5 ton Bedford from 1962.
I used to accompany the two fitters when they took new vehicles for the first ULW weighing at our local weighbridge. Before leaving the depot the lorry would be stripped of dropsides & tailboard, spare wheel & carrier, jack & wheelbrace and the passenger seat. The two 6-volt batteries would be taken out and the small 12-volt one from the boss’ car fitted. The fuel tank was drained then a half gallon oil measure-full of fuel poured back in. At the weighbridge the fiasco continued, with all the water drained from the cooling system. The vehicle was then run on to the 'bridge, while one fitter and I stood at the rear of the vehicle, out of sight of the weighman heaving upward on the lorry’s bodywork. Having got the weigh ticket, the process was reversed and we returned to the depot, presenting the boss with an official evidential weight ticket for (usually) 2T 19C 3Q. Over three tons, of course, and the vehicle would have entered the higher road tax bracket.
Franglais:
I started driving trucks in the mid 70’s. Under 3ton u.l.w. and all ok on a car licence as a teenager. Drive TKs a few times but normally a D Series Ford.
The workshop hack was a “genuine” Class 3 D Series (ten stud wheels etc) with the bed and chassis cut off just behind the back axle, to bring the empty weight down, so we non-HGV drovers could drive it. With a load on it was a beast to steer.
Had a 1966 Commer before the Ford and a few times in a 1958 Albion. The Albion was deafening, and not just because of the tunes I was playing on the gearbox!
From what memories I have of then, and speaking from the vast experience of being a teenager(!) the TK stacked up well against the Fords, and was clearly streets ahead of the older trucks.
If I remember correctly the TKs had proper air brakes whereas some others of similar weight has vacuum brakes or air-over-hydraulic systems.
You’d have to be some sort of masochist to prefer the TK over the D series.Both air over hydraulic from memory but the D series’ brakes were much better.Although 10t gross on either would have been suicidal. 
my first lorry Bedford 10 ton gross with unladen weight of under 3 ton, 3 trips a day Poole to Southampton, with 7 ton of marley roof tiles, all handball on and off, I was fit then.
hotel magnum:
my first lorry Bedford 10 ton gross with unladen weight of under 3 ton, 3 trips a day Poole to Southampton, with 7 ton of marley roof tiles, all handball on and off, I was fit then.
Love the locks Al
DEANB:
Another light one 6 ton gross from 1960.Click on page once.
0
That’s not 6 tons gross but 6 ton payload, it’s on 8 stud 20 inch wheels so about 9, 9.5 tons gross, it’s an early TK, 1960. Lorries were sold on their makers recommended payload weight (not that a lot of people took much notice 
)until the '68 Transport Act when ministry plating was introduced, when makers started quoting gross weights and the authorities got stricter about enforcement.
Bernard
albion1938:
DEANB:
Another light one 6 ton gross from 1960.Click on page once.
0
That’s not 6 tons gross but 6 ton payload, it’s on 8 stud 20 inch wheels so about 9, 9.5 tons gross, it’s an early TK, 1960. Lorries were sold on their makers recommended payload weight (not that a lot of people took much notice
Bernard
I did wonder about that Bernard 
Bit before my time chap. 
DEANB:
I did wonder about that Bernard
Crikey, do we have some children on this forum then? 
Methinks that Dean is kidding us along though.
Pete.
albion1938:
DEANB:
Another light one 6 ton gross from 1960.Click on page once.
0
That’s not 6 tons gross but 6 ton payload, it’s on 8 stud 20 inch wheels so about 9, 9.5 tons gross, it’s an early TK, 1960. Lorries were sold on their makers recommended payload weight (not that a lot of people took much notice
Bernard
Which leaves the question what made ‘the authorities’ stop the idea of 6 + ton payloads being put on 3 ton UW trucks.Or was it actually always the quoted gross weight in all cases which ‘some’ erroneously and/or conveniently took to mean payload. There’s no way that those braking systems at least were designed for that type of weight.
As a Carry and Deliver Driver I did prefer the TK cab for multidrop, the Ford and Dodge Commando cab were a pain to get in and out of 70 or 80 times a day. The Dodge was nice on the longer South Lincolnshire runs because it had comfy seats and a radio as standard
Wheel Nut:
As a Carry and Deliver Driver I did prefer the TK cab for multidrop, the Ford and Dodge Commando cab were a pain to get in and out of 70 or 80 times a day. The Dodge was nice on the longer South Lincolnshire runs because it had comfy seats and a radio as standard
Radio?dont you mean a wireless!lol.
