Best towing vehicle for 40' drawbar trailer?

[Iain]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has any experience of towing drawbars & what would be the best vehicle for the job?

I've bought a big old 1940s/50s Showmans Living Van. I'd like to use a period British Army lorry to pull it with & I would be wanting a 4x4/6x6.

The wagon weighs around 8 tons, so that narrows my choice even more. She's 34' + 6' A-frame, 11' high x 9' wide.

It would be good (but maybe hoping!) if the lorry could manage 50mph for dual-carriageways etc.

I'd guessed from looking at other rigs that the shorter the length of the lorry, the better?

 

I've kind of narrowed it down to a Scammell Explorer. I've always really liked Mk.1 AEC militants as well (there's one for sale just down the road from me), but seems like top speed is around 30 mph? The Mk III seems to have a better turn of speed (I know it's 60s/70s). But it's 7' longer than the Scammell.

 

Any suggestions/advice would be much appreciated, up to now it's just been me & my copy of Tugs of War for help!!

Cheers, Iain

[Iain]

try searching under showmans living wagons as that looks very much like a early version of their present living wagons which are towed by most erfs or any fairground trucks with air brakes

 

It does look similar David, but the whole construction etc. is very different. It's a bit like... say, comparing a Matador to an MK (no disrespect to the Bedford intended). This wagon is "over-engineered" & smacks of a different era, where everything was planned according to spec, & then trebled, just to be sure!

An ERF or similar would no doubt do the job on tarmac, but I have many a muddy field to cross down on t'farm, before I can reach said metalled roads!

Besides, now have me heart set on a Scammell or an AEC!!

[Iain]

Difficult choice, Ian. Also very frustrating when you consider that many vans of similar width are probably currently in use on the roads.

 

In fact run this scenario by them - what if you were to pull it with an overwidth vehicle (wider than the van), something like the 9ft 5" wide RAF Scammell Constructor on Milweb?

 

Sometimes IGNORANCE can be BLISS! Several folk have commented on here how they used to do things without a care and with no problems, but as they get older they become more aware of what could go wrong and that might lead to a greater awareness of the legal position and possible resultant modifying of what they do and how they do it.

 

Sounds like you've worked out what to do - but if you do plan to have a senior moment and forget what has been said, can I suggest you ask to have this thread pulled? :cool2:

 

I managed to get hold of a couple of chaps with wagons the same width as mine. They just go out with them & have never had any hassle, so...

 

I think I'll go ahead with the buy, it's being delivered anyway so it's not a problem as yet.

 

I'll need to sort the air-brakes on the trailer & the tyres look a bit elderly etc. I'll take the relevant HGV tests & by the time all that's done, I'm sure I'll have figured out how the others get around it.

 

Got an invite to David Crouch's yard for next week. He's got a Scammell Constructor with Rolls-Royce 220 that sounds interesting, not sure if it's one of the 9'5" wide ones. Also has more Scammells & AECs so, that's my next port of call! :-D

 

Cheers, Iain

[antarmike]

I managed to get hold of a couple of chaps with wagons the same width as mine. They just go out with them & have never had any hassle, so...

 

I think I'll go ahead with the buy, it's being delivered anyway so it's not a problem as yet.

 

I'll need to sort the air-brakes on the trailer & the tyres look a bit elderly etc. I'll take the relevant HGV tests & by the time all that's done, I'm sure I'll have figured out how the others get around it.

 

Got an invite to David Crouch's yard for next week. He's got a Scammell Constructor with Rolls-Royce 220 that sounds interesting, not sure if it's one of the 9'5" wide ones. Also has more Scammells & AECs so, that's my next port of call! :-D

 

Cheers, Iain

 

I have been toying with buying the Ex RAF Constructor on Milweb.

 

Unfortunately I cannot see how this is lawful either!

 

A Locomotive that complies with C and U regs can go to 2.75m Wide but at 2.86m it is too wide to be a Locomotive, that complies with C and U regs.

 

It is clearly not a locomotive, since it is designed itself to carry a load. The 1971 MVEE book says of it it is designed for towing 30.5 Ton Full trailer, or for the transportation of general cargo, and engineering Equipment, The RAF used them with A Caterpillar D4 in the Ballst box, as ballast, but also to move one more piece of plant than could fit on the trailer.

 

The Constructor then has to be seen as Special Types, but is it.

 

Seeing as it is designed to carry one piece of plant in the ballast box, and another on the trailer, it is not designed for moving Abnormal Indivisible load, bacause the load is divided!

 

It is for this reason I am having serious second thoughts as buying one as an Antar replacement!.

