my old man was a coal hewer at siddick pit, we lived on sea view which for some strange reason is now shore side .
syramax:
my old man was a coal hewer at siddick pit, we lived on sea view which for some strange reason is now shore side .
Interesting post “syramax” so what period would your Dad have worked at St. Helens pit, sounds like they didn’t have much machinery working on the face ! Cheers Bewick.
i was born when he worked there ,and I’m 60 now .(it was a pit house we lived in) . I don’t know what year he left but it must have been when rumours were about of closure. I once sat in on a conversation with my ex wifes stepfather, (black country man) who asked the question “what did you do with the payout” the old man replied that he didn’t get any as he found another job before !! the other buggers with the wedge were all looking .he reckoned it was better to have a regular job than a lump sum that would fast run out and be on the dole. he spent many happy years at Workington docks . as regards machinery , I used to hear ex miners talk of nearly brand new machinery being left and sealed in the pit .I believe the reason for shutting it (and others) was due to unsound geology, yet a few miles down the road theres been millions spent looking into storing radioactive waste underground?? . also there is a rig off Whitehaven at the moment drilling for coal deposits with a view to open another pit at Whitehaven, I understand if it is viable it will be based on part of the old marchon site . the same area that storey homes are in the process of building four new housing estates.
Thanks for the reply about St Helens pit “Syramax”, and I was browsing on the web about the new West ■■■■■■■■ Coal Co and it seems they are going to use part of the old Marchon site to access the new mine but they reckon there is millions of tons of high quality coking coal to be got and it will be moved by rail to Teeside for shipping to Europe as well as to Steel Works in the UK ( Wales) if of course we still have a Steel industry ! 
Cheers Bewick.
[attachment=0]008_8.JPG[/attachment
No sheeting or roping required ! This is a shot of a regular job we did for many years for a local BR Contractor the late Keith Gardener. It was a great job as we ran to the N.East then re-loaded at Hartlepool dock with woodpulp back to Milnthorpe. We loaded the 25 ton loads of scrap rail which came off the main line at the Carnforth marshalling yard so it was only seven miles from our depot.Cheers Bewick.
Out of interest Dennis why did you not go for a three axle tractor, tri axle trailer at 38 tonne to gain the cheaper road fund tax back then or was it not viable for your system. Cheers Franky.
Frankydobo:
Out of interest Dennis why did you not go for a three axle tractor, tri axle trailer at 38 tonne to gain the cheaper road fund tax back then or was it not viable for your system. Cheers Franky.
Good question Franky, it came down to cost and basic fleet economics at the time the 32 to 38 tons came in early in 83. Our fleet at the time was all 4x2 units and tandem axle trailers. I considered that the fastest way into 38ton operation was via tri axle trailers i.e. 2 +3 and we had many 4x2 units on the fleet that were able to operate at 38 ton with a tri axle trailer. Our youngest tandem flats were 6 years old in '83 as we had started buying tandem axle Boalloy Tautliners in number from 1978 and to me, financially, the cost of properly converting ageing tandems at circa £4,500 each was a no! no! to me as you were still left with an aged piece of equipment not worth much more than the tandem was worth. Our first new tri axles cost £6,250, no contest, we had a brand new bit of gear for only a couple of Grand more and with a minimum of 10 years useful life. With regard to 6x2 units I did buy quite a number over the years when the “deal was right” mainly Scania and the odd Volvo but as, at the time back then, 38ton looked like it was here to stay for a long while and the 2 +3 suited me fine “pay load wise” and the only saving on the 3+3 was the VED. After an unfortunate foray with Crane Fruehauf tri axle flats I went to TASK at ■■■■■■■■■■■ via my long gone Pal the late Malcolm Woodhouse Snr who bought tipping Chassis and Bodies from them. TASK who’s Manager Tom Dunning was prepared to build tri axle flats and pre-prepared chassis for Boalloy to our exact specification and also with the ROR single leaf suspensions so over a fifteen year period IIRC we would buy upwards of 200 TASK tri axle trailers/Chassis and apart from a minor modification that was required early on they did us a great job so it was a ■■■■■■■ disaster when those aerosols at SDC took them over. But that is another story ! Cheers Dennis.
