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. There’s no way that those braking systems at least were designed for that type of weight.
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.
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! ) 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.
It’s OK Pete, someone has a bee in his bonnet, can’t grasp the concept that a lorry that weighs 3 tons can carry 7, thinks that the brakes on a 10 tonner are the same as on a 3 tonner. Like I said on the other post, I give up!
Bernard
A Bedford KE was shod on 8:25 x 17" wheels and was Manufacture plated for 10ton gvw which meant that with a 16/17 ft wood/ali flat it tared in at just under 3 ton so it could carry a 7ton payload so it was an ideal motor for 17 to 20 year olds to drive. Prior to Plating and Testing the arbitrary GVW’s were 4 wheelers IIRC on 900x20 wheels were allowed to run at 14 tons gvw , my first motor was a Trader which I could legally carry 10 ton 5 cwt.I’m not sure if you could operate at 14 ton gvw on smaller tyre equipment maybe you could but I’m not sure ! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
A Bedford KE was shod on 8:25 x 17" wheels and was Manufacture plated for 10ton gvw which meant that with a 16/17 ft wood/ali flat it tared in at just under 3 ton so it could carry a 7ton payload so it was an ideal motor for 17 to 20 year olds to drive. Prior to Plating and Testing the arbitrary GVW’s were 4 wheelers IIRC on 900x20 wheels were allowed to run at 14 tons gvw , my first motor was a Trader which I could legally carry 10 ton 5 cwt.I’m not sure if you could operate at 14 ton gvw on smaller tyre equipment maybe you could but I’m not sure ! Cheers Bewick.
You’re right about 900x20 for 14 tons Dennis, and when the Ministry started plating the older lorries they were very strict about tyre size and rating when deciding on what GVW to put on the first plate. I remember taking a Bedford OLA, makers GVW about 7 tons for plate and test, it was on 700x20s, they should have been 10 ply but a couple of them were only 8 ply, so they plated it at 5.8, said if we wanted it uprated we’d have to change the tyres and submit it again.
Bernard
Bewick:
A Bedford KE was shod on 8:25 x 17" wheels and was Manufacture plated for 10ton gvw which meant that with a 16/17 ft wood/ali flat it tared in at just under 3 ton so it could carry a 7ton payload so it was an ideal motor for 17 to 20 year olds to drive. Prior to Plating and Testing the arbitrary GVW’s were 4 wheelers IIRC on 900x20 wheels were allowed to run at 14 tons gvw , my first motor was a Trader which I could legally carry 10 ton 5 cwt.I’m not sure if you could operate at 14 ton gvw on smaller tyre equipment maybe you could but I’m not sure ! Cheers Bewick.
I bet you always ran the Bedford at, ahem, dead on 7 ton payload . If you did you’d be on your own . The 4 wheelers at 14 tons needed a lot of care in the braking department . On the corn deliveries to farms could be " a little over " sometimes .
I started in transport in 1971 on under 3ton ulw Bedford TK’s. First with NBC442G and GNK552G then a new 10ton gross KEL model DTA247L in 1973. These were fitted with a lightweight platform body, to which was attached a removable livestock container. The container counted as part of the load, so did not affect the under 3 ton ruling. I regularly drove these from Devon to the north of Scotland and across Europe, European trips had to cease when we joined the Common Market, as more notice was taken of the European limit of 7.5t gross that came in to being. This was overcome by down rating a KD model by removing the helper spring brackets, what was known as a notifiable alteration, which made in roll like a barrel, so we refitted them once more. This was not a problem at subsequent tests, as one tester said, “we cannot complain about something that makes a vehicle safer.”
We put these TK’s through what at the time were considered huge mileages at the time. If I remember rightly they came with a 12 month or 24,000 mile warranty. When DTA247L was just over 3 months old we took it in to Allens, the Bedford dealers in Plymouth for attention to a brake servo that was giving trouble, they said, “sorry it is out of warranty”. We replied “but it was not when we reported it and we asked where to get it repaired, you told us to bring it in as soon as it gets back.” They were somewhat taken aback when told that when the fault was reported, the vehicle was in Denmark. Coming home empty, the brakes still worked, you just has to push harder on the pedal.
After running most models of TK and KM models from the first in 1967, we pensioned off the last TK in 2001. Whilst I would never claim they were bullet proof, only on once did one come from Europe on the end of a chain behind another one. On that occasion, a recently reconditioned injector failed, Globe and Simpsons’ warranty did not cut much ice in Le Mans. But the main reason we used Bedfords, was that when Father started to go abroad in the late 50’s, firstly with a Dodge, was that they were the only manufacturer with a presence throughout Europe.
