@Wheelnut they have changed the rules a few years ago and these type of tanks
are definitely not in use in Germany, you will no longer get chemicals loaded in a tank
which shows, food products only/Lebensmittel Produkte etc etc,and wish to
load chemicals in the unsigned compartments
Jumbo tanks yes for transport as having a road barrel with 3 pots 1&3 being 14,000 =28;000LTS and the middle tank -2 being 28,00lts, this seems to be the way many firms are going as this saves time and trouble with cleaning out,or dedicated loads which only require
cleaning say 1 a month, In fact I have moved containers that have not been cleaned out for a long period because they were one product dedicated,
brit pete:
@Wheelnut they have changed the rules a few years ago and these type of tanks
are definitely not in use in Germany, you will no longer get chemicals loaded in a tank
which shows, food products only/Lebensmittel Produkte etc etc,and wish to
load chemicals in the unsigned compartments
I cannot speak for Germany Pete, you live there, but up until 2 years ago these tanks were still being used in Belgium or Holland to the warmer climes. I know this because I have queued behind them in cleaning stations throughout Europe. Of course the planners have to be more careful that loads are compatible as a load of Methyl Methacrylate Monomer may slightly taint the Dairy Milk 
Wheel Nut:
brit pete:
@Wheelnut they have changed the rules a few years ago and these type of tanks
are definitely not in use in Germany, you will no longer get chemicals loaded in a tank
which shows, food products only/Lebensmittel Produkte etc etc,and wish to
load chemicals in the unsigned compartmentsI cannot speak for Germany Pete, you live there, but up until 2 years ago these tanks were still being used in Belgium or Holland to the warmer climes. I know this because I have queued behind them in cleaning stations throughout Europe. Of course the planners have to be more careful that loads are compatible as a load of Methyl Methacrylate Monomer may slightly taint the Dairy Milk
Hi Malc, You and Pete have made an interesting point (although it’s way off topic 
).
I’ve never seen Nur für Lebensmittel on the sides of individual compartments.
From this, I’d reasoned that it would apply to the whole tank in the way that SCOPA does in the UK, am I korrekt Pete??
I’d also reasoned that anything done in Germany is for the reason that Ordnung muss sein, the Germans just love that one. 
@ wheelnut I know that they were in use in Belgian Holland mostly, however
I was under the impression like Germany they had been done away with
as you never see these being loaded in GERMANY, they are definitely a
NO NO in Germany;and in the time I have cleaned out in the last few
years , I have not seen any, still the Dutch and Belgians have all ways been
doing things their way
@dieseldave ,yes to get the road-barrel loaded with a food product
it must be clearly marked up as a Food products only Tanker, This is why
I said in Germany there is no chance of getting chemicals loaded in a food tanker
the Germans do not break this rule in this day and age, due to what can happen
as regards the legal side alone ,let alone the other problems this can /is more than one language by many firms,
dieseldave:
Hi Malc, You and Pete have made an interesting point (although it’s way off topic
I am like Billy Connoly. I talk about something just like “he ad-libs a lot, wanders off on tangents – sometimes never returning to the original thread – and even when he is working off a piece that’s part of a more set repertoire for that time in his career he never tells it twice the same way”.
Here we are, a list of a few chemicals that would be ADR and carried in a food tanker.
UN Number 1170 ADR Class: 3
Proper shipping name: Ethanol.
Class 3
Packing group II
UN 2790 ADR Class: 8
Acetic Acid Solution
ADR 80. UK 2R
UN no: 1805 ADR Class: 8
Proper Shipping name: PHOSPHORIC ACID, LIQUID
Labelling: 8 Hazard ID no: 80
UN 3265 ADR Class:8
Citric or Lactic acid used in the beverage, dairy or brewing industries.
Anyway to lighten the topic. I found Dave a couple of pictures he can use in his classroom.
Good pics there Malc. 
There are some other UN numbers that find favour with some folks too… 
UN 1986, UN 1987 and UN 3065, which are all in UN Class 3. 
dieseldave:
Good pics there Malc.There are some other UN numbers that find favour with some folks too…
UN 1986, UN 1987 and UN 3065, which are all in UN Class 3.
Dave those pics made more sense to me than those numbers do.I think that bottom one was the same thing that was written on the side of the Grandcamp but it probably would have taken too long to find all the bits and put them together to find out.
Carryfast:
Dave those pics made more sense to me than those numbers do.I think that bottom one was the same thing that was written on the side of the Grandcamp but it probably would have taken too long to find all the bits and put them together to find out.
