question Low Loader/Plant Truck/Transport Question

[madrat]

HI All,

As you may already have gathered I have a passion for large rusty mv's and living in the middle of nowhere! I also have a habit of buying slow 'not great on the road' type stuff.

 

I would dearly love to get to more shows and the only way that is going to happen is if I sort out transport for my toys. All the big shows are an 900 mile round trip for me :cry:

 

I am completely ignorant of anything truck related but have come to the conclusion that I have two options!

 

1) Tractor unit and low loader trailer

2) Plant type rigid truck

 

 

I would appreciate information from anyone on the following:

 

 

 

• Recommendations, what do you use and why?
  
• What to avoid
  
• Tax, testing and insurance advice
  
• Suitability to carry a tracked vehicle of 14 tons, a stolly and a Scammell
  

 

 

I will have a limited budget too! I've spent all my money saving mv's from the international Olympic committee :-D

Edited September 11, 2008 by madrat
blithering imcompetance

[antarmike]

Whenever I have spoken to DVLA, they say that any vehicle first used before April 1972 is concidered to be Historic vehicle at nil tax, unless it is a goods vehicle that is still being used for hire and reward. Then they want their share of the business profits, by insisting on a goods vehicle licence.

 

I had two Matadors and a Douglas at the time Historic vehicle was introduced. All had been Agric machines. As each one's tax came up for renewal, a new log book was sent out showing a new taxation class of Historic vehicle. I queried this and was told that for that age of vehicle the correct taxation class was historic, but I could continue to use the machines under the same conditions as if it were still taxed Agric.

 

I was told that if a farmer had an older trctor, he still used from day to day, and had no intention of ever restoring it, taking it to shows or the like, abut he still continued to use it only at plough or mucking out, its correct taxation class would still have to be Historic vehicle.

 

For the age of vehicles most of us have I think it would be difficult to move away, (or get into) any other Taxation class than Historic Vehicle.

 

My Antar is a heavy Loco, but its taxation class has been determined to be Historic.

Edited September 14, 2008 by antarmike

[Grumpy]

 

And I still don't see what category of STGO fits a Stalwart.....The Antar and Dyson were designed and built as a heavy Loco/ trailer combination, for the movement of abnormal loads.

 

The Stalwart was built as a load carrier...

 

I think we are getting a bit confused here, no one suggested that a Stalwart could be used under STGO, it was suggested that it could be run as a Light Locomotive as defined in C&U Regulations, as the aforementioned Regulations specifies a maximum width for a Locomotive as 2.75 metres, therefore a Stalwart is within width when used in this mode. Any goods vehicle could be registered as a Locomotive so long as it is used as such and not used to carry a load, the load bed could always be used for ballast.

 

Registration – Now we are really getting things confused here, when you register a vehicle you provide lots of information about the vehicle, however when you specify the Taxation Class this does not provide details about the Vehicle build, it specifies the “use” of the vehicle. For example a S26 Scammell could have a Taxation Class of, HGV, Private HGV or STGO, three different Taxation Classes for the same vehicle but being “Used” for a different purpose.

 

Whenever I have spoken to DVLA, they say that any vehicle first used before April 1972 is concidered to be Historic vehicle at nil tax, unless it is a goods vehicle that is still being used for hire and reward. Then they want their share of the business profits, by insisting on a goods vehicle licence.

 

Historic Tax – Even more confusion here, not sure where you get your date from, historic tax is an “option” for a vehicle “manufactured” before 1st January 1973, and is only an option for vehicles that are used in the following Taxation Classes.

 

 

• Private/Light Goods – including buses used for voluntary, community or other non-profit making purposes i.e. a vehicle not required to have a Public Service Vehicle Licence.

 

 

• Motorcycles and Tricycles.

 

 

• Private HGV – but excluding vehicles designed for, or adapted for use for, the conveyance of goods or burden and put to a commercial use on a public road e.g. unladen HGVs and HGVs used for driver training/testing purposes.

 

 

• Special Vehicles – mobile cranes/pumps, road rollers, works trucks and digging machines (excluding showmen’s goods/showmen’s haulage vehicles).

 

 

• Haulage Vehicles – not used for haulage purposes.

 

 

• Special Concessionary – agricultural machines, mowing machines, snowploughs, gritting vehicles, electric, vehicles and steam vehicles.

 

Please note the use of the word “option”– Historic Tax is an option it is not compulsory.

 

Now this is going to upset a few people on here – You will note that Recovery or STGO is not included in the above list. If you operate a vehicle as a Recovery Vehicle or under STGO you cannot opt for Historic Tax even if your vehicle was manufactured before 1st January 1973 and being used “not for hire or reward”

 

You can use the Historic Tax option with Ex-Recovery vehicles but they can’t be used for recovery and are not exempt from MOT / Plating.