 

Is an RAF Constructor lawfully allowed on the road? I have my doubts.

 

(athough there is some hope in that it does say that a dividing wall can be added to create two ballast compartments)

Fuse lit, retire immediately!

Edited June 11, 2010 by antarmike

[Grumpy]

So long as the locomotive is designed to pull a trailer that has been designed and constructed to transport AIL’s it can be run under STGO, what is the design train weight of the Constructor?

[ArtistsRifles]

<snipped> but I was intending to give Crouch Recovery a ring tomorrow anyway, about Militants though!

 

Cheers, Iain

 

Interesting - does he have Mk 1's??? Or just Mk 3 Recovery versions????

[antarmike]

So long as the locomotive is designed to pull a trailer that has been designed and constructed to transport AIL’s it can be run under STGO, what is the design train weight of the Constructor?

 

Constructor itself unladen weight 17.02 Tonnes

 

Scammell Laden 26.9 Tonnes RAF Constructor is not a locomotive because it is designed itself to carry a load, it therefore cannot be a locomotive.

 

.

Edited June 12, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

So long as the locomotive is designed to pull a trailer that has been designed and constructed to transport AIL’s it can be run under STGO, what is the design train weight of the Constructor?

 

Trailer it was designed for was the Crane, 30 ton 4 twin wheeled, drop frame, low laoding Trailer Ref No 16A/2478.

 

This was 30 ton capacity, and weighed 13 tons 14 Cwt 2 Qtrs when empty.

 

So gross train weight is approximately 27 + 30 + 14 ie about 71 tons, but not designed for indivisable load, because it was designed to carry on its own load bed a Cat D4, complete with blade and winch, at the same time towing a laden trailer carrying another piece of Airfield construction equipment. (Ie it is intended for moving a divided load.)

 

But as you keep reminding me about the Antar, an AILV should only be on the road to move AIL's I am not sure about the legality of using one to tow a living van which could be towed by a C and U compliant vehicle.

Edited June 11, 2010 by antarmike

[Grumpy]

Constructor itself unladen weight 17.02 Tonnes

 

Scammell Laden 26.9 Tonnes RAF Constructor is not a locomotive because it exceeds max width for a locomotive, and it is designed itself to carry a load, so there are two very good reasons why it cannot be a locomotive.

 

.

 

Your quoting from the C&U regulations, the definition in the STGO regulations is much simpler as described in my post.

To run STGO you have to comply with the STGO regulations for a locomotive not the C&U regulations for a locomotive.

If the design train weight of the Constructor allows it to draw a trailer greater in weight than is allowed in the C&U regulations, then by its design it complies with the definition of a locomotive in the STGO i.e. being a vehicle designed of transporting a load that cannot be transported by conventional means.

 

What width is the Antar

[antarmike]

Your quoting from the C&U regulations, the definition in the STGO regulations is much simpler as described in my post.

To run STGO you have to comply with the STGO regulations for a locomotive not the C&U regulations for a locomotive.

If the design train weight of the Constructor allows it to draw a trailer greater in weight than is allowed in the C&U regulations, then by its design it complies with the definition of a locomotive in the STGO i.e. being a vehicle designed of transporting a load that cannot be transported by conventional means.

 

What width is the Antar

 

The Antar, which I have now sold is 10' 6" wide but unlike the Constructor was intentend to work at a gross train weight of 140 Tons, and does not have the designed ability to carry a load itself, as the constructor does.

 

Unless I am mistaken locomotive is not defined within Special types Authorisation.

 

Can you point me towards the definition of Locomotive within special types please.

 

The trailer it was designed to work with was only 8 feet wide, and although it was supplied with bolt on extensions to enable it to be stretched to 9' 6" the trailer was clearly designed to carry normal width loads. If it is to be viewed as a Special Types trailer, it has to be because of weight, not width.

Edited June 11, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

As Alien says, 'pull up an ammo box'.

 

A veteran driver who had a drive in mine one day told of how they had a D4 in the back of theirs coming out of Singapore on the way up to Malaysia. At traffic lights they decided to have a race with a truck which pulled up alongside. With much revving of engines the lights changed, clutches were let go and the Scammell shot off in a fast-ish gear - and the D4 promptly shot through the rear doors onto the tarmac

[Grumpy]

The Antar, which I have now sold is 10' 6" wide but unlike the Constructor was intentend to work at a gross train weight of 140 Tons, and does not have the designed ability to carry a load itself, as the constructor does.

 

Unless I am mistaken locomotive is not defined within Special types Authorisation.

 

Can you point me towards the definition of Locomotive within special types please.