David
Carryfast:
albion1938:
DEANB:
Another light one 6 ton gross from 1960.Click on page once.
0
That’s not 6 tons gross but 6 ton payload, it’s on 8 stud 20 inch wheels so about 9, 9.5 tons gross, it’s an early TK, 1960. Lorries were sold on their makers recommended payload weight (not that a lot of people took much notice
BernardWhich leaves the question what made ‘the authorities’ stop the idea of 6 + ton payloads being put on 3 ton UW trucks.Or was it actually always the quoted gross weight in all cases which ‘some’ erroneously and/or conveniently took to mean payload.
It’s simple — unladen lorries are much heavier now. For example, in the 1930s all the main manufacturers built a popular sized lorry that would weigh under 2.5 tons with a flat body and carry six tons, so 8.5 gross. The nearest equivalent available now would probably be a 7.5 tonne dropside, typically weighing over 4.5 tonnes with a payload of less than 3.
Road tax was based on unladen weight back then with a wider range of charges than now, so savings to be made for every little bit of weight lost, but also important, all full-sized lorries were restricted to 20mph, until in 1935 the law changed to allow 30mph if the ULW was under 2.5 tons. Lorries then were classified by their payload weight, the makers all rushed to offer a 30mph 6 tonner, my 1938 Albion was one of these, plated by Albion at 8.5 tons gross. (Though mine has exceptionally heavy special bodywork and weighs 2tons, 16-1/2 cwt, so was restricted to 20mph .)
In the early 1950s the weight for 30mph was raised to 3 tons unladen, and again the makers all rose to the challenge aiming for 7 tons payload at 30mph, Bedford being one of the first, and if it weighed under 3 tons you could drive it at 17 years old.
By the standards of the day, there was nothing wrong with the brakes or handling of these, after all they were designed and built for these gross weights, but engineered to keep the unladen weight down. My Albion has noticeably very shallow tapered frame rails, a lot of alloy components and no electric starter so lighter battery and charging system, snowflake drivers hadn’t been invented then.
Where there were problems was that overloading was almost standard procedure then, just about everybody put a couple of ton extra on, so 9 or 10 tons on a 7 tonner was commonplace, it wasn’t particularly dangerous as it was what the drivers were used to. Before ministry plating was introduced in 1968, the only restriction on weight was a maximum gross of 12tons on a four-wheeler (later 14) and regardless of what the maker’s plate said if you kept below that you tended to be left alone. Bedford at one time even guaranteed their lorries for a 50% overload and sold spring assisters to beef them up.
When plating came in, the change was made to classifying lorries on the gross plated weight and with the HGV driving licences, and more recently anything over 3.5 tonnes needing a special licence. There are less taxation classes, low unladen weight has lost it’s advantages and lorries have got heavier.
Bernard
We had a workshop one of these, OPH251E, that had an unladen weight of 2tons 19cwt. As such was entitled to run with a single axle trailer and no HGV.
Shown is a 500 engined 1977 vehicle.
my dad lost count of the Bedford TK tractor units and rigids he bought , here’s one complete with ballast box and leyland engine.
yes robthedog even I cringe now, even if I thought I was cool then, the hair continued for some years even until the wedding with light blue suit (big lapels, flared trousers and boots with giant soles and heels), its no wonder the pics are kept hidden.
albion1938:
Carryfast:
Which leaves the question what made ‘the authorities’ stop the idea of 6 + ton payloads being put on 3 ton UW trucks.Or was it actually always the quoted gross weight in all cases which ‘some’ erroneously and/or conveniently took to mean payload.It’s simple — unladen lorries are much heavier now. For example, in the 1930s all the main manufacturers built a popular sized lorry that would weigh under 2.5 tons with a flat body and carry six tons, so 8.5 gross. The nearest equivalent available now would probably be a 7.5 tonne dropside, typically weighing over 4.5 tonnes with a payload of less than 3.
Road tax was based on unladen weight back then with a wider range of charges than now, so savings to be made for every little bit of weight lost, but also important, all full-sized lorries were restricted to 20mph, until in 1935 the law changed to allow 30mph if the ULW was under 2.5 tons. Lorries then were classified by their payload weight, the makers all rushed to offer a 30mph 6 tonner, my 1938 Albion was one of these, plated by Albion at 8.5 tons gross. (Though mine has exceptionally heavy special bodywork and weighs 2tons, 16-1/2 cwt, so was restricted to 20mph .)
In the early 1950s the weight for 30mph was raised to 3 tons unladen, and again the makers all rose to the challenge aiming for 7 tons payload at 30mph, Bedford being one of the first, and if it weighed under 3 tons you could drive it at 17 years old.