 

You can use the Historic Tax option with a Heavy / Light Locomotive that is no wider than 2.75 metres as defined by the C&U regulation.

 

 

.....The Antar and Dyson were designed and built as a heavy Loco/ trailer combination, for the movement of abnormal loads.

 

.

 

But the Antar is 3.2 metres wide and this is over the maximum width for a Locomotive as defined by the C&U Regulations, therefore to use an Antar on the road it must be under STGO and if is used under STGO then you must Tax it as such and pay the revenant VED. If you run under STGO and Tax as Historic you are breaking the Law. Also remember that STGO is enable the movement of abnormal loads, transporting a Scammell to a show is not justification to run under STGO as it is not an abnormal load.

 

Mike I cannot see how you can drive your Antar on the road to a show legally unless it is towing an abnormal load and is taxed as STGO :nono:

 

As long as what we do is sensible, doing our best to stay with in the law as you personally interprete it and above all safe we should carry on rather than argue about the technicalities. It seems that even those who enforce them cannot understand the mine field.

[antarmike]

A wide agric vehicle runs under STGO but does not pay STGO rates..It oays the Agric rate..

 

Regarding whether Historic is optional, when I was changed from Agric to historic I was told by DVLA that I could revert to Agric at any time, if Historic did not allow me to operate as before.

 

After a year I applied to change back to Agric and was told I had to be historic, I could not be Agric...

 

Yes the date was a typo, I was quoting from memory on that one.

 

As for the taxation class of the Antar, full details were sent to DVLA , inluding its width and they told me the taxation class for this vehicle was Historic. I did not apply for it, I was given it by them.

 

As for the stalwart, to be a locomotive it has to be "designed itself not to carry a load" and whatever it could be used for (ballasted or whatever) it was designed to carry a load.

Edited September 15, 2008 by antarmike

[Grumpy]

It is my understanding that if a vehicle has been registered in the past in error and it has been put into a taxation class that does not match its use, it is illegal, and it is up to the present registered owner to ensure that the taxation class of the vehicle matches his use of the vehicle. If there is a discrepanncy it is his duty to notify DVLA and get the correct tax class.

.

 

:coffee: Come on man make up your mind :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[antarmike]

I was unsure as to how to licence the Antar so I wrote with full details and they decided it should be historic. I bow to their better judgement. I concider it to be the right taxation class, because I asked them to decide.

[antarmike]

Re locos etc

 

The definition for an agric machine reads "constructed or adapted to...."

 

The definition for Locomotive reads "constructed to..."

 

A vehicle may be moved into the Agric taxation class by adapting it for the purpose.

 

There is no provision to adapt a loco. A loco has to be constructed as a loco....

 

Talk of adding ballast in the load space, does not I believe make it a Loco, because it is an adaption, not how it was constructed.

 

Altough I suppose you could re-engineer one then go for SVA type approval....But then would it be concidered a new vehicle, not eligible for historic tax????

Edited September 15, 2008 by antarmike

[ashley]

legislation changes fast (for example there was a rumour a while back that JCBs may be made to run on white diesel on the road, but nothing has happened yet -

.

 

 

I think this may be still under review, as local authorities / contractors etc. may also have to run their ride on mowers (that cut the roadside verges) may also be stopped running on red fuel. This will also include the small rollers they use.

 

Ashley

[Stormin]

 

Talk of adding ballast in the load space, does not I believe make it a Loco, because it is an adaption, not how it was constructed.

 

Altough I suppose you could re-engineer one then go for SVA type approval....But then would it be concidered a new vehicle, not eligible for historic tax????

 

Surely there are many vehicles that can be adapted to become loco's. Albeit by specialist approved firms. Many modern heavy haul tractor units are merely uprated everyday 40 tonners.

 

Re-engineering a vehicle doesn't make it new. It would be similar to a kit car were either the donor vehicle age is taken of if not enough major components of the donor are used a Q plate is given. To classify as new all vehicle parts or a great percentage have to be newly manufactured.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Stormin
Spelling again.

[Grumpy]

HGV’s are not covered by the SVA scheme; any modifications are classed as a “Notifiable Alterations” quite easy to do using form VG10. However if you are modifying the braking system, then you have to provide all the calculations for your modifications. Another point of interest is, if a HGV is an insurance right-off it does not need to be inspected by VOSA before its put back on the road. We have some very complicated laws in this country.

There is a Goods Vehicle National Type Approval (GVNTA) but currently it only applies to a small number of vehicles, this is for practical reasons because HGV’s are normally built in multi-stages with only the chassis-cab built by the original manufacturer who is the person who applies for type approval.

[antarmike]

HGV’s are not covered by the SVA scheme[/b]

 

But locomotives aren't HGV's.....and that is what it would be if it were re-engineered...

