question WW2 Bridging plate weights ?

[Ian L]

What weights would be displayed on the bridging plate during WW2 for these vehicles

 

Austin K5 with & without trailer.

Morris C8 with & without trailer.

Jeep with & without trailer.

 

And is the trailer weight above or below the vehicle weight as I've seen it both ways on restored vehicles.

[wally dugan]

Hi ian

[Ian L]

Hi ian

 

Hi Wally ? :nut:

[wally dugan]

IAN sorry had a problem posting a reply to your question but here goes This information comes form pamphlet no74 1944 quote it is essential for the proper working of the system that vehicles should not be loaded beyond there rated capacities the consequences of a three ton class nine lorry attempting to carry a five ton load over a class nine bridge might be disastrous. What this means is that the vehicles are marked on the vehicle bridge plate as unladen to answer the first part of your question the k 5 would be bridge plate number 5. The morris bridge plate number 3 the jeep bridge plate number 2 on a bridge plate the vehicle weight is at the top and the trailer weight at the bottom separated by a horizontal line. As to these vehicles towing trailers this depends on the trailer type been towed the only one I can tell you for definite is the jeep as the trailer is classed as half ton. If you tell me what type of trailer the other two you would like to display I will give you the correct bridge plate number. regards Wally

[RAFMT]

Interesting, all the RAF AMO's and AP's i have list the Jeep as being classification 1.

Also they state that on articulated vehicles the upper number should be the number for total train; i.e. tractor plus trailer, the lower figure is for the tractor only. The trailer should carry it's own classification on the front "should it be necessary to manhandle the trailer across a bridge".

The Austin and Jeep, since they are not dedicated tractors, would only need their classification number on them, with the trailer carrying it's own number. It would have been the drivers responsibility to calculate the total load class of the train.

[Richard Farrant]

What this means is that the vehicles are marked on the vehicle bridge plate as unladen to answer the first part of your question the k 5 would be bridge plate number 5.

 

This information seems to fly in the face of all photographic evidence from the period and somewhere I have a WO pamphlet from about 1942 that lists individual vehicles by make and type with Bridge Classifications showing gross weight, ie. a Bedford QL GS truck at 7.

[wally dugan]

hi

sorry if the details I posted do not fit in with what you believe but I Have NO reason to question them

this document was written by the war department I also have seen period photos that contradict this

so who is right

 

regards wally

[wally dugan]

hi IAN

 

TO add to the confusion we have found mechanized movement by road dated 1945 which states it cancels pamphlet no 74

dated 1944 most of the bridge classification are altered also for first time it mentions laden axle weights bridges are classed as follows 5 9 18 24 30 40 50 60 70 also the RAF jeep and Canadian army jeep state bridge number 1 while the British jeep

is 2 It has been stated that a lorry not a tractor would only Display its bridge number there is a drawing showing what I said in my reply both weights displayed on the towing vehicle front in this case a Bedford OYD ALL vehicles and trailers would be weighed fully laden

and correctly so what do you think is the answer I know what I think

 

regards wally

[RAFMT]

RAF’s AMO A143/44 introduced bridge load classifications and was released on the 17^th February 1944.

This was my source for the previous information, and this order also states that the classification is based on the axle weights of a fully loaded vehicle as Wally has said.

[wally dugan]

Hi Here is the details from the 1945 pamphlet jeep without number 2 Austin without 7 morris without 4 this is without trailers jeep with trailer 2 over number 1 as I don't know what the other 2 vehicles will be towing I cannot give the trailer weight. regards wally

[simon king]

If you trawl through Gavin Birch's British Jeep book, most Jeeps that have bridge plates carry either 2 or 3/2 (3 over 2). The odd Jeep carries 1 and some carry 5

 

sk

[Ian L]

This information seems to fly in the face of all photographic evidence from the period and somewhere I have a WO pamphlet from about 1942 that lists individual vehicles by make and type with Bridge Classifications showing gross weight, ie. a Bedford QL GS truck at 7.

 

Hi Richard if the QL is 7 what weight would it show when towing ? and what about the C8 ? cheers Ian

[Ian L]

If you trawl through Gavin Birch's British Jeep book, most Jeeps that have bridge plates carry either 2 or 3/2 (3 over 2). The odd Jeep carries 1 and some carry 5

 

sk

 

Cheers Simon I'll go with 3/2 for the Jeep.

[Richard Farrant]

Hi Richard if the QL is 7 what weight would it show when towing ? and what about the C8 ? cheers Ian

 

Ian,

For normal load carrying vehicles, it is not usual to see them with the double numbers on the bridge plate, usually only on gun tractors, recovery vehicles, etc. Reading the War Office Data book for transport vehicles from WW2 period, the maximum trailed weight (total weight of a trailer) for a QL is 6 tons on a normal road, for a C8GS it was 4 tons.

 

If you go through photos taken at the time and you will see lorries had the gross design weight on the plate, rounded off to highest figure. I am still searching for my copy of the Bridge class regulations, but know for sure it shows gross weight for each individual vehicle in service at the time. This was the system post war as well.

 

cheers Richard

[simon king]

It worked for me anyway.....

 

According to 2DY records

May 19, 1944: "Four trailers 10 cwt (to be towed by Jeeps) arrived."

May 22, 1944: "Seven trailers 10 cwt arrived."

Edited May 31, 2013 by simon king

[Ian L]

Ian,

For normal load carrying vehicles, it is not usual to see them with the double numbers on the bridge plate, usually only on gun tractors, recovery vehicles, etc. Reading the War Office Data book for transport vehicles from WW2 period, the maximum trailed weight (total weight of a trailer) for a QL is 6 tons on a normal road, for a C8GS it was 4 tons.