Ahh, now then Carryfast here’s where you get your wish to have the names of the substance(s) written on tankers…
Under the Regs for carrying dangerous goods by sea (IMDG,) the actual name of the ‘stuff’ being carried MUST appear on two sides of a tanker or tank container. Once a tanker or tank container is on the road, folks generally leave the ‘sea’ markings on them, so they’re effectively overmarked for road Regs, but that’s obviously not an offence. On a journey by road to the docks the side markings aren’t required, so then they’re put on on the dock before it’s allowed on the boat.
As for the numbers, they don’t make any sense to anybody and there’s no need for them to. All we (including me) need to know is that the UN has developed a worldwide 4-digit system that identifies dangerous substances, mixtures and articles and is valid for all modes of carriage. There’s no pattern, nor rhyme, nor reason and there’s no point in wasting grey cells trying to understand the ‘how’ or the ‘why’ of it.
I’d suggest that we need to just accept them as they are, because they’re written in a law book.
As for the Grandcamp, anybody who has taken the UN Class 5 module of an ADR course would understand that Ammonium Nitrate Fertiliser will cause/support/intensify fires IF it comes into contact with combustible substances/articles. Given the other cargo reported to be on-board the Grandcamp, much of which was combustible, it’s obvious (nowadays) that the segregation of the incompatible cargoes might not have been fully considered by those in charge of loading.
WADR mate, it seems you’re quite passionate about your concerns and I can understand that, but I can only tell you what the law says about it. I really do suggest that you get in touch with HM Fire Service Inspectorate, NCEC and the DfT, who will be better equipped to tell you the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of it.
dieseldave:
Carryfast:
Dave those pics made more sense to me than those numbers do.I think that bottom one was the same thing that was written on the side of the Grandcamp but it probably would have taken too long to find all the bits and put them together to find out.Ahh, now then Carryfast here’s where you get your wish to have the names of the substance(s) written on tankers…
Under the Regs for carrying dangerous goods by sea (IMDG,) the actual name of the ‘stuff’ being carried MUST appear on two sides of a tanker or tank container. Once a tanker or tank container is on the road, folks generally leave the ‘sea’ markings on them, so they’re effectively overmarked for road Regs, but that’s obviously not an offence. On a journey by road to the docks the side markings aren’t required, so then they’re put on on the dock before it’s allowed on the boat.
As for the numbers, they don’t make any sense to anybody and there’s no need for them to. All we (including me) need to know is that the UN has developed a worldwide 4-digit system that identifies dangerous substances, mixtures and articles and is valid for all modes of carriage. There’s no pattern, nor rhyme, nor reason and there’s no point in wasting grey cells trying to understand the ‘how’ or the ‘why’ of it.
As for the Grandcamp, anybody who has taken the UN Class 5 module of an ADR course would understand that Ammonium Nitrate Fertiliser will cause/support/intensify fires IF it comes into contact with combustible substances/articles. Given the other cargo reported to be on-board the Grandcamp, much of which was combustible, it’s obvious (nowadays) that the segregation of the incompatible cargoes might not have been fully considered by those in charge of loading.
WADR mate, it seems you’re quite passionate about your concerns and I can understand that, but I can only tell you what the law says about it. I really do suggest that you get in touch with HM Fire Service Inspectorate, NCEC and the DfT, who will be better equipped to tell you the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of it.
Thanks Dave hope you had a bit of a laugh at that.Probably the reason that the marine regs follow my ideas is because they never forgot what happened to that boat.I reckon that stuff can do a bit more than support or intensify a fire or help the vegetable patch in the garden to grow.But what does IMDG do in the case of a 50,000 tonne bulk carrier? in case some idiot loads it with half a load of sugar and half a load of that stuff.I just hope they paint those letters big enough for everyone to read.
Carryfast:
dieseldave:
Carryfast:
Dave those pics made more sense to me than those numbers do.I think that bottom one was the same thing that was written on the side of the Grandcamp but it probably would have taken too long to find all the bits and put them together to find out.Ahh, now then Carryfast here’s where you get your wish to have the names of the substance(s) written on tankers…
Under the Regs for carrying dangerous goods by sea (IMDG,) the actual name of the ‘stuff’ being carried MUST appear on two sides of a tanker or tank container. Once a tanker or tank container is on the road, folks generally leave the ‘sea’ markings on them, so they’re effectively overmarked for road Regs, but that’s obviously not an offence. On a journey by road to the docks the side markings aren’t required, so then they’re put on on the dock before it’s allowed on the boat.
As for the numbers, they don’t make any sense to anybody and there’s no need for them to. All we (including me) need to know is that the UN has developed a worldwide 4-digit system that identifies dangerous substances, mixtures and articles and is valid for all modes of carriage. There’s no pattern, nor rhyme, nor reason and there’s no point in wasting grey cells trying to understand the ‘how’ or the ‘why’ of it.
