it needs an MOT I have a big problem! I had the opportunity to speak to a traffic policeman last weekend and asked him for his opinion. His reply was that he hadn't a clue, but if he'd stopped it on the road and it *appeared* to be legal (ie tax disc, insurance, lights etc working) he would let it go because it wouldn't be worth wasting the time to establish the real situation! Not the answer I was hoping for, but intersting none-the-less.

I reckon that's a handbrake lever.

Years ago I did this (intentionally as an experiment) with a rag moistened in natural turpentine. Drop in in a metal bucket, a handful of other dry rags on top, and within an hour it was blazing. So if you keep a rag bin in your workshop, make sure that the used rags don't get dropped back in it. If you throw out your oily rags, do it in a bin outside. We are surrounded by hazards we don't even know about!

Does anyone know where I can get a tyre inflation air line for use with an on-board tyre inflation system of the type fitted to Scammells etc? Either a complete one, or the fittings to make one up. Thanks.

Antarmike - thank you! Your posts have been very informative and I don't think we could hope for a better representative. We should all help as much as we can. Out of interest I have just looked up to see the nearest VOSA Test Centre to the place where I keep and use my 1961 mobile crane. To get there and back would a 70 mile round trip. The crane is essentially a yard crane which is capable of being driven on the road for short movements, eg between adjacent sites, and I need to retain this ability. The round trip would be 70 miles at a maximum of 12mph in a vehicle with no suspension at all, poor rear visbility, and rear wheel steering. On busy roads (and they are) it would be an accident waiting to happen! Take into account the journey and testing time, the distance alone probably means either a low-loader to the test centre, an overnight stay, or (more likely) no test certificate.

I agree that this is potentially a disaster for the preservation movement. Reading the document I get the impression that it is aimed at pulling in those who use vehicles commercially (and I have no real difficulty with that) but as proposed it will also screw those of use with pricately owned, not-commercially used, post 1960 vehicles. As the owner of a 1961 Iron Fairy crane which is taxed an insured for road use, but has a top speed of 12 mph, it woudl simply not be feasible to drive it to a test centre. It is only road legal to move between sites, but it is a mobile crane and would therefore be included. I have to wonder if it is really feasible for someone such as Ainscough to take a 1200 tonne crane to a test centre? I doubt it. I think the complete lack of perception of the authorities of the existence of private large vehicles is probably reflected in the fact that none of the consulted bodies are connected to preservation. As has been said already, where is the MVT, FHBC, etc? Perhaps an exemption for vehicles in the Historic Vehicle VED class might be an answer. Incidentally, I note in the doc that the EU allows exemptions for vehicles INCLUDING historic vehciles before 1960, which is interesting wording since it does not disallow historic vehicles AFTER 1960. The clouds of doom are gathering. Time to emigrate perhaps.

I have just looked at the H&H article and various other transport-related stuff on their website (such as the H&H "plain English" guide to transport law) and there is much that appears to fly in the face of established fact. For example:- * the statement that "LGV" officially stands for "Long Goods Vehicle" (trivial, admittedly, but sets a standard). * the assertion that if you earn your living from riding horses at events, and in order to do this you drive the horses to the event in a horse box, you are a "professional" and therefore need a Driver CPC. It is my understanding based on information from many sources, that you only require the CPC if you are a professional driver, ie it is the driving which provides your principal income. In this case, you would be a professional rider and the driving is incidental to that, therefore no CPC is required. If however you were employed specifically to drive a horsebox to events and earned your living from doing this, then you would need a CPC. I don't think I will pay much attention to H&H. Perhaps they know more about horses than driving. (Please note that I am not a lawyer - you are advised not to take my advice about anything without researching it yourself and making a balnced decision!)

I think the restriction is that they cannot be used to carry goods in connection with any trade or business, which is not quite the same thing as the above.

As I understand it, the CPC is only required if it is the driving which is your main job. I.e., if you are, for example, a tree surgeon, and use a vehicle over 7.5 tons MAM to get to/from the worksite, and to transport logs/timber etc away from the worksite, then you do not need the CPC because the driving is incidental to your main work of tree surgery.

I know that this thread has been dormant since December, so probably the question is answered, but I have just come across a thread on Trucknet which asked the same question, i.e., can the holder of a Cat C licence legally drive an artic tractor unit provided that it is not towing a trailer at the time? There is a long debate but the concensus is that the answer is YES, since a tractor unit is a rigid good vehicle with an MAM exceeding 7.5 tonnes. There is absolutely no need to do anything to the 5th wheel coupling. One link contained in the trucknet thread is to the Cheshire Police website - Cheshire Police - which confirms that this is also their official view. The Trucknet thread is here - http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22652&highlight= - if anyone is interested.

