Carryfast:
Rog I think under the old regs it was’nt worded as goods vehicle towing a trailer it was class 1 any vehicle ‘designed and constructed for use as an articulated vehicle’ or words to that effect which meant that the fifth wheel had to be removed for a non class 1 driver to drive it.But if I’m wrong then it looks like I’m going to be in the firing line of coffeeholic.
Start running but weave from side to side, I’ll give you 30 seconds before I start firing.
The 5th wheel removal thing was to make it an incomplete motor vehicle, thus enabling it to be driven on an ordinary licence. An old Class 1 was for an articulated vehicle but with no trailer attached the unit wasn’t articulated so didn’t require a Class 1. In the very best traditions of drivers not letting the facts get in the way of a good bit of bullcrap the bit about the incomplete motor vehicle was ignored and it was spouted that the 5th wheel had to be removed to drive it with a Class 2 or 3. The only difference in days of olde was basically a Class 3 for 2 axle units and Class 2 for those with more than 2 axles.
Well at least I got more chance than I would have got by being tied to a post and shot by a firing squad .
But seriously I’m still thinking that it was the wording where designed and constructed for use as did’nt actually need the outfit to be coupled up for the unit to fall under that wording.The difference in days of old was that class 2 or 3 also covered you for pulling a drawbar in addition to the rigid prime mover without any further category for rigid towing a trailer like today and just removing the fifth wheel would’nt bring a tractor unit under the weight for an old HGV class 3 (or 2 if it was a six wheeler unit) to apply as it was 7.5 tonnes then as now for cat C BUT I’ve nevr even heard the term incomplete motor vehicle being used as an exemption from HGV or LGV licence requirements if a truck is within the weight ranges for them?.But a tractor unit (with a fifth wheel coupling which differentiated it rom a rigid) was classed solely as an articulated vehicle not a rigid at any time wether coupled up to a trailer or not.I reckon that in view of the serious nature of the charges and the penalty I’m entitled to trial by jury but we’re going to need the original wording of the class 1 entitlement for the defence case and maybe a few witnesses from the time
scotstrucker:
if its under 7.5t then your safe to drive through a 7.5t weight limit but then again am maybe wrong lol
AFAIAA, that is wrong. My point by asking a question I already knew the answer to was that, at times the rules refer to what ‘state’ the vehicle actually is (as in a unit only is Cat C) whereas sometimes the rules refer to what the vehicle is capable of i.e. the GVW of a tractor unit is (usually) up to 44t.
I think it would be better all round if the regulations just followed one method or the other, not both.
AIUI a sign consisting of a red circle containing a simple figure ie 18 T, as opposed to that sign bearing the image of a lorry, refers to a maximum physical weight instead of GVW.
mrpj:
AIUI a sign consisting of a red circle containing a simple figure ie 18 T, as opposed to that sign bearing the image of a lorry, refers to a maximum physical weight instead of GVW.
I think the simple sign with a figure in it has been “de-prescribed” from TSRDG. The newer generation of signs would need to have an “exemption plate” similar to the “Except for loading” thing we’re used to.
I think there’s one “Except Empty Vehicles” or such similar.
Carryfast:
The difference in days of old was that class 2 or 3 also covered you for pulling a drawbar in addition to the rigid prime mover without any further category for rigid towing a trailer like today
Exactly, and a tractor unit is simply a prime mover with a different type of coupling. Class 1 was only for articulated vehicles and without a trailer attached there is nothing articulated about a unit so a Class 1 not required.
Carryfast:
and just removing the fifth wheel would’nt bring a tractor unit under the weight for an old HGV class 3 (or 2 if it was a six wheeler unit) to apply as it was 7.5 tonnes then as now for cat C BUT I’ve nevr even heard the term incomplete motor vehicle being used as an exemption from HGV or LGV licence requirements if a truck is within the weight ranges for them?
Removing the 5th wheel was nothing to do with brining it within a certain weight. Do you remember those chassis you used to see being driven by guys wearing crash helmets and looking like a Michelin Man, with not much more than a bit of plywood to protect them? They were usually on their way to coach builders to be turned into buses and coaches, they were incomplete motor vehicles and did not require a PSV licence to drive them. Having no 5th wheel on a tractor unit somehow in the eyes of the law made the unit an incomplete motor vehicle, so could be delivered to dealers by ordinary licence holders for example. In days of olde the 5th wheel was usually fitted by the dealer, these days they usually come with it already fitted on the production line. People who did not hold an HGV had show trucks with no 5th wheel so they could take them to shows on their car licence.