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! ) 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.
It’s OK Pete, someone has a bee in his bonnet, can’t grasp the concept that a lorry that weighs 3 tons can carry 7, thinks that the brakes on a 10 tonner are the same as on a 3 tonner. Like I said on the other post, I give up!
Bernard
Let’s get this right you think that the not much better than car brakes on a small 3t UW ‘lorry’ won’t have to work any harder at 10t gross as they will at 7.5t gross. Which is why they had to bring in a 7.5t gross limit.If someone is saying that was an EEC ruling then that’s at least something that the continentals got right.
Well I drove a TK Bedford 725 NVK. It was a heap of crap, The transmition hand brake was a total waste of time, The Bedford 300 Engine , Well if I may be rude and say It couldnt pull ones 4skin back .Oh dear Oh dear, Please excuse my naughty remarks , Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well I drove a TK Bedford 725 NVK. It was a heap of crap, The transmition hand brake was a total waste of time, The Bedford 300 Engine , Well if I may be rude and say It couldnt pull ones 4skin back .Oh dear Oh dear, Please excuse my naughty remarks , Regards Larry.
cav551:
When I first started driving the HGV Class 3 licence was only needed if the ULW of the lorry exceeded 3 tons. Bedford ran many adverts promoting their TK which was under 3 tons unladen with a platfrom body, IIRC they claimed a payload of 7 tons so it was a 10 ton gross vehicle. Am I mistaken or not and are there any pictures or articles from CM?
I drove many TK’s/TJ’s, Ford K Series Traders, BMC FGK’s (but not the 6 cylinder diesel ones as they were just on the limit depending on body, the petrol ones were lighter) , Terriers, Morris Commercial LC/ MRA 4X4 etc as a fitter as they were all under 3 tonnes unladen.
cav551:
When I first started driving the HGV Class 3 licence was only needed if the ULW of the lorry exceeded 3 tons. Bedford ran many adverts promoting their TK which was under 3 tons unladen with a platfrom body, IIRC they claimed a payload of 7 tons so it was a 10 ton gross vehicle. Am I mistaken or not and are there any pictures or articles from CM?
I drove many TK’s/TJ’s, Ford K Series Traders, BMC FGK’s (but not the 6 cylinder diesel ones as they were just on the limit depending on body, the petrol ones were lighter) , Terriers, Morris Commercial LC/ MRA 4X4 etc as a fitter as they were all under 3 tonnes unladen.
Pete.
got a new tk in 1971 10 ton gross under 3 ton ulw
And they had had bigger wheels and brake drums than the 7.5 tonner of later years and more importantly, more wheel studs.
However ■■■■ Brain from Leatherhead wants to drive some American piece of junk at 75 tonnes on UK roads because nobody would give him a proper job.
cav551:
When I first started driving the HGV Class 3 licence was only needed if the ULW of the lorry exceeded 3 tons. Bedford ran many adverts promoting their TK which was under 3 tons unladen with a platfrom body, IIRC they claimed a payload of 7 tons so it was a 10 ton gross vehicle. Am I mistaken or not and are there any pictures or articles from CM?
I drove many TK’s/TJ’s, Ford K Series Traders, BMC FGK’s (but not the 6 cylinder diesel ones as they were just on the limit depending on body, the petrol ones were lighter) , Terriers, Morris Commercial LC/ MRA 4X4 etc as a fitter as they were all under 3 tonnes unladen.
Pete.
got a new tk in 1971 10 ton gross under 3 ton ulw
And they had had bigger wheels and brake drums than the 7.5 tonner of later years and more importantly, more wheel studs.
However ■■■■ Brain from Leatherhead wants to drive some American piece of junk at 75 tonnes on UK roads because nobody would give him a proper job.
I worked in the middle seventies for a firm with a mixed fleet of rigids, mainly Albion 16 tonners and Bedfords at lighter weights.
The Albions were very good lorries, with their Leyland 400series engines and six speed overdrive gearbox, and the flat bodied versions were capable of 11 tons plus payloads. They could make very respectable progress although they only had 130 hp.and were, in their day, a premium vehicle.
The Bedfords were quite different, but I liked driving them, even though I’m 6’2" and well built.
The Bedford 330 cu in “full flow” engine delivered, from memory, 99 hp, so at 10t gross, the vehicle had 10 bhp/ton which is acceptable today. However, the way these little naturally aspirated engines delivered their power was very different to now, and you had to rev the nuts off them to get anywhere, while the random nature of the gear ratios made it hard to keep them in the very narrow power band available.