As for the Grandcamp, anybody who has taken the UN Class 5 module of an ADR course would understand that Ammonium Nitrate Fertiliser will cause/support/intensify fires IF it comes into contact with combustible substances/articles. Given the other cargo reported to be on-board the Grandcamp, much of which was combustible, it’s obvious (nowadays) that the segregation of the incompatible cargoes might not have been fully considered by those in charge of loading.
WADR mate, it seems you’re quite passionate about your concerns and I can understand that, but I can only tell you what the law says about it. I really do suggest that you get in touch with HM Fire Service Inspectorate, NCEC and the DfT, who will be better equipped to tell you the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of it.
Thanks Dave hope you had a bit of a laugh at that.Probably the reason that the marine regs follow my ideas is because they never forgot what happened to that boat.I reckon that stuff can do a bit more than support or intensify a fire or help the vegetable patch in the garden to grow.But what does IMDG do in the case of a 50,000 tonne bulk carrier? in case some idiot loads it with half a load of sugar and half a load of that stuff.I just hope they paint those letters big enough for everyone to read.
Certainly that would be an accident waiting to happen, but the roadtanker regulations are strict, probably more so in European plants where the gatehouse staff are trained to check vehicles for infringements before, during and after loading.
The UK are not lax but they do seem to put more of the responsibility on the transport operator and driver. Dave and many others who ply their trade as DGSA would probably be called if there was a major incident, but in my experience an incorrectly labeled tanker in Britain would attract a fine for the driver/operator.
In Germany or Holland I have found the whole thing more regulated and everyone would be brought to book, the operator, the loader and probably even the transport clerk who issued the gate pass. When I loaded from BASF in Ludwigshafen or from Paktank in Rotterdam I always felt better if pulled into a control then I would when stopped near Runcorn or Billingham.
But having said all that I went to Wikipedia to read about the Grandcamp again
A fire onboard the cargo ship SS Grandcamp docked at Texas City in 1947 detonated 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate, a compound used in fertilizers and high explosives. The explosion blew two planes out of the sky and triggered a chain reaction that detonated nearby refineries as well as a neighboring cargo ship carrying another 1,000 tons of ammonium nitrate. The disaster killed roughly 600 people and injured roughly 3,500, and is generally considered the worst industrial accident in U.S. history.
Wheel Nut:
Carryfast:
dieseldave:
Carryfast:
Dave those pics made more sense to me than those numbers do.I think that bottom one was the same thing that was written on the side of the Grandcamp but it probably would have taken too long to find all the bits and put them together to find out.Ahh, now then Carryfast here’s where you get your wish to have the names of the substance(s) written on tankers…
Under the Regs for carrying dangerous goods by sea (IMDG,) the actual name of the ‘stuff’ being carried MUST appear on two sides of a tanker or tank container. Once a tanker or tank container is on the road, folks generally leave the ‘sea’ markings on them, so they’re effectively overmarked for road Regs, but that’s obviously not an offence. On a journey by road to the docks the side markings aren’t required, so then they’re put on on the dock before it’s allowed on the boat.
As for the numbers, they don’t make any sense to anybody and there’s no need for them to. All we (including me) need to know is that the UN has developed a worldwide 4-digit system that identifies dangerous substances, mixtures and articles and is valid for all modes of carriage. There’s no pattern, nor rhyme, nor reason and there’s no point in wasting grey cells trying to understand the ‘how’ or the ‘why’ of it.
As for the Grandcamp, anybody who has taken the UN Class 5 module of an ADR course would understand that Ammonium Nitrate Fertiliser will cause/support/intensify fires IF it comes into contact with combustible substances/articles. Given the other cargo reported to be on-board the Grandcamp, much of which was combustible, it’s obvious (nowadays) that the segregation of the incompatible cargoes might not have been fully considered by those in charge of loading.
WADR mate, it seems you’re quite passionate about your concerns and I can understand that, but I can only tell you what the law says about it. I really do suggest that you get in touch with HM Fire Service Inspectorate, NCEC and the DfT, who will be better equipped to tell you the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of it.
Thanks Dave hope you had a bit of a laugh at that.Probably the reason that the marine regs follow my ideas is because they never forgot what happened to that boat.I reckon that stuff can do a bit more than support or intensify a fire or help the vegetable patch in the garden to grow.But what does IMDG do in the case of a 50,000 tonne bulk carrier? in case some idiot loads it with half a load of sugar and half a load of that stuff.I just hope they paint those letters big enough for everyone to read.
Certainly that would be an accident waiting to happen, but the roadtanker regulations are strict, probably more so in European plants where the gatehouse staff are trained to check vehicles for infringements before, during and after loading.
