ploughmaster

I was lucky enough to buy one from an FTF member but I have seen them on BIN for £160 and at Spalding for £140.

Not a bad price considering I paid £106 to buy mine when they were current   

This seems to be the only picture I have at present 

Clive, I like to think we personally are an almost shining example of good maintenance on a small farm. All our kit is correctly sized and maintained for the task and I agree that everyone should do the same. However, as an ordinary small mixed farm of around 250 acres, it pays for the kit but not any salaries. This is not unusual. I could list many small farms round here who struggle on with old knackered kit because they can't afford to carry out even basic maintenance, never mind replace worn out tyres or fix up rotten trailers... So yes, there are bound to be some farms who can afford to maintain kit better than they do, but there are probably many more who can't...

Old kit does not necessarily have to be in a poor state of repair, and I will not accept there is any excuse for operating vehicles or equipment that is in a dangerously poor state of repair (or used beyond its capabilities).  Frankly, and perhaps rudely, if these people can't make a profit they should not be in the industry.  I do not accept this pathetic wingeing about poor prices and high costs; plenty of farms acheive good profits in spite of these; it is simply down to being bad farmers.

If contractors are pushing on with kit too big for the roads, it begs the questions, 1, how has it gained approval for sale in this country if it cannot even be transported within it? And 2, Why do they have to operate like that? I doubt very much you'll pull up outside their sprawling mansion to be greeted by an Aston Martin and a Porsche.

This is complete nonsense.  There are no machines available which are too big to go on the road.  The point that was being made is that when a vehicle or piece of equipment is above a legally defined size/weight, the operator has to comply with legal obligations before going on the road with it; marker boards, flashing beacons, escort vehicles, police notification, applying for dispensations etc.  It is unreasonable to expect to be allowed to travel without complying just because you are in a hurry or not making much profit.  In answer to '2', they don't, and there is no reason for them to need to do so.

I don't dispute that many machines on the road probably shouldn't be anywhere near it. What I do dispute is that they represent an immediate disaster waiting to occur. The problem is not so much the kit as the operators.

The operators are an integral part of the problem. You can't really seperate the problems they represent from the problems with the machine itself.

The problem is that they do represent the potential for an immediate disaster.  There are a significant number of serious (sometimes fatal) collisions between agricultural machines and other road users, and in a high proportion of cases, subsequent checks by police engineers reveal the farm vehicle to be in an unroadworthy state.

If consumers bought more locally produced seasonal food and there was a genuine living to be made in agriculture then more skilled operators would work in it. I am a very conscientious operator, but I couldn't afford to buy a house with what I was earning, so I left the farm and went and did something else. That leaves quite a few positions to be filled sadly by those with little aspiration or intellect, who don't have the intelligence to look after their kit... [Not implying that everyone who works in agriculture is that way inclined...! Simply that employers don't have a huge pool of highly skilled thoughtful operators to choose from anymore because many can't justify the poor wages]

There is a good living to be made in farming.  There are a number of farms up and down the country who value their staff and pay significantly higher wages than those laid down in the Wages Order and often provide a free house as well (worth at least an extra £7000 a year on top of the wage). 

This myth that there are no skilled machinery operators out there looking for work is just that - a myth. My own recent experience has shown me that there is still a large reservoir of potential staff - a number of arable farms who have advertised in FW recently have said they have been very surprised ('taken aback' were the words one of them used) at the volume of applications they had received, and also impressed by the calibre of most of the applicants.

Those who end up with poor staff are either not looking very hard, or are paying rubbish wages (I've seen one sprayer operators job advertised this year offering a wage of £6.00 an hour; it was re advertised for week after week - I wonder why )

Land prices... skyrocketed... 4 acre grass field just went for £8'500 and acre here last week.... the land we farm is up for £6500 an acre.... do the sums, takes a long time to make that pay.... I recall

The fact is that it is the potential of making money out of farming which is driving land prices up.  Don't try and kid yourself that it is outside 'investors' who are buying the land at these prices.  It isn't.  It is farmers who are buying it, both UK based and farmers from abroad who see a decent profit in the business.