 

If you go through photos taken at the time and you will see lorries had the gross design weight on the plate, rounded off to highest figure. I am still searching for my copy of the Bridge class regulations, but know for sure it shows gross weight for each individual vehicle in service at the time. This was the system post war as well.

 

cheers Richard

 

Richard.

As they will be towing my water bowser which is rated at 2 tons would I be correct going with 9 /7 (9 over 7) for the QL & K5 and 6/4 for the C8 ?

Thanks Ian

[RAFMT]

Ian, as Richard has said, vehicles that are not dedicated tractors would only carry their own classification, only artics, gun tractors etc carried the double weights.

That said the trailer itself would need to have it's classification painted on the front, which in this case would indeed be 2.

[Ian L]

Ian, as Richard has said, vehicles that are not dedicated tractors would only carry their own classification, only artics, gun tractors etc carried the double weights.

That said the trailer itself would need to have it's classification painted on the front, which in this case would indeed be 2.

 

Yep sorry that was me not reading Richards post fully, OK 7 it is then.:drive:

[Richard Farrant]

Ian,

Here are some pages from 1942 regulations on Bridge Classifications. Sorry they may not be sharp as it is a photocopy.

The vehicles listed show the number to be displayed on the plate, this is the weight of vehicle plus rated payload, rounded up. On the trailer page, I note that 1/2 ton trailers are not listed, this could be because they are less than a ton in gross weight, and as the regulations say, they cover vehicle / trailers over 1 ton. This would be why motorcycle combinations are not listed I guess. Bridges were classed in stages as 5, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70.

 

The trailer page shows under Classification, the numbers on the towing vehicle weight plate and those on the trailer weight plate, assuming trailer is towed by the class of lorry listed against it.

 

No Morris C8GS listed, as they are late war production. The QL is listed as 7 for troop carrier and Light AA gun tractor, but the GS Cargo is 9. When I painted my QL about 25 years ago, photo evidence and the fact that the unladen weight is just under 4 ton (plus 3 ton load = 7 ton), I thought 7 to be correct, now I see the GS is 9 :embarrassed: The Austin K5 is shown as 9 as well.

 

Hope this explains it all.

 

regards, Richard

Bridge Classification 002.pdf

Bridge Classification 001.pdf

[RAFMT]

Richard,

The RAF AMO from '44 lists three QLs, G.S., 950 and 1,000 gallon tankers- all of which are given bridge classification 7. Maybe it changed between 42 and 44?

 

Bryan

[Morris C8]

Here is some info from the 1945 issue book. Has lists of A & B class Veh & trailers ect. The book has 55 pages of info on Bridge classifications for Veh and mechanical Equipment.

Keith

Edited June 2, 2013 by Morris C8

[Ian L]

Here is some info from the 1945 issue book. Has lists of A & B class Veh & trailers ect. The book has 55 pages of info on Bridge classifications for Veh and mechanical Equipment.

Keith

 

Thats interesting as it shows 'ordinary lorry' 7 or 9/7 if towing a trailer ?

[RAFMT]

Ian,

The diagram on it's own is rather confusing isn't it?

It should be saying that a solo vehicle not usually used to tow a trailer should have only the single figure, but if it is usually used to tow a trailer then it would have the two figure plate.

 

But really it's up to you, as the wise man said "it's your toy". If you want to "pretend" that your trucks usual duties are to tow a trailer then go for the two figure plate.

[Ian L]

Ian,

The diagram on it's own is rather confusing isn't it?

It should be saying that a solo vehicle not usually used to tow a trailer should have only the single figure, but if it is usually used to tow a trailer then it would have the two figure plate.

 

But really it's up to you, as the wise man said "it's your toy". If you want to "pretend" that your trucks usual duties are to tow a trailer then go for the two figure plate.

 

I'll stick with 7 :saluting: as you said its my toy but !!!!!!!

[paulbrook]

By heck who would have thought there was so much to worry about here! By way of observation it seems to me that a WD pamphlet is easily the most definitive guide to what should have gone on at any particular time as Wally say - what could possibly be more authoratitive than the direction in force at the time? And as very few of us are in a position through first hand experience to say otherwise then my instinct is that the written direction of the day trump any retrospective wishful thinking.

 

A few caveats though. I have no doubt that the classification business was regularly updated as the war in particular went on and more particularly as vehicles were adapted and used in different ways. If one wanted to portray a vehicle from a particular period of the war then I guess the rules applicable at the time would be the way to go, but if the rules were more than 6 months out of date then I would take care. Of particular note from my early military years was having it drummed into me that the classification had additional considerations over and above laden weights such as axle spacing and configuration, even tyre type. This may account for the QL anomaly. Additionally I would be quite sure that the "rules" would be adapted for different operational theatres depending on circumstances where some sort of local order might have been in place. This would account for the differences between the same vehicle in different parts of the armed forces.

 

Finally I am left with the uneasy realisation that things might vary photographically because of folks like me who spent 35 years or so using orders as just one option amongst many that might or might not be adopted depending on the circumstances of the moment. Not that I ever blatantly disobeyed them (ahem....) but I definitely bent them though.

 

As for combination markings (truck plus trailer) that would depend on the particular units equipment table. If it had things on the table that towed other things then the combination marking would be the choice. If the ET was for a solo vehicle (even if it then towed a trailer for another reason) then the marking would be a solo one. To put it mildly this was not an exact science.....

 

The bottom line is though, that if there is documentary evidence of what bridge classifications should have been in place at any particular time then that is about as good a reason as any to adopt that marking.