The first shot is of one of the first Crane Fruehauf tri axles ( and one of the last !) we bought.
The other two shots are of 6 decked new Task tri’s in the depot awaiting unloading and to be PDI’d ready for entering the fleet the other shot is of three “Boalloy prepared” Chassis en route from ■■■■■■■■■■■ to Congleton into the Boalloy factory.
Thanks for the prompt reply Dennis and as you say it made sense. I recall the odd keen Copper would sometimes pull us up when running with the tag axle lifted when the tri axle we were pulling only had half a dozen or so empty pallets on and of course this went against the rules as an axle should only have been lifted when running completely empty when taxed as a 3 x 3, our Traffic Manager who was good lad and on the ball had to endure a ticking off from said lawman one day after I’d been stopped and he insisted on following me back to the yard and speaking to the TM, amazing how you could travel half way up the country no bother then get pulled a mile from base! Cheers Franky.
In years gone by nothing was straight forward when new legislation was introduced into the transport Industry in the UK and the introduction of 38ton gvw was no exception. Instead of keeping things simple there were two options offered and they wern’t compatible IMHO. There was the 2+3 and the 3+2 and of course you could run on 6 axles which was too heavy but a saving in RFL was possible. The 3+2 option meant that the tandem axle bogie had to moved further back on the chassis so it made them incompatible with the 4X2 units even at 32 ton GVW. IMO the 2+ 3 option was the most economic and simplest option as you could achieve a 25 ton payload ( on pallets in most cases) and where in the past the 20 ton module had been the accepted benchmark at 32 ton gvw the achievable module then became 25 ton at 38tonGVW, which was a nice round number. I maybe rambling a bit but that was my rational and, of course, I believed it was a far better cost effective way into 38ton via the 2+3 route. Some firms did plump for the 3+2 option which was their choice but it did create two “fleets” so to speak. Instead of the Dept of Transport saying “This is the only allowable option” and being hide bound aerosols they would have probably chosen the 3+2 route and ■■■■■■ everything up Cheers Bewick.
Hi Dennis, This photo turned up on Facebook this morning. Oor Marra parked up at Wigton for the week end maybe. Classic RWB eexample of R&S.
Cheers, Leyland 600.
Leyland600:
Hi Dennis, This photo turned up on Facebook this morning. Oor Marra parked up at Wigton for the week end maybe. Classic RWB eexample of R&S.
Cheers, Leyland 600.
I have a confession to make Gerald ! I have never joined facebook nor will I be joining. However, in my minds eye I can fully visualise the scene you describe of an immaculate S&R job by oor Marra, which would be nothing less than faultless ! Cheers Dennis.
Dennis I only view FB not comment and just certain transport related sites. With reference to the ADB Volvo I have similar ones taken at the same location. Here are a couple.
Cheers, Leyland 600.
Cheers, Leyland 600.
Mid lift or tag axle which did you prefer■■?
I found the tag on the 112 & 113 the better option as they gave the unit a very tight turning circle when up, handy in a lot of cases and better traction. The Mid lift could be a bit of a pain on some early makes by having to keep one hand on the control to keep the axle lifted while trying to negotiate a steep incline. Later when air suspension came in this gave an added technique that was also handy in some situations with incorrectly dropped trailers. Franky.
Frankydobo:
I found the tag on the 112 & 113 the better option as they gave the unit a very tight turning circle when up, handy in a lot of cases and better traction. The Mid lift could be a bit of a pain on some early makes by having to keep one hand on the control to keep the axle lifted while trying to negotiate a steep incline. Later when air suspension came in this gave an added technique that was also handy in some situations with incorrectly dropped trailers. Franky.
Ivecos had that large button you had to hold down , I once got stuck on a dual carriageway on a slight incline after a quick downpour unit only . It eventually 
got hold but I never liked the midlifts that didn’t lift a total pain