I could go on.... Yes, I know hauliers don't like seeing tractors trucking round on red, but would a haulier really want to invest in lorries capable of crossing fields and operating in farm yards? No, or they would have already. And would they like to share their haulage market with anyone with a tractor and trailer if farmers did run on white and with tachos? I doubt that too.... I could deliver steel framed buildings to sites .... I could delivery plant.... I could probably do lots that a lorry can do.... It's not farmers who hauliers should be getting arsey with! Should most of these farmers and contractors be in business? Of course not, it simply doesn't add up. Many operate at break even point if they're lucky, often at a loss, and with none of the luxuries or protection many of the rest of the population enjoy. Thankless work with out break or recognition. Farming is bloody hard work and not rewarded in any way like how it deserves to be.

But we MUST stay in business. For many it's all they know, it's their life, and that of generations before them. It's a responsibility to the land and the environment and to some, even humanity... all far more important than some recently imported EU law on weights and measures or road speed or working hours.... is it our place to suggest they hang up their wellies and work in a factory? There is probably no workable solution in the short term in all honesty.

That is probably the biggest load of whingeing baloney I have ever read.  If farmers using tractors and trailers for haulage, usually overloaded, with no 'O' licence or HGV trained driver, no MOT certificate, on rebated diesel, and with less restricted hours are not in unfair competition with hauliers, just what are they?

As I said before, there are plenty of farmers and managers who are good at what they do, get their sums right and run their well structured businesses efficiently and profitably.  This 'hard done to' moaning is unjustified, rather pathetic and in any case in no way justifies operating dangerous equipment in an illegal manner.

later in the year (December) there are 2 international tractors planned and also a case. the inters are a 956XL and a 3588. the case is a 1056XL. they also plan to have the Massey 7580 ready for release in September.

According to what Andy has written in the latest 'Model Farmer', there will eventually be both 956XL and 1056XL versions of both the International and Case-IH 

The International 2+2 will be available in North America as a 3788 for Toy Farmer/National Farm Toy Show (and will be available from some specialist European model dealers, and as a 3588 for general release.

So you are saying its ok for supemarkets to F£$% us in the behind with prices with this exact same attitude but we are not allowed to do the same? HA HA

I'm not saying anything of the kind.

Get off your high horse

The only ones on high horses are those arrogant individuals who behave as though they are above the law, and those who seek to defend such behaviour with spurious arguments.

If the playing field was level WHICH IT IS NOT then we'd all play ball, Goverment and the public are to blame at the end of the day, all they want to do is import, they don't give a stuff what or where it comes from as long as it comes and cheap, we have to go bigger machines to do work efficiently these days,

What I am saying is that plenty of farms are selling to the supermarkets and still make a good profit.  It is a global market, and whilst farmers in some other parts of the world are given an unfair advantage, that is not the fault of the supermarkets.  It is equally true to say that some farmers in other countries are very much less 'feather bedded' than farmers in Europe are (New Zealand being a case in point) and yet they are still able to export to us at similar (or lower) end prices than those at which some UK farmers 'claim' they can't make money.  To those who claim they can't make a profit, well, perhaps they should look carefully at their business and ask whether they should be producing something different, or even whether they should be in the business at all  \

Either way, it is no excuse for flouting the law, and to suggest that you should be allowed to do so is not only arrogant and irresponsible, it will end up causing the Government to bring in even more stringent legislation, but UK agriculture has a long history of ignoring the rules and then whingeing when they are further tightened.  It is time some in the industry woke up and entered the real world

if i had to wait on police to escort me everytime i was headin to the road i'd never get all done in a year nevermind what i need to do in a day to try and stay viable!

You do not need a police escort, but depending on the size and weight of the machine you are required to provide an escort yourself.  In normal circumstances you are only required to provide the police with 24 hours notification of the movement if travelling more than 5 miles. In practice you can apply to your local police force abnormal loads officer for a dispensation from the requirement to notify them (which will usually be granted without question).  The information on loads and width restrictions and the action that needs to be taken when they are exceeded is basic knowledge that every farmer, contractor and farmworker should either know or have to hand, and should adhere to  .  The rules are there for reasons of safety; they are not there simply as an annoyance to farmers, and agriculture as a whole has many exemptions and less onerous rules to follow than most other industries have to, but most in farming don't (or won't) appreciate this.