I noticed last night while driving back from Devon to Dorset that a white Foden recovery has appeared alongside Bride Valley Motors in Winterbourne Abbas. I only caught a glimpse as I went by, but I wonder if this is in fact the old Frodsham Motors unit, just moved a few miles further east. I will have to investigate.

Anyone know what become of the Foden wrecker that used to belong to Frodsham Motors of Morcombelake, Dorset. Frodsham Motors had the well-known Scammell Constructor that was always parked in the yard, but the Foden was always kept in the workshop under cover. I am sure I read somewhere that it was a protoype, and have often wondered what became of it when Frodsham Motors closed.

There's been a lot of discussion about this sort of thing in various photography forums I belong to. As far as I know these guys CANNOT demand that you delete photos - and doing so is illegal. Apparently the OSA only prohibits photography if there is an intent on the photographer's part to aid or assist an enemy and taking photos without this intent is not illegal. This does however seem to be widely un-appreciated by the MOD police et al. Current "anti-terrorist" legislation (such as is used to give railway photographers an extremely hard time at the moment) also does not actually allow anyone to demand the on-the-spot deletion of photos. A considerable amount of info can be found by googling this subject.

Just found the thread I was looking for by manual means but it doesn't show up on either a simple or advanced search. Is the search facility malfunctioning perhaps?

Not sure if it's connected to the upgrade, but I notice that several posts from this afternoon have disappeared altogether (either that or the search feature isn't working).

Looking at the axlesboxes and buffers it is quite possible that this is a GWR-built wagon and would be ripe for preservation. I would love to see any other photos you may have. The sidings at Rotherwas munitions factory were borrowed by the GWR Civil Engineer in 1932 when the Old Eign Bridge carrying the GWR over the river just north of Rotherwas Junction was renewed. The new bridge girders were assembled at Rotherwas Sidings and moved as oversize loads the few hundred yards to site for installation. At the time, the assembled girders, which weighed (if my memory serves me) in the region of 90 tons each, were probably the largest abnormal indivisible load moved on the GWR (the GWR had to borrow a special wagon from the LMS since it only had one of adequate capacity itself). Once on site, the girders were unloaded and positioned by the GWR's two 36-ton capacity breakdown cranes Nos 2 and 3 (which were known to be quite capable of lifting loads in excess of 50 tons each). GWR No 2 crane is the one that I am slowly restoring, and a photo of which is now in the "Trains Again" thread on this forum.

East. There are some photos on the ESR website, but I will dig out some more pictures, including some old ones, and post in due course, provided that no-one objects to them being posted here (it not being an MV and me not wanting to break any forum rules!). I forgot to mention in the last post that at the time it was built, at 36-tons, it was the largest capacity railway crane in GB albeit only for a few months (the GWR took delivery of a second 36-ton crane from Stothert & Pitt of Bath later the same year). Perhaps more extraodinarily for such an oldie, it would appear that it was also the last steam powered breakdown crane to make a lift on BR metals when, in August 1989 and by then owned by the Dart Valley Railway, it took down a signal gantry at Goodrington. So it has a lot of history in it. Thank you all for your interest and for letting me ramble on about it here! It is my hope that in the not too distant future I can get a website running and 'blog' the restoration. Roger

A heritage railway in Somerset. Don't think the neighbours would approve if I brought it home!

Great photos! I would be very pleased to see more photos of the Ransomes & Rapier crane at Longmoor (in the RH background) if anyone has them. Here (for no very good reason) is a photo of my crane, a rather big restoration project although it is not quite as far gone as it looks. Built in 1908, it is the second oldest breakdown crane in the country and the oldest outside the National Collection, and is in fact the only 'proper' GWR breakdown crane to have survived (by which I mean one ordered by the GWR - there are three much later ones which were ordered on Government account as a war precaution and allocated to the GWR which also still exist). When built, it was so 'modern' that it redefined the standards for such cranes and the features it pioneered then became standard on all such cranes until the advent of the hydraulic jib cranes of the 1970s. I suppose that there is some legitimacy for posting this crane here, since there are several photos in existence of this crane at Swindon Works engaged on war production work, doing things like loading LCTs onto wagons.