By the standards of the day, there was nothing wrong with the brakes or handling of these, after all they were designed and built for these gross weights, but engineered to keep the unladen weight down. My Albion has noticeably very shallow tapered frame rails, a lot of alloy components and no electric starter so lighter battery and charging system, snowflake drivers hadn’t been invented then.
Where there were problems was that overloading was almost standard procedure then, just about everybody put a couple of ton extra on, so 9 or 10 tons on a 7 tonner was commonplace, it wasn’t particularly dangerous as it was what the drivers were used to. Before ministry plating was introduced in 1968, the only restriction on weight was a maximum gross of 12tons on a four-wheeler (later 14) and regardless of what the maker’s plate said if you kept below that you tended to be left alone. Bedford at one time even guaranteed their lorries for a 50% overload and sold spring assisters to beef them up.
When plating came in, the change was made to classifying lorries on the gross plated weight and with the HGV driving licences, and more recently anything over 3.5 tonnes needing a special licence. There are less taxation classes, low unladen weight has lost it’s advantages and lorries have got heavier.
Bernard
We’re actually talking about the same type of vehicle early/mid 1970’s to late 70’s when the rules seem to have changed over night.Assuming that the idea of chucking 6 t on a 3 ton UW ‘lorry/truck’ wasn’t an erroneous confusion between design gross weight v payload which the ministry rightly then clarified by enforcing a gross weight.Also I don’t buy the idea that the brakes on a ‘3 t’ TK were up to that type of silliness.They were total crap even at 4 t gross let alone 10.
Around the time, mid 1976, of the change over from 3 tons unladen to 7.5 tons gross, Bedford offerred several models in this category. The KA at 4.75 tons, the KB at 6.5 tons, the KC at 7.5 tons, KD at 8.5 tons and the KE at 10 tons gross. There was a variety of engine options: a 4 cylinder petrol, a 6 cylinder petrol (the 300) a 4 cylinder diesel (the 220) and the 6 cylinder 330 diesel. The KA and KB had a 115" wheelbase , the KC 135" and the KEL 151". The KC, KD and KEL all had a similar braking system: an air- servo assisted Hydraulic service brake, with according to the age of the vehicle a mechanically operated transmission parking brake, a mechanical linkage to the rear brakes or a spring brake actuator working on the rear brakes.
The company I was working for at the time had a fleet of KELs all with demountable bodies which brought the unladen weight over three tons. They also had two elderly KDs which were replaced by KCs after the change in licensing, these had fixed bodies. The yard shunter was an elderly transmission brake KEL which had been fitted with demount equipment after its old fixed body had been removed. Its minstry plate showed 10 tons gross. In my time at the company we never had any driver complaints about braking efficiency nor difficulties at MOT on this account. We did have the usual leaking rear wheel cylinder problems however. The KEL ran 8.27x 17 tyre on 8 stud wheels; the KCs and KDs ran 7.50x 16 IIRC on six stud wheels.
We also had a fleet of KGs as 12.5 ton rigids and 19 ton artics - all on 8.25x 20 tyres with 8 stud wheels. These were a different story altogether with continual issues with their air pressure operated hydraulic service brakes. We never had efficiency problems but many defects for snatching, fierce and uneven braking. Apart from the drum/shoe size the wheel ends were the same as the lighter vehicles.
I worked on probably most of the various makes of vehicle in this 7.5 - 10 ton category and can say the Bedford brakes were head and shoulders above those of Ford, Mercedes, Leyland Redline and Dodge. The Bedford never destroyed everything inside the rear brake drums unlike most of those other makes, nor were there the efficiency issues the others exhibited.
I agree with CAV, we never had any issues getting Bedfords through the test on brakes but Commer and BMC etc with their twin leading shoe rear set up (and a multitude of springs to tackle when relining them! ) were never as good efficiency wise. Bedford front brakes had both a thick and thin lining, I can’t remember ever replacing the thinner lining on a trailing shoe but replaced plenty of the thicker leading ones.
Bedford did fit disc brakes to some of the smaller TK’s for a while but I never actually saw one as they soon went back to drums again.
Pete.
windrush:
I agree with CAV, we never had any issues getting Bedfords through the test on brakes but Commer and BMC etc with their twin leading shoe rear set up (and a multitude of springs to tackle when relining them!Bedford did fit disc brakes to some of the smaller TK’s for a while but I never actually saw one as they soon went back to drums again.
Pete.
The Commers had prestretched rods that err, stretched in use. 