Just registered on site and planning to go for cat c training soon. I am interested to know from people who did old HGV 2 and 3 (back in the “olden timey days”) why was the distinction made back them for 2 different rigid licences? Obviously nowadays cat c covers all rigids. Surely someone who could drive an HGV 3 would have little difficulty in an HGV 2. I know the difference was number of axles but why would a driver not have gone straight in at HGV 2 (if this was possible?) Reason I ask (other than curiosity and the history behind it) is that I only really want to go for rigids. Although i’m not against the idea of a job if the money was okay and I liked the nature of the work it is mainly satisfaction in passing test, improving my driving skills, and (subject to winning the lottery!!!) being able to drive cat c and c1 motorhomes. I know there are drivers out there who have never wanted to go for C+E or old HGV 1 but wondered what is it that puts them off? Is it the nature of work (I presume mainly delivering to shops/warehouses), issues with reversing, difficulty of driving such vehicles, hassle, etc…
Back in those days there was no reason for a driver not to go straight in for HGV class 1 even if they never had a car licence - it was a double L plate test
I reckon they just needed a system to distinguish different vehicle types
The old system seemed to be a more logical one based on difference in potential gross weight and/or the difference between the handling of an artic v everything else.With 2 ( rightly ) covering just about every type of vehicle and trailer combination except an artic.Although having said that it was the class 3 two axled rigid which actually had/has the least braking capacity proportional to gross weight.With class 2 realistically being what should have been the real class 1 being more than one point of articulation and having the highest ‘potential’ gross weight. 
So you have mentioned 1,2,3 but you didn’t mention HGV 4. Or didn’t you know about that one 
I believe one anonamally of the system was a class 3 (2 axle rigid) licence allowed a trailer to be attached, so in theory you could drive a 32 ton combo on a class 3, someone will correct me if I am wrong. As said you could go straight for a class 1 licence without a car licence and assuming you passed the class 1 you were automatically given a full car licence, this was also true with a PSV (PCV) licence.
I went from car to class 2 and did my training at our companies training school in 1976, if the firm hadn’t payed then I would never have bothered getting a HGV license but they offered so I took it! There was an artic unit and trailer there for class 1 training but as our depot only had rigids they just used the eight wheeler and the artic never moved for the two weeks I was there. I wasn’t interested in ‘upgrading’ to class 1 as I was quite content to stick with staying at the bottom of the driving chain, driving rigid tipper’s and getting abused by the far superior class 1 lads !
Pete.
nick2008:
So you have mentioned 1,2,3 but you didn’t mention HGV 4. Or didn’t you know about that one
I think the difference between 1 as opposed to 4 is just more confirmation that it was mostly a logical potential gross weight based system.
MrJake:
I believe one anonamally of the system was a class 3 (2 axle rigid) licence allowed a trailer to be attached, so in theory you could drive a 32 ton combo on a class 3, someone will correct me if I am wrong. As said you could go straight for a class 1 licence without a car licence and assuming you passed the class 1 you were automatically given a full car licence, this was also true with a PSV (PCV) licence.
The anomaly/irony being that a rigid and trailer with more than one point of articulation was/is a more difficult type of outfit to handle in most respects but which was/is really best learn’t outside of the testing system.So as I said the highest class should have been the drawbar outfit but the artic really needed to be a seperate,but lower,class just based on the difference between driving it v rigid or rigid and trailer.Even more ironic was the fact that a self taught drawbar driver ended up unable to drive artics on grandfather rights.When the artic was often actually the easier to handle,but just different,smaller and lighter outfit.
All of which has now ended up with the worst of all worlds situation of instruction and pass on a close coupled single point of articulation rigid and trailer outfit covering both artics and A frame drawbars. 
Hi all,I went straight for my class 1 in 87 you didn’t have to do all the classes which you have to take now I learned on these Bedfords
Carryfast:
MrJake:
I believe one anonamally of the system was a class 3 (2 axle rigid) licence allowed a trailer to be attached, so in theory you could drive a 32 ton combo on a class 3, someone will correct me if I am wrong. As said you could go straight for a class 1 licence without a car licence and assuming you passed the class 1 you were automatically given a full car licence, this was also true with a PSV (PCV) licence.The anomaly/irony being that a rigid and trailer with more than one point of articulation was/is a more difficult type of outfit to handle in most respects but which was/is really best learn’t outside of the testing system.So as I said the highest class should have been the drawbar outfit but the artic really needed to be a seperate,but lower,class just based on the difference between driving it v rigid or rigid and trailer.Even more ironic was the fact that a self taught drawbar driver ended up unable to drive artics on grandfather rights.When the artic was often actually the easier to handle,but just different,smaller and lighter outfit.
All of which has now ended up with the worst of all worlds situation of instruction and pass on a close coupled single point of articulation rigid and trailer outfit covering both artics and A frame drawbars.
Agreed on that one CF, I learnt to reverse an A frame trailer on a farm at about 10 years old but legally used the skills on Sovereign Distribution (part of United Carriers) until the local depot closed. Was drawbar driver/instructor on the next job and found that existing class 1 drivers were the least able to get to grips with reversing A frame rigs. With a class 1 the longer the trailer the easier it is to reverse.