 

Schedule 1, Part 1, 3, C

[Grumpy]

As Alien says, 'pull up an ammo box'.

 

A veteran driver who had a drive in mine one day told of how they had a D4 in the back of theirs coming out of Singapore on the way up to Malaysia. At traffic lights they decided to have a race with a truck which pulled up alongside. With much revving of engines the lights changed, clutches were let go and the Scammell shot off in a fast-ish gear - and the D4 promptly shot through the rear doors onto the tarmac

 

Lovely

[Grumpy]

Schedule 1, Part 1, 3, C

 

There is also nothing mentioned in Part 2 (Construction) that states a Loco cannot carry a load.

[antarmike]

Schedule 1, Part 1, 3, C

 

But if the term locomotive has no specific definition (interpretation) within the list of definitions (interpretations) given in STGO then then it must take its definition from other legislation and since it is designed to carry a load, surely it is not a locomotive.

 

But Okay if you are right ( which I personally don't think you are) then 2 days notice required to the police and notification to every bridge authority, everytime the Scammell goes out. And by your interpretation it would legally have a 20 MPH speed limit imposed upon it at all times.

 

Maybe not a good choice for a tow vehicle for a living van.

 

And just why has the Antar entered into this conversation?

Edited June 11, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

Ballast is a load :-)

[antarmike]

There is also nothing mentioned in Part 2 (Construction) that states a Loco cannot carry a load.

Your quoting from the C&U regulations, the definition in the STGO regulations is much simpler as described in my post.

 

The only definition for heavy locomotive (and light locomotive) does not come from C and U definitions.

 

The term Locomotive is defined in Section 185 (1) Road Traffic Act 1988, and this applies equally to C and U regs and to Motor vehicles (authorisation of Special types) regs. (A mechanically propelled vehicle not constructed itself to carry a load other than equipment for propulsion, loose tools and loose equipment.....)

 

 

RAF Constructor is categorically not a locomotive, because it is itself designed to carry a load.

Edited June 12, 2010 by antarmike

[Grumpy]

The only definition for heavy locomotive (and light locomotive) does not come from C and U definitions.

 

The term Locomotive is defined in Section 185 (1) Road Traffic Act 1988, and this applies equally to C and U regs and to Motor vehicles (authorisation of Special types) regs.

 

RAF Constructor is categorically not a locomotive.

 

If you say so Mike, not how I would define it. It’s a clear as day in the STGO regulations, but that’s only my interpretation. Your entitled to your own opinion same as any one else.

[antarmike]

If you say so Mike, not how I would define it. It’s a clear as day in the STGO regulations, but that’s only my interpretation. Your entitled to your own opinion same as any one else.

 

Yes, that's my opinion, road traffic act applies to every situation, and Road traffic act says RAF Constructor is not a locomotive, others may disagree, but no need to go any further with this one.

 

I have over time been realising that the way current legislation is being applied, and in relation to my use of the Antar, I may well have beeen in a very grey area the way I have been using it (on some occasions, not all the time) . I have taken the decision that I wan't to downsize, but also end up with vehicles that are universally accepted as being within both the spirit and the letter of the law.

 

I am 95% sure the Antar has sold, the Dyson trailer is headed for the scrap yard if no one buys it soon and what is left is unquestinably lawful the way I use it. With all the grey areas discussed on here over the last year that is a very safe and happy position to be in now.

 

I feel buying the Constructor would put me unquestionably back into a grey area. Now a Diamond T ticks all the boxes and is definitely legal in all respect!

Edited June 12, 2010 by antarmike

[Grumpy]

Yes, that's my opinion, road traffic act applies to every situation, and Road traffic act says RAF Constructor is not a locomotive, others may disagree, but no need to go any further with this one.

 

I have over time been realising that the way current legislation is being applied, and in relation to my use of the Antar, I may well have beeen in a very grey area the way I have been using it (on some occasions, not all the time) . I have taken the decision that I wan't to downsize, but also end up with vehicles that are universally accepted as being within both the spirit and the letter of the law.

 

I am 95% sure the Antar has sold, the Dyson trailer is headed for the scrap yard if no one buys it soon and what is left is unquestinably lawful the way I use it. With all the grey areas discussed on here over the last year that is a very safe and happy position to be in now.

 

I feel buying the Constructor would put me unquestionably back into a grey area. Now a Diamond T ticks all the boxes and is definitely legal in all respect!

 

 

Totally agree apart from scrapping the Dyson, but know just how you feel.

One point you raise is sprit and letter of the law, from personal experience I have always found the Police, VOSA and the Highways Authority always very helpful and a pleasure to deal with when ever I have taken something unusual out, even when there have been problems and we have had some very interesting ones over the years. Perhaps we have just been lucky.