The UK are not lax but they do seem to put more of the responsibility on the transport operator and driver. Dave and many others who ply their trade as DGSA would probably be called if there was a major incident, but in my experience an incorrectly labeled tanker in Britain would attract a fine for the driver/operator.
In Germany or Holland I have found the whole thing more regulated and everyone would be brought to book, the operator, the loader and probably even the transport clerk who issued the gate pass. When I loaded from BASF in Ludwigshafen or from Paktank in Rotterdam I always felt better if pulled into a control then I would when stopped near Runcorn or Billingham.
But having said all that I went to Wikipedia to read about the Grandcamp again
A fire onboard the cargo ship SS Grandcamp docked at Texas City in 1947 detonated 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate, a compound used in fertilizers and high explosives. The explosion blew two planes out of the sky and triggered a chain reaction that detonated nearby refineries as well as a neighboring cargo ship carrying another 1,000 tons of ammonium nitrate. The disaster killed roughly 600 people and injured roughly 3,500, and is generally considered the worst industrial accident in U.S. history.
That’s the one but you forgot to put in the bit about demolishing 1000 buildings,shattering windows 40 miles away,making a tidal wave 15 foot high wich flooded around 100 miles of the Southern States,the blast being felt 250 miles away,blowing the ship’s lighter 2 tonne anchor 1.5 miles away and it’s heavier 5 tonne anchor half a mile.But I’ve also seen the video of that explosion actually taking place taken from miles away and I thought just watching it on the plasma tele that I was there even all these years later.That stuff definitely comes under the markings written in that lower pic of those two which you posted.Having said all that I can’t remember seeing any ADR type markings describing the stuff that Rubber Duck was supposed to be carrying in that road tanker in the film Convoy when the 1970’s American version of the Dartford crossing security decided that they were’nt going to let him drive across that bridge because he’d refused to pay the toll.I’m surprised that he was’nt booked for that when Lyall saw that he’d survived the guns and the explosion.
Carryfast:
That’s the one but you forgot to put in the bit about demolishing 1000 buildings,shattering windows 40 miles away,making a tidal wave 15 foot high wich flooded around 100 miles of the Southern States,the blast being felt 250 miles away,blowing the ship’s lighter 2 tonne anchor 1.5 miles away and it’s heavier 5 tonne anchor half a mile.But I’ve also seen the video of that explosion actually taking place taken from miles away and I thought just watching it on the plasma tele that I was there even all these years later.That stuff definitely comes under the markings written in that lower pic of those two which you posted.Having said all that I can’t remember seeing any ADR type markings describing the stuff that Rubber Duck was supposed to be carrying in that road tanker in the film Convoy when the 1970’s American version of the Dartford crossing security decided that they were’nt going to let him drive across that bridge because he’d refused to pay the toll.I’m surprised that he was’nt booked for that when Lyall saw that he’d survived the guns and the explosion.
Hi Carryfast, When it comes to films, I’m afraid I haven’t a clue. 
I’m guessing that ‘convoy’ is an American film??
If so, I can tell you America isn’t an ADR member country.
They have law on carrying dangerous goods by road, much of which is contained in DOT49CFR, but I’ve no idea when that came out in relation to when the film was released.
dieseldave:
Carryfast:
That’s the one but you forgot to put in the bit about demolishing 1000 buildings,shattering windows 40 miles away,making a tidal wave 15 foot high wich flooded around 100 miles of the Southern States,the blast being felt 250 miles away,blowing the ship’s lighter 2 tonne anchor 1.5 miles away and it’s heavier 5 tonne anchor half a mile.But I’ve also seen the video of that explosion actually taking place taken from miles away and I thought just watching it on the plasma tele that I was there even all these years later.That stuff definitely comes under the markings written in that lower pic of those two which you posted.Having said all that I can’t remember seeing any ADR type markings describing the stuff that Rubber Duck was supposed to be carrying in that road tanker in the film Convoy when the 1970’s American version of the Dartford crossing security decided that they were’nt going to let him drive across that bridge because he’d refused to pay the toll.I’m surprised that he was’nt booked for that when Lyall saw that he’d survived the guns and the explosion.Hi Carryfast, When it comes to films, I’m afraid I haven’t a clue.
I’m guessing that ‘convoy’ is an American film??
If so, I can tell you America isn’t an ADR member country.
They have law on carrying dangerous goods by road, much of which is contained in DOT49CFR, but I’ve no idea when that came out in relation to when the film was released.
I know they’re not in the ADR Dave.It was typical Hollywood though and I was having a laugh about the film’s story line.In the film they say what the stuff is supposed to be I’ll have a look at the end again to find out what it was meant to be.