Carryfast:
But a tractor unit (with a fifth wheel coupling which differentiated it rom a rigid) was classed solely as an articulated vehicle not a rigid at any time wether coupled up to a trailer or not.
No it wasn’t, it was just a regular, rigid goods vehicle when no trailer was attached. With no trailer there was nothing to articulate so you wouldn’t need an articulated licence.
scotstrucker:
if its under 7.5t then your safe to drive through a 7.5t weight limit but then again am maybe wrong lol
AFAIAA, that is wrong. My point by asking a question I already knew the answer to was that, at times the rules refer to what ‘state’ the vehicle actually is (as in a unit only is Cat C) whereas sometimes the rules refer to what the vehicle is capable of i.e. the GVW of a tractor unit is (usually) up to 44t.
44t would be the train weight, the gross weight of a tractor unit is more like 18 - 22t depending on number of axles.
Carryfast:
The difference in days of old was that class 2 or 3 also covered you for pulling a drawbar in addition to the rigid prime mover without any further category for rigid towing a trailer like today
Exactly, and a tractor unit is simply a prime mover with a different type of coupling. Class 1 was only for articulated vehicles and without a trailer attached there is nothing articulated about a unit so a Class 1 not required.
Carryfast:
and just removing the fifth wheel would’nt bring a tractor unit under the weight for an old HGV class 3 (or 2 if it was a six wheeler unit) to apply as it was 7.5 tonnes then as now for cat C BUT I’ve nevr even heard the term incomplete motor vehicle being used as an exemption from HGV or LGV licence requirements if a truck is within the weight ranges for them?
Removing the 5th wheel was nothing to do with brining it within a certain weight. Do you remember those chassis you used to see being driven by guys wearing crash helmets and looking like a Michelin Man, with not much more than a bit of plywood to protect them? They were usually on their way to coach builders to be turned into buses and coaches, they were incomplete motor vehicles and did not require a PSV licence to drive them. Having no 5th wheel on a tractor unit somehow in the eyes of the law made the unit an incomplete motor vehicle, so could be delivered to dealers by ordinary licence holders for example. In days of olde the 5th wheel was usually fitted by the dealer, these days they usually come with it already fitted on the production line. People who did not hold an HGV had show trucks with no 5th wheel so they could take them to shows on their car licence.
Carryfast:
But a tractor unit (with a fifth wheel coupling which differentiated it rom a rigid) was classed solely as an articulated vehicle not a rigid at any time wether coupled up to a trailer or not.
No it wasn’t, it was just a regular, rigid goods vehicle when no trailer was attached. With no trailer there was nothing to articulate so you wouldn’t need an articulated licence.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.In my book and from everything I knew in HGV class 1 days if it had a fifth wheel fitted and it was over 7.5 then it’s designed and constructed as an artic and it’ll need a class 1 to drive it.But not anymore since LGV C+E.As for an unfinished vehicle picture 6 here shows a 38 tonne ballasted chassis under test and it was driven on the road to the proving ground by an HGV driver with a 1 but a 2 would have been ok.BUT he would definitely have been done if he’d been driving a 38 tonne chassis on a car licence
scotstrucker:
if its under 7.5t then your safe to drive through a 7.5t weight limit but then again am maybe wrong lol
AFAIAA, that is wrong. My point by asking a question I already knew the answer to was that, at times the rules refer to what ‘state’ the vehicle actually is (as in a unit only is Cat C) whereas sometimes the rules refer to what the vehicle is capable of i.e. the GVW of a tractor unit is (usually) up to 44t.
44t would be the train weight, the gross weight of a tractor unit is more like 18 - 22t depending on number of axles.
GVW(vhicle) is for rigid,GCW(combination) is for artic GTW(train) is for wagon and drag?.
scotstrucker:
if its under 7.5t then your safe to drive through a 7.5t weight limit but then again am maybe wrong lol
AFAIAA, that is wrong. My point by asking a question I already knew the answer to was that, at times the rules refer to what ‘state’ the vehicle actually is (as in a unit only is Cat C) whereas sometimes the rules refer to what the vehicle is capable of i.e. the GVW of a tractor unit is (usually) up to 44t.
44t would be the train weight, the gross weight of a tractor unit is more like 18 - 22t depending on number of axles.
GVW(vhicle) is for rigid,GCW(combination) is for artic GTW(train) is for wagon and drag?.
Yes you’re right, my mistake I meant combination rather than train.
Carryfast:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.In my book and from everything I knew in HGV class 1 days if it had a fifth wheel fitted and it was over 7.5 then it’s designed and constructed as an artic and it’ll need a class 1 to drive it.
You’re confirming the problem, people believed the whole 5th wheel thing and the myth grew. It wasn’t a requirement to have a Class 1 to drive a solo tractor unit, it was just a commonly held misconception.
Class 1 A goods vehicle, weighing more than 2 tons, to which a trailer is attached by partial superimposition
The regulations may have had a more comprehensive description but I am fairly certain that was the wording on the licence itself.
So how did they differentiate between a tractor unit/combination weighing under or over 7.5 tonnes,drawbar and prime mover types and artic made up of tractor unit and semi trailer if that had been the case?.While a semi coupled to a tractor unit with a fifth wheel coupling would need to be more than ‘partial superimposition’? because in that case the jaws would’nt be locked on the king pin and the trailer would probably fall off the unit.But if the wording was really a trailer being attached to a vehicle weighing more than 2 tons then you’d have needed a class 1 to tow a caravan with something like a Mark 10 Jaguar saloon with 4 passengers and a full load of luggage in the boot.
Carryfast:
While a semi coupled to a tractor unit with a fifth wheel coupling would need to be more than ‘partial superimposition’?
Partial superimposition is just legal speak for a semi trailer. You find the term used in many regulations, acts, statutory instruments and other laws. You will frequently find it used in regulations governing toll crossings, such as Dartford for instance, when defining the charges for vehicles towing trailers.
Here is the definition of an articulated vehicle from the Road Traffic Act where the term is used.
“articulated goods vehicle” means a motor vehicle which is so constructed that a trailer designed to carry goods may by partial superimposition be attached to it in such manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne by the motor vehicle, and “articulated goods vehicle combination” means an articulated goods vehicle with a trailer so attached,
Carryfast:
While a semi coupled to a tractor unit with a fifth wheel coupling would need to be more than ‘partial superimposition’?
Partial superimposition is just legal speak for a semi trailer. You find the term used in many regulations, acts, statutory instruments and other laws. You will frequently find it used in regulations governing toll crossings, such as Dartford for instance, when defining the charges for vehicles towing trailers.
Here is the definition of an articulated vehicle from the Road Traffic Act where the term is used.
“articulated goods vehicle” means a motor vehicle which is so constructed that a trailer designed to carry goods may by partial superimposition be attached to it in such manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne by the motor vehicle, and “articulated goods vehicle combination” means an articulated goods vehicle with a trailer so attached,
But the Dartford toll did’nt exist back then and that’s a description of an artic from this new alien world to some of us who are just getting used to this brave new world in which anything without it’s trailer on the back does’nt need a licence but if it’s coupled up then look out.Anyway I reckon that a caravan/close coupled type drawbar trailer would have a ‘substantial’ part of it’s weight borne by the motor vehicle towing it whereas an A frame one would’nt.If that description came from the road traffic act what date are we talking about??.In my world an artic is defined by it having a fifth wheel coupling on the unit which is designed and constructed to be coupled up to a semi trailer.Having said that I can just as easily live with a world which says that the unit is a rigid if the semi is’nt coupled because it took me long enough to get my head around the first of those ideas which said that a unit is an artic even when it’s running solo.
Partial superimposition would refer to the fact that the trailer/ load was partially imposed on the tractor unit, as opposed to a drawbar where the trailer/load was not imposed at all.
As far as towing a caravan with a MK10 jag, unless the Jag was a goods vehicle why would HGV rules apply?
(you can use the same argument nowadays for a Range Rover etc towing a twin axle caravan and the tacho laws)
So how did they differentiate between a tractor unit/combination weighing under or over 7.5 tonnes,drawbar and prime mover types and artic made up of tractor unit and semi trailer if that had been the case?.
Any tractor unit weighing over 2tons needed a class 1, regardless of the gross weight, whilst tractor units under 2 tons (scammell, Karrier etc) only needed a class 4.