If you wish to move such equipment in breach of the law, don't be surprised if the law bites you back when something goes wrong.  As in the case I linked to, managing to avoid a catastrophe is often dependent on the behaviour of other drivers and is beyond your control.

Again, just because someone finds it hard to keep up with the workload and remain in profit is not an excuse for breaking the law  \

I am sorry, but to both simon, denis and MODELFARMER: the fact of whether or not you are making a profit and whether supermarkets are screwing your prices down is irrelevant. The arrogant 'it'll be OK' and ' I have a right to do as I like' kind of attitude of some in farming is totally unacceptable.

We are talking about compliance with The Law,  we are talking about carrying out agricultural transport safely and the fact is that far too many tractor/trailer combinations are being used not only beyond their legal limits, but also beyond their design parameters.  Normal agricultural tractors are simply not safe at speeds much beyond 20mph, and for instance, when you have a 200hp tractor weighing most of 10 tonnes pulling an 18 tonne capacity trailer (which will have an unladen weight of 5 or 6 tonnes), the braking systems currently fitted to agricultural tractors and trailers are wholly inadequate to safely stop it within an acceptable distance in an emergency; Then add to that the woeful attitude found on a lot of farms towards proper maintenance, and the use of inexperienced and often untrained drivers..... 

If farmers and managers don't know the rules, it is their obligation to find out about them.  If they are unable to grasp the meaning of them, they should not be farming.

There are plenty of profitable farms who do operate within the law, and keep their equipment in good order (even some who are big suppliers to the main supermarket groups).  Industry on a knife edge of bankruptcy; don't make me laugh. 

And to suggest that a lack of profit is an excuse for operating in an unsafe and illegal manner is risible.

On a slightly different tack, there is also a serious problem with understaffed farms routinely sending oversize machines on the road without the required escort.  We had a situation here in Lincolnshire a couple of years ago involving a combine with no escort being involved in a fatal collision. Both the driver and his manager were charged and faced a custodial sentence if convicted (they ended up being given a conditional discharge on a lesser charge mainly because the dead man had been speeding).  Sadly, I don't think the farming press even bothered reporting it.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Farm-worker-spared-jail-sentence-combine-harvester-death-crash/article-1488679-detail/article.html

How many people do we have to kill before it gets into the heads of some in agriculture that they need to change their attitude. 

I'm sorry if I am ruffling feathers

No, on second thoughts, I'm not 

Does anyone know are we going to get a version of this 8345R model without the expensive RC part?  I ask because siku have just released last years 8430T model without RC

I doubt it.

Are you sure they have released a non radio controlled version of the 8345T?  I can't find reference to one anywhere and it is not listed on the Siku website, although there is a recent release of the Siku Control version on its own (i.e. without the handset).  It is still the same radio controlled version though.

I agree, it is horrifying.  I have long regarded the state of maintenance and the high handed ignorance with which a high proportion of the agricultural industry ride roughshod over the rules and regulartions is a national disgrace.  I have got fed up of being expected to use poorly maintained equipment carrying illegally heavy/wide loads and expected to travel at illegal speeds in the last few years.

The article does go a bit over the top however (which is probably to be expected considering the dislike/hatred with which many in the road haulage industry regard farm vehicles on the road).

They mention rules and regulations that are in place, so to infer that agricultural tractors and trailers can operate with no legal restrictions is a bit silly.

The truth is that there are regulations which do severely limit what a tractor can do, where it can operate and what it can carry, but a huge proportion of those working in agriculture are either totally ignorant (and don't care) or simply flout the law.  As shown in the article above, the reason they flout the law is because they will almost certainly get away with it, and the reason they get away with it is because enforcement is wholly inadequate. That is a problem that can only be rectified by the Government and VOSA.

