Tanker drivers: beware of markings grief (with pics)

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

dieseldave:

muckles:
Isn’t the orange plate at the rear for used for packages not tankers

Absolutely spot-on. :smiley:

muckles:
and isn’t also in the wrong way round as Wheel Nut said.

Spot-on again mate. :smiley:

A bit late in the day I know but:

The orange board is unnecessary with tankers as it’s already present with the Kemler code -336- (or E.A.C. for domestic regs) & the UN no -1230- on it. :grimacing:

22

glenman:
my brain hurts after that. :slight_smile:

Hi glenman, You’ve just hit the nail on the head mate. :smiley:
Folks’ brains will hurt when they mix-up two completely different sets of requirements. :wink:

For a UK domestic dangerous goods tanker journey carrying a single substance (methanol,) the requirement is for a plain orange board 400mm x 300 mm on the front and a hazard warning panel to be fixed on both sides and the rear like this:
It couldn’t be easier. :wink:

For an international dangerous goods tanker journey carrying a single substance (methanol,) the marking requirements are one of these on the front and rear (400mm x 300mm,) like this:

Plus the relevant placards (3+6.1) on both sides and the rear. =============================================================================================================
The problem in my OP was that there was a mixing of requirements, leading to PG9s and painful brains all around. :wink: :grimacing:

This guy’s diesel tanker is correctly marked for his journey:

23

Goaty:

dieseldave:

muckles:
Isn’t the orange plate at the rear for used for packages not tankers

Absolutely spot-on. :smiley:

muckles:
and isn’t also in the wrong way round as Wheel Nut said.

Spot-on again mate. :smiley:

A bit late in the day I know but:

The orange board is unnecessary with tankers as it’s already present with the Kemler code -336- (or E.A.C. for domestic regs) & the UN no -1230- on it. :grimacing:

Hi Goaty, Spot-on mate, a tricky subject well remembered. :smiley: :wink:

24

So basically…he’s a w[zb]er in a tanker?

Got a load of grief off one one day, i was turning left and had to take a wide sweep, this W[zb]er in a tanker rushed up to the stop line and made it bloody awkward for me, then proceeded to give me a hand gesture. [ZB] :imp: Do they think they’re something special because they sat in a bloody classroom with some dipstick telling them how to drive a hazardous load?

Cant wait to see him again.

25

Trying hard to remember, and it may have changed, but it looks pretty well correct to me. 336 because the primary hazard is fire, secondary is toxic.

But shouldn’t the secondary hazard sticker be devoid of the 6 on the bottom?

26

I hadn’t a clue what was wrong when I read the OP - and now you’ve given the answers I still haven’t got a clue. :confused: :confused:

What I do want to know is how did you get the driver of the tanker to park in lanes 1 & 2 long enough for you to paint out all the company info on the back of the tanker and then take photo’s? :laughing: :laughing: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

Stan

27

so let me get this right the driver of the tanker has some stickers on that shouldnt be and your saying he is a pillock for getting it wrong but the bloke steering his vehicle with one hand while taking photo’s with the other is no prob then■■? :grimacing:

28

Koop:
So basically…he’s a w[zb]er in a tanker?

Got a load of grief off one one day, i was turning left and had to take a wide sweep, this W[zb]er in a tanker rushed up to the stop line and made it bloody awkward for me, then proceeded to give me a hand gesture. [ZB] :imp: Do they think they’re something special because they sat in a bloody classroom with some dipstick telling them how to drive a hazardous load?

Cant wait to see him again.

Unfortunately, some drivers are like that Koop, so I’m not so sure that it’s anything to do with “because they sat in a bloody classroom with some dipstick telling them how to drive a hazardous load.” Some plonker in a car would have caused you the same grief IMHO.

29

Stanley Knife:
I hadn’t a clue what was wrong when I read the OP - and now you’ve given the answers I still haven’t got a clue. :confused: :confused:

Hi Stanley Knife, somebody had got two sets of Regs mixed up.
The markings for a UK journey are quite different to the markings for an international journey.

Stanley Knife:
What I do want to know is how did you get the driver of the tanker to park in lanes 1 & 2 long enough for you to paint out all the company info on the back of the tanker and then take photo’s? :laughing: :laughing: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:
Stan

That’s a class comment, and I’ll admit that it was tricky. :grimacing: :wink: :laughing: :laughing:

30

bobthedog:
Trying hard to remember, and it may have changed, but it looks pretty well correct to me. 336 because the primary hazard is fire, secondary is toxic.

The 336 would be correct on an ADR marker board, the 33 means ‘highly flammable,’ and the 6 means toxic.
The point is that you can’t have an ADR ‘336’ on a UK board, which should have an Emergency Action Code (EAC) instead.
In this case, the EAC is: 2WE.

bobthedog:
But shouldn’t the secondary hazard sticker be devoid of the 6 on the bottom?