When NCL(British Rail) changed from scamell scarabs to Ford D300’s, a class 1 was needed although the gross vehicle weight was still only around 7 tons, but this licence covered you for up to the max(can’t remember if it was 28 or 32 tons tons then).
Class 2 and 3 included drawbar entitlement anyway and class 1 covered all groups anyway.
The only exception I remember to this was the class 1a.2a,3a etc which limited you to automatic transmission only.
del949:
Partial superimposition would refer to the fact that the trailer/ load was partially imposed on the tractor unit, as opposed to a drawbar where the trailer/load was not imposed at all.
As far as towing a caravan with a MK10 jag, unless the Jag was a goods vehicle why would HGV rules apply?
(you can use the same argument nowadays for a Range Rover etc towing a twin axle caravan and the tacho laws)
So how did they differentiate between a tractor unit/combination weighing under or over 7.5 tonnes,drawbar and prime mover types and artic made up of tractor unit and semi trailer if that had been the case?.
Any tractor unit weighing over 2tons needed a class 1, regardless of the gross weight, whilst tractor units under 2 tons (scammell, Karrier etc) only needed a class 4.
When NCL(British Rail) changed from scamell scarabs to Ford D300’s, a class 1 was needed although the gross vehicle weight was still only around 7 tons, but this licence covered you for up to the max(can’t remember if it was 28 or 32 tons tons then).
Class 2 and 3 included drawbar entitlement anyway and class 1 covered all groups anyway.
The only exception I remember to this was the class 1a.2a,3a etc which limited you to automatic transmission only.
I can understand most of that as being the regs under HGV licencing.However the regs there for 2 tonner+ tractor units running at less than 7.5 GCW being the break point for HGV 1 requirement have got me beat because don’t remember those exactly if they existed that is?.Also that idea of HGV being taken literally as meaning only goods vehicles does’nt sound right to me.Because in that case I and most others involved with 7.5 + tonner fire trucks would’nt have needed an HGV licence at all■■?.I can assure you though that the emergency services would’nt be wasting money training drivers to drive 4 and six wheeler fire engines to HGV standard then and C now if they could drive them on a car licence.But then as now it’s the gross weights of the vehicle and/or combination which determines wether an HGV or now C or C+E licence would be needed not the type?.There are some American motorhomes which run in both the rigid and the artic configuration around today but they don’t come under the old HGV or new LGV regs because they’re too light.However it could be possible to have a rigid yank motorhome pulling a caravan or artic yank motorhome which would come under the old HGV3 or 1 or the new C or C+E licence regs depending on wether or not the motorhome or the combination is over the 7.5 tonne break point?.But not being a goods vehicle would exempt it from tacho laws?.It’s time for Rog to get back into the discussion.But if what you’ve said there is right then someone could have got the old HGV1 licence by just taking their test on an artic outfit weighing less than 7.5 tonnes which would have looked a right laugh when it’s driver turned up at the test centre with people like me taking ours with a ‘proper’ trailer and a Bedford TM tractor unit?. .
Carryfast:
It’s time for Rog to get back into the discussion
Oh no !! - I just supplied the spoon for the stirring
I’m ok on the current LGV vehicle regs but on the old HGV regs my knowledge is very basic which is why I asked the question about artic units under the old HGV rules in the first place.
From what I’ve read on here so far, it does SEEM that certain myths grew up around the use of artic units by those without having a HGV class 1 licence and over time those myths seem to have come to be regarded as rules.
Carryfast:
It’s time for Rog to get back into the discussion
Oh no !! - I just supplied the spoon for the stirring
I’m ok on the current LGV vehicle regs but on the old HGV regs my knowledge is very basic which is why I asked the question about artic units under the old HGV rules in the first place.
From what I’ve read on here so far, it does SEEM that certain myths grew up around the use of artic units by those without having a HGV class 1 licence and over time those myths seem to have come to be regarded as rules.
But ‘sometimes’ Rog there are ‘myths’ which can be traced back to facts which really did exist.I reckon that over time with the C+E regs as they stand now that most have forgotten a world in which it was wether the vehicle was ‘designed and constructed’ TO RUN as an artic combination which determined wether it would require an HGV 1 to drive it rather than wether it’s actually RUNNING as an artic or drawbar combination which determines the C+E requirement today?.Anyway there’s some other questions there concerning break points and vehicle types for HGV or C+E requirements which need answering too?.It all comes down to the wording of the regs as they were written then.