As far as I am concerned a full annual MOT test for tractors and trailers together with a mandatory regular recorded maintenance program can't come soon enough. Lets face it, in spite of the bleating of many in the industry, the only farms that are going to be put to extra expense (over and above the cost of the test itself) are those whose equipment is poorly maintained, which is really rather the point 

They could also perhaps tighten up the age and licensing regulations with possibly a much lower maximum permissable train weight for tractor drivers under 21, or those with less than 1 or 2 years experience. 

I'm the same as archbarch; I've never taken a test on a tractor, having passed my car test before first driving a tractor and subsequently driving tractors etc on a Cat B licence. The first tractor I drove on the road (in 1980) was a 1974 model MF 165 with a flexi clad cab 

Sorry to go way off topic, but just to clear up the confusion on age/weight/width limits:

There is an age related weight restriction on the weight of the tractor itself.  If the unloaded weight of the 'Agricultural Motor Vehicle' exceeds 7370kg, you must be 21 to drive it on the road, regardless of the licence you hold.  Note: a lot of large tractors exceed this, as do many self propelled sprayers, forage harvesters, forklifts/loading shovels and combines!

To take a tracklayer or road roller on the highway, you need to be 21 regardless of weight and width.

Note; both tracklayers (Cat H) and road rollers (Cat G) have their own categories, and a full Cat B or Cat F licence only functions as a provisional licence for both.

However, there is no age related restriction on the combined weight of tractor + trailer, even for 16 year olds holding a full Cat F licence, provided the drawing tractor is below 7370kg and neither tractor or trailer exceeds 2.45 metres width.  The weight limits which do apply are those given under construction and use regulations, and apply to all tractor/trailer combinations. 

As far as brakes on agricultural trailers are concerned:

Trailers with a maximum permitted gross weight of up to 750kg do not require a braking system to be fitted.

If the max weight exceeds 750kg, but is less than 3500kg, brakes must be fitted which can be applied whilst the vehicle is moving (over-run brakes will satisfy this requirement).

Where the maximum permitted weight of the trailer exceeds 3500kg, but is less than 14230kg, brakes must be fitted which can be applied progressively from the drivers seat (this can be achieved by the spool valve/quadrant lever actuated systems that were commonplace 20 years ago, but are rarely found on newer agricultural tractors and trailers).

A trailer with a max weight greater than 14230kg, up to the maximum permitted 18290kg, must have a braking system fitted which works directly from the tractors service braking system (which is what is most commonly found nowadays on most agricultural tractors and trailers).

NB: these weights refer to the max gross weight of the trailer only (they do not include the weight of the tractor). 

In addition, the maximum gross train weight (tractor + trailer) must not exceed 24390kg; the ratio of the weight of the trailer to the weight of the tractor must not exceed 4:1; and unless both tractor and trailer have seperate full suspension on each axle and dual line braking, the maximum permitted speed is 20 miles per hour 

Couple of pics as promised (just out of interest, why do you want pics of docks?)

That shows the nose quite well, but the camera has distorted the front a bit so that it appears as though it leans forward at the top, when in fact it is vertical.

This the best I can do, sorry it doesn't show the front end too clearly:

So if I have a question about Whisky or Britains I just need to ask Clive ;)    ;D

On the whisky, just ask google 

The ROS website says;

ROS, which is flexibility-oriented and counts on a free operating  structure, has chosen to have all moulding, assembling and painting  operations made out-house;  the company provides though final  assembling, shipments and  strict quality checks on every single item.

  This company policy lets  ROS offer much more competitive prices and high quality products,  thus confirming its success in Italy and abroad.

 

So I assume, like you say, one factory making models for many companies.

This is roughly how nearly all the toy/model manufacturers now work (although from the above ROS appear from most in that they are doing the final assembly and packing, whereas most others have the entire operation done for them).  This includes Ertl/Britains, UH, Siku, Hornby/Corgi et al.

If we were told exactly which factories each brand was being made in, I suspect we have some surprises 

I think he means the common dock (Rumex obtusifolius). 

If I remember, I'll post a pic of the horse paddock near my house tomorrow - there isn't a single dock in it!....

.....they're all in groups of a few hundred 

I'm pretty sure the MF 100 series tankers were built by Marston Agricultural Services. I'm not sure if Marston sold the single axle