I never found the suspension unduly harsh, and even on crossply tyres the handling and steering were sharp, and for the most part, they went where you pointed them. The brakes, as on most if not all trucks of the time, needed respect on long descents whilst loaded, and experienced drivers when on a long downhill would use the maxim that you “go down in the gear you would go up in”, but as long as they were well maintained were perfectly good. The transmission handbrake was a good idea, but not very well executed, and was difficult to maintain in good order. On a windy day the mirrors would sometimes blow in, draught came up through the holes in the floor where the pedals came through, but hey, it was the seventies, nobody cared.!!
I had forgotten about all the old categories and weights .
I had remembered getting the new class at 21 , heavy locomotive and light locomotive .
Myself and a mate bought an ex removals Bedford TK. Sold the body to a farmer to convert to a chicken shed and converted a flat body to a beaver tail to transport our bangers/ stock cars .
I do remember it going off to be plated without passenger seat , spare wheel, tools or winch and minimum fuel in the tank .
I think it gained about 1/2 ton when everything was fitted back on .
We deliberately painted it council yellow so that we could " officially salvage " dumped or abandoned vehicles .
Hi all, yes i started my driving carrier like thousands of other’s on a Bedford TK. 1972 had no HGV as i was only 18 brand new working for Luckett’s in Fareham we did a lot for Schweppes that had a factory next door in fact we could go in and out without going on the road.Any way they ran 2 artic’s that would carry 21 pallets gross weight was 32 ton then but if it was busy i would put 5 pallets on the TK then they had a 6 wheel Bison i think it was he would have 16 and off we would go. Great way to learn. As i say we could go into the factory through the fence to load so that was my training ground for class 1 as soon as i was 21. Good days hard work lot’s of handball concrete block’s and fertilizer mainly even when i went onto artic’s but still enjoyed it. Young and stupid i suppose but we didn’t know any different then.
cav551: Around the time, mid 1976, of the change over from 3 tons unladen to 7.5 tons gross, Bedford offered 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.
That is interesting and answers my question too. My mate at the time was born in April and my Birthday is September. He got a 10 ton Gross Commer which was under 3 ton and I couldn’t drive it as I came under the new rules. He called it a class 4 licence at the time although that wasn’t an official class.
1971, started working with my Dad, he bought an ex Charringtons TK (713 KEW) it had a petrol engine was under 3tons ULW, carried 7 tons set on 900 x 20 tyres.Hand Painted in red, we were on a budget.
The old banger used to Backfire like crazy when decelerating.
3 trips a week Ipswich - Birmingham multi drops loaded both ways. That roughly 160 miles trip to Brum was a 5 1/2 hour journey at that point.
50 years on still in Transport but now in Management at GMA Warehousing & Transport Ltd.
For anyone reading this post this should simplify the rules regarding the driving of lorries on a car licence historically.
Before WW2 there was some kind of commercial vehicle test the details of which I am not aware of. This test was suspended during the war and reintroduced in an updated format in 1970. This was what we know as the HGV test.
Post WW2 and up to 1970 you could drive any size lorry on a car licence provided you were over 21 years old.
Those under 21 were restricted to under 3 ton ULW.
After 1970 when the HGV test was reintroduced everyone was restricted to driving lorries under 3 ton ULW if all they had was a car licence. Grandfather rights applied here for those driving lorries in the last 6 months, the category of which needed written proof from your employer to entitle you to the class driven without taking the HGV test. If you didn’t qualify for Grandfather rights you had to take the appropriate HGV test.
1/1/1977 onwards car licence holders were restricted to 7.5 tons gross.
But, anyone recently driving lorries under the old rules could apply for a restricted HGV Class 3 licence allowing them to continue driving lorries up to 10 tons gross without taking a test. Kind of like Grandfather rights.
Note: a lot of lorries subject to the old rules could be plated up to 10 ton gross but weigh under 3 ton unladen.
1/1/1997 car licence holders restricted to driving up to 3.5 tonnes gross weight.
2021 public consultation in to returning to some sort of pre 1997 format again allowing car licence holders to drive larger vehicles to ease the LGV driver shortage. It has been proposed to once again allow car drivers to drive up to 7.5 tonnes gross on a C1 category.
There’s no way that those braking systems at least were designed for that type of weight.
) 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.
Which is why they had to bring in a 7.5t gross limit.If someone is saying that was an EEC ruling then that’s at least something that the continentals got right.