[julezee001]

As far as I can find in looking quickly on Government sites, the minimum width for notifying routes etc is 2.9m of 9.51ft, or 3m for a load. This is what I have understood to be the case for years.

 

Despite dire warnings about being over width, I had no problems either registering or insuring my Scammell Explorer 3 years ago (its 8' 7" across the front axle hubs). Surely if there were a problem with vehicles of this width, they would be a great deal more difficult to insure?

 

The Stalwart is 2.616m wide, hence is also too narrow to require notification. I understood 432's to be 9' 7" wide when on my driving course, but reading a book with dimensions it is shown as 2.844m which again is under the limit??

 

Hope this helps, Jules

[ArtistsRifles]

VOSA changed the rules in January 2007 Jules. After this point in time it is - technically - not possible to register anything over 2,55m wide unless it is demonstrably one a of a very few special categories such as Agricultural, mobie crane etc.

 

That said - VOSA are such experts in the field of their own remit that the VOSA employee I spoke to via phone in September 2007 omitted to mention this little but highly relevant fact when reeling off a list of requirements to get my vehicle registered and taxed - this why I'm currently £11K out of pocket and absolutely p*ss*d to the eyebrows with VOSA......

[antarmike]

Yes I don't know. The max width of load or vehicle can be is 9' 6" before notifying. The notification is under STGO.

 

If a vehicle or trailer is above the permitted width of 2.55 Metres , but under the min notification width what do you do.

 

I feel it a good idea to notify. Maybe you don't have to, but equally maybe you simply can't legally use them, so what you do is take them off the road. I don't know, it is a quandry...

[Grumpy]

But locomotives aren't HGV's.....and that is what it would be if it were re-engineered...

 

Yep you are right, a locomotive is not a HGV, or if we are being totally correct a LGV (large goods vehicle)

 

But the SVA scheme only applies to cars or light passenger vehicles and Light Goods Vehicles manufactured after 31st March 2004 having a design gross weight more than 3,500kg but not more than 5,500kg. Both a light locomotive and a heavy locomotive fall outside of this scope.

 

So to correct my post, both HGV’s and Locomotives are not covered by the SVA scheme. :-D

Edited September 16, 2008 by Grumpy

[radiomike7]

As you say Mike, the law is too complicated and ambiguous; how's this for a daft ruling: My pal had to collect a 40 ton excavator from a site and exchange it for a smaller 20 ton machine. As the 40 tonner was outside of the scope of C&U, he loaded the 20 tonner on an STGO2 transporter but broke down on his way to the site. VOSA somehow got involved and he was reported for using an STGO when the machine was capable of being transported on a C&U type vehicle.

 

Also, how do the crane support vehicles get away with running STGO? They often carry stacks of weights which are clearly divisible and capable of being carried singly or in pairs by a conventional C&U artic:confused:

[julezee001]

Obviously this is another subject with rules as clear as mud (as per M.O.T's, licence requirements, mods, etc.).

 

From quickly skimming through various web sites, it suggests that a vehicle has to be over 2.9m wide to have a legal requirement to notify the police of your route etc. Legally if it is not in a special category it can only be 2.55m wide (100" or 8' 4"). However, according to a judgement on the net relating to American motorhomes, which are often 102" wide and regularly imported these days, no one has yet been prosecuted on UK roads for being over width with them.

 

I suspect Scammell Explorers fit into the special vehicles category as a Recovery vehicle, interesting as on another site it mentions that the AA now uses recovery dollies which when in use are 2.49m wide, which is over the 2.3m permitted behind a <3500kg vehicle!

 

As to registering overwidth vehicles such as the OT, one would hope that if someone wants to go through all the hassle, and move/drive it as a wide load etc, what's the problem? I guess that would just involve too much common sense??

 

 

Jules

[ArtistsRifles]

I think we are drifting into the perilous realms of the "P" word here Jules.

Basically I reckon the nanny state we now live in won't allow the individual to take responsibility , instead preferring to micro-mis-manage their actions rather than concentrate on the really important things. Every time I've tried to get mine done it devolves into the person the other side of the counter acting like a parrot with the "I'm sorry sir, it's overwidth" reply to any question such as "What class can I register it in then?" or "How would you feel if the positions were reveresed?" :argh: :argh:

 

I have no problem with notifying the police of the planned route a couple of days in advance - for me it seems a good thing as at least then I woudl KNOW the route is OK before I left. Running on tracks I'd have no problem with a 20 mph speed limit either. However a faceless civil servant who wouldn't know a green machine if it ran over him/her has decided that I am not responsible enough to do these things!!

[Tony B]

Looked at the V.O.S.A. 'Official' web site. On the front page is a large disclaimer. 'We cannot accept any liability for the accuracy of the content of this site'. Says it all!.