[antarmike]

Yes, that's my opinion, road traffic act applies to every situation, and Road traffic act says RAF Constructor is not a locomotive, others may disagree, but no need to go any further with this one.

 

I have over time been realising that the way current legislation is being applied, and in relation to my use of the Antar, I may well have beeen in a very grey area the way I have been using it (on some occasions, not all the time) . I have taken the decision that I wan't to downsize, but also end up with vehicles that are universally accepted as being within both the spirit and the letter of the law.

 

I am 95% sure the Antar has sold, the Dyson trailer is headed for the scrap yard if no one buys it soon and what is left is unquestinably lawful the way I use it. With all the grey areas discussed on here over the last year that is a very safe and happy position to be in now.

 

I feel buying the Constructor would put me unquestionably back into a grey area .

 

( I now view it as one of a whole list of vehicles ,{a list that you all know because of previous posts I have made}, that Sectretary of State could operate under STGO as an operational Military vehicle, but which because it cannot run under the same exemption of C and U max width under civilian ownership, is illegal to use on the road).

 

Now a Diamond T on the other hand ticks all the boxes and is definitely legal in all respect!

 

By way of clarification I say the Constructor is in a grey area because I now view it as one of a whole list of vehicles ,{a list that you all know because of previous posts I have made}, that Sectretary of State could operate as an operational Military vehicle, but which because it cannot run under the same exemption of C and U width under civilian ownership, is illegal to use on the road.

Edited June 12, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

Totally agree apart from scrapping the Dyson, but know just how you feel.

One point you raise is sprit and letter of the law, from personal experience I have always found the Police, VOSA and the Highways Authority always very helpful and a pleasure to deal with when ever I have taken something unusual out, even when there have been problems and we have had some very interesting ones over the years. Perhaps we have just been lucky.

 

If no-one wants to buy the Dyson, what else do I do with it?

[N.O.S.]

All of which, Iain (if you're still here....), will probably have led you to wonder what on earth you were doing even contemplating acquiring an old vehicle and van trailer in the first place :shocked::-D

 

 

 

 

 

You might also be asking yourself some or all of the following -

 

• why are there so many overwidth old vehicles in recreational use if it is illegal?
  
• why are there so many old trucks with dummy loads if they should only be unladen?
  
• why does the definition of the vehicle matter if it is taxed Historic?
  
• what parts of the C&U regs - particularly width - actually apply to an old pre 1960 vehicle?
  
• can I legally pull a living van behind an old vehicle taxed Historic?
  
• what is the definition of a living van?
  
• what is the width limit for a pre-1960 trailer?
  
• what is the phone number for DVLA/VOSA?
  

You may already have concluded that the pre-1960 vintage truck folk are a little more relaxed and comfortable with their hobby than some others, not having had to rely on the strict interpretation of wording in Statutory Instruments and the like to get around restrictions on use of their vehicles.

 

That's not to say that they are necessarily 100% in compliance with all the laws of the land, but hopefully work 'within the spirit of the law' in a responsible manner. I'd also recommend you talk to a few users, and see how responsible people who enjoy the hobby get on.

 

And if you are thinking of delving deep into Statutory Instruments yourself to find answers to some of the (possibly even unanswerable) questions, first try answering the question posed by a WW2 USAAF bomber crewman -

 

 

As I lie on my bunk in my nissen hut,

I get this wonderous feeling -

How much of this is walls?

Or is the whole thing ceiling?

 

 

 

If you can answer that, then you are certainly in with at least half a chance of understanding all the road vehicle legislation you'll come across :cool2:

Edited June 12, 2010 by N.O.S.
spelling

[antarmike]

All of which, Iain (if you're still here....), will probably have led you to wonder what on earth you were doing even contemplating acquiring an old vehicle and van trailer in the first place :shocked::-D

 

 

 

 

 

You might also be asking yourself some or all of the following -

 

• why are there so many overwidth old vehicles in recreational use if it is illegal?

• why are there so many old trucks with dummy loads if they should only be unladen?

• why does the definition of the vehicle matter if it is taxed Historic?

• what parts of the C&U regs - particularly width - actually apply to an old pre 1960 vehicle?

• can I legally pull a living van behind an old vehicle taxed Historic?

• what is the definition of a living van?

• what is the width limit for a pre-1960 trailer?

• what is the phone number for DVLA/VOSA?

You may already have concluded that the pre-1960 vintage truck folk are a little more relaxed and comfortable with their hobby than some others, not having had to rely on the strict interpretation of wording in Statutory Instruments and the like to get around restrictions on use of their vehicles.

 

That's not to say that they are necessarily 100% in compliance with all the laws of the land, but hopefully work 'within the spirit of the law' in a responsible manner. I'd also recommend you talk to a few users, and see how responsible people who enjoy the hobby get on.

 

And if you are thinking of delving deep into Statutory Instruments yourself to find answers to some of the (possibly even unanswerable) questions, first try answering the question posed by a WW2 USAAF bomber crewman -

 

 

As I lie on my bunk in my nissen hut,

I get this wonderous feeling -

How much of this is walls?

Or is the whole thing ceiling?

 

 

 

 

what is the phone number for DVLA/VOSA?

 

If you can answer that, then you are certainly in with at least half a chance of understanding all the road vehicle legislation you'll come across :cool2:

 

why are there so many overwidth old vehicles in recreational use if it is illegal?

Beacuse although technically illegal, at the moment police and Vosa don't really care.

 

(I would have thought this is like asking "why are there so many Pit Bull Terriers in this country? or why do so many Kids carry knifes?, Unless there is an actual problem with a particular dog or owner, or a kid pulls a hidden knife from their pocket, nobody does anything, because limited resources mean only problem cases see any action.)

 

why does the definition of the vehicle matter if it is taxed Historic?

Because the vehicle definition determines how it can be used.

 

what parts of the C&U regs - particularly width - actually apply to an old pre 1960 vehicle?

all of it , including width, unless it is genuinely a "special types" vehicle

 

can I legally pull a living van behind an old vehicle taxed Historic?

Yes, but a living van, as opposed to a caravan, is defined as being capable of carrying a load, as well as being living accomodation. Hovever you can only tow living van if no load is carried. A Caravan is defined as being living accomodation only, with no way of carrying a load.

 

what is the definition of a living van?

 

Quote VOSA "A 'living van' is "a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not, which

is used for living accommodation by one or more persons and which is also

used for the carriage of goods or burden which are not needed by such one

or more persons for the purpose of their residence in the vehicle". 'Living

vans' are classed as goods vehicles and, depending on their weight, are

therefore in either class IV or VII within the MOT test scheme or are

subject to HGV plating and testing."Unquote

 

I believe a caravan to be " "a vehicle (not being a living van) which is

constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and their effects and

which contains, as permanently installed equipment, the facilities which

are reasonably necessary for enabling the vehicle to provide mobile living

accommodation for its users". Caravans are not classed as goods

vehicles for MOT test purposes. I cannot find at the moment confirmation of this definition, but it isn,t far from the mark.

 

The trailer discussed in this thread is therefore a caravan, not a living van.

 

what is the width limit for a pre-1960 trailer?

There is no specific width limit for pre 1960. trailer, all trailers except Special types trailers are limited to max width of 2.55m.

 

what is the phone number for DVLA/VOSA?

Google? or a phone book.

 

 

As I lie on my bunk in my nissen hut,

I get this wonderous feeling -

How much of this is walls?

Or is the whole thing ceiling?

 

 

The walls are the brick built structures that the metal structure sits upon.

 

The Walls are also the bit you will see me banging my head against.

Edited June 12, 2010 by antarmike

[Iain]

If no-one wants to buy the Dyson, what else do I do with it?

 

Could there be a museum somewhere that would be interested?

 

Or why not convert it to a living van?! Hmm? Oh, yes, shut up Iain!

 

After some reflection, I've decided I won't be buying the Constructor at Crouch's if it's one of the 9'5" ones. I think that would just be compounding the problem!

 

He only has 1 MkI Militant there, & it actually belongs to one of his customers. It's tied up in a deal that's not my business to discuss, but I may be able to buy it, depending on what occurs with

his deal.

 

I've also just remembered, there's a Scammell Explorer & a 60s/70s showmans wagon (as well as an unusual electric blue Leyland Martian!) parked a few miles away from me (do they belong to anyone here?). I left a note on the Scammell last year, asking if it was available (it wasn't, but it was a polite & friendly refusal), I should be able to contact him about the wagons width issue.

 

Cheers, Iain

[Degsy]

I have been following this thread with interest and it is , no doubt, a very complicated subject but two simple things stand out. Ignorance of the law never has been and never will be accepted as an excuse by the police or a court. If 2.55m is the maximum width allowed in normal circumstances and some idiot who cannot judge width collides with vehicle or van and an insurance company becomes involved I can foresee them using the width to say 'Not insured' . Should it come to this can you afford the legal costs that will surely follow?

Whilst I fully realise this is a worst case scenario do you want to risk sods law coming into operation?