MrJake:
I believe one anonamally of the system was a class 3 (2 axle rigid) licence allowed a trailer to be attached, so in theory you could drive a 32 ton combo on a class 3, someone will correct me if I am wrong. .
Correct. I took my Class 3 in 1981 aged 19. I could then drive a rigid, 2 axle HGV truck. However, if we put the A-Frame draw bar on the back then I had to have another qualified driver with me, a "baby sitter!! 
This was until I became 21, then, absolutely legally, I could take the 18 meter wagon and drag out on my own. I used to run around Europe with it, at 21 with a class 3 licence! Two axle rigid prime mover with a two axle, A-Frame drawbar. Total over all length was 18 metres. Yes it seems a bit odd now looking back.
MrJake:
Agreed on that one CF, I learnt to reverse an A frame trailer on a farm at about 10 years old but legally used the skills on Sovereign Distribution (part of United Carriers) until the local depot closed. Was drawbar driver/instructor on the next job and found that existing class 1 drivers were the least able to get to grips with reversing A frame rigs. With a class 1 the longer the trailer the easier it is to reverse.
In addition to the total difference in steering the ( usually ) shorter trailer with the even shorter drawbar/bogie it also obviously needs the familiarity and arguably even preference of manouvering a rigid in all types of situations to do it.So it’s probably a reasonable argument to say that class 1 ( should have been ) A frame drawbar outfit ironically usually best learn’t on the job not by testing.
Especially in the seemingly very unfair case of drawbar drivers ending up with only class 2 status under Grandfather rights in the day 
and/or,as in my case, Class 2 drivers being turned down or over looked for drawbar work on the basis that the guvnors still wanted a class 1 driver for it. 
bullitt:
This was until I became 21, then, absolutely legally, I could take the 18 meter wagon and drag out on my own. I used to run around Europe with it, at 21 with a class 3 licence! Two axle rigid prime mover with a two axle, A-Frame drawbar. Total over all length was 18 metres. Yes it seems a bit odd now looking back.
That really was the ( very ) lucky exception which proved the rule that most drawbar operators wanted class 1 drivers at least in my experience.Even though the law ( rightly ) said that rigid drivers made good enough,if not the best,drawbar drivers.
Carryfast:
nick2008:
So you have mentioned 1,2,3 but you didn’t mention HGV 4. Or didn’t you know about that oneI think the difference between 1 as opposed to 4 is just more confirmation that it was mostly a logical potential gross weight based system.
I seem to remember the Class 4 was for an artic where the unit weighed less than 2 tons.
Maybe those 3 wheelers the post office and railway used were Class 4’s, but when I worked
at National Carriers their little D Fords were Class 1.
Had never heard of HGV 4. My dad used to drive a dustcart and I remember as a kid in the 70’s riding on both (mainly dustcart). I thought HGV 1 was current c+e with a possible restriction to drawbars on some licences. HGV 2 any multi axle rigid. HGV3 two axle rigid only. Maybe I’ve been wrong all these years. When i’m out and about a spot an HGV I have normally distinguished the 2’s and 3’s in that way. I suppose i’m lucky to only have to think in terms of Cat C from now on!!!
Any comments on the other part of my question. Drivers who would never want to drive anything other than rigids and the reasons why.
axletramp:
Carryfast:
nick2008:
So you have mentioned 1,2,3 but you didn’t mention HGV 4. Or didn’t you know about that oneI think the difference between 1 as opposed to 4 is just more confirmation that it was mostly a logical potential gross weight based system.
I seem to remember the Class 4 was for an artic where the unit weighed less than 2 tons.
Maybe those 3 wheelers the post office and railway used were Class 4’s, but when I worked
at National Carriers their little D Fords were Class 1.
This is correct, according to my 1982/3 edition of the HGV Driver’s Handbook by David Soye. Robert
I believe this is / was / would have been classed as an HGV 4!
bullitt:
0
I believe this is / was / would have been classed as an HGV 4!
Or a Scammell Scarab! Robert
Max-Cady:
Any comments on the other part of my question. Drivers who would never want to drive anything other than rigids and the reasons why. Thanks. Mark.
I’d guess that ‘never wanting to drive anything other than rigids’ would be an extreme unrealistic view of the job of a driver.However I’d certainly say that given the choice I’ve always ‘preferred’ rigids and A frame drawbars to artics in everything from visibility during turns,to handling and stability and ride quality and weight distribution tolerance.
Carryfast:
Max-Cady:
Any comments on the other part of my question. Drivers who would never want to drive anything other than rigids and the reasons why. Thanks. Mark.I’d guess that ‘never wanting to drive anything other than rigids’ would be an extreme unrealistic view of the job of a driver.However I’d certainly say that given the choice I’ve always ‘preferred’ rigids and A frame drawbars to artics in everything from visibility during turns,to handling and stability and ride quality and weight distribution tolerance.
Only serves to confirm the fact “CF” that you couldn’t “drive sheep (or goats) with a good dog” Bewick.