:open_mouth: Blimey Bob, fair play to you for remembering that rule mate. :open_mouth:
Since 09/05/2004, we’re required to use ‘proper’ placards (with the class number) for secondary and tertiary hazards.

31

ROG:
Is there such a thing as FLAMMABLE TOXIC :question:

Yes ROG, and there’s some stuff that’s even worserer…

Now I’ve had a trawl through my photo archives and found this ‘stuff’ has three hazards. :open_mouth:

:bulb: This stuff isn’t something that you’d want on your butties:

32

dieseldave:

ROG:
Is there such a thing as FLAMMABLE TOXIC :question:

Yes ROG, and there’s some stuff that’s even worserer…

Now I’ve had a trawl through my photo archives and found this ‘stuff’ has three hazards. :open_mouth:

Isn’t the lovely orange marking pretty? Those UN numbers are almost like air bags & seat belt tensioners :laughing:

3268

3286

33

dieseldave:
:bulb: This stuff isn’t something that you’d want on your butties:

Brown sauce :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

34

I didn’t realise that Methanol was under the evac rules, but it is a long time, as you can tell, since I did the ADR. Think mine expired in 06.

I love the way they change things though. Even little things like that can get you in a load of grief, and I don’t recall ever getting told of changes by the issuing authority.

ethyldiisopropylamine sounds like nasty stuff. But in a Vac tank?

35

UN 3286 3 Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s.

One more hazard such as class 4 or 5 and it would have been a class 9 bomb. :stuck_out_tongue:

36

bobthedog:
I didn’t realise that Methanol was under the evac rules, but it is a long time, as you can tell, since I did the ADR. Think mine expired in 06.

I love the way they change things though. Even little things like that can get you in a load of grief, and I don’t recall ever getting told of changes by the issuing authority.

ethyldiisopropylamine sounds like nasty stuff. But in a Vac tank?

Hi Bob, You’ve had me ferreting in the old (now very outdated) Approved Carriage List for that historical info, and yes, methanol did have an “E” code back then too, so it hasn’t changed.

If you don’t mind me saying so, I’m amazed at your ability to recall info from that long ago. RESPECT. :sunglasses:

Just as a footnote, you’d have done your last ADR back in 2001(ish) and things didn’t change much until May 2004, then they really changed. :open_mouth:

37

Wheel Nut:

dieseldave:

ROG:
Is there such a thing as FLAMMABLE TOXIC :question:

Yes ROG, and there’s some stuff that’s even worserer…

Now I’ve had a trawl through my photo archives and found this ‘stuff’ has three hazards. :open_mouth:

Isn’t the lovely orange marking pretty? Those UN numbers are almost like air bags & seat belt tensioners :laughing:

3268

3286

That’s a fair point Malc, cos a simple typo can lead to all sorts of problems.

38

Wheel Nut:
UN 3286 3 Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s.

One more hazard such as class 4 or 5 and it would have been a class 9 bomb. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yes Malc, and a very nasty one at that. :open_mouth:

39

I think it would have been 2001 when I did the whole thing last. But I was never told of any major changes in the legislation which could have been disastrous from my own legal standpoint had I got it wrong. It was always the silly things they nailed you for, like only having 2 kilos of kitty litter instead of 3.
I always took the whole thing pretty seriously which would explain why I remember it fairly well. I barely had to check most of the things I carried for marking regs because I learned it well… I shipped a lot of nice stuff abroad, too, so did ok with the IMDG most of the time.

But I sat the Canada version a few years ago and it was a joke. An open book test of 30 questions where you were allowed to discuss the answers with the rest of the class.

40

bobthedog:
I think it would have been 2001 when I did the whole thing last. …

Hi Bob, One of the other things that’s changed here is that you wouldn’t have City & Guilds exams for ADR now, because C&G has been replaced as the ADR exams authority by Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) so now you get to do your exams with a biro instead of a pencil. :laughing:

bobthedog:
But I sat the Canada version a few years ago and it was a joke. An open book test of 30 questions where you were allowed to discuss the answers with the rest of the class.

That’s not allowed by SQA over here Bob.
We still have to use proper exam room conditions.
There is an online version of the ADR exams currently being trialled in the UK, so we’re waiting to see whether it’ll catch-on.

I did a quick check of the system in the US, and they seem to have on-line Hazmat testing, but there doesn’t seem to be a requirement to actually attend a course as there is over here. My search was inconclusive though, but I’m not about to buy a copy of DOT49CFR to check any further, cos I’m not even sure whether it covers driver training requirements TBH. The US and Canada aren’t member countries of ADR, so their requirements are outside of my area of expertise and I’ll happily stand corrected if anybody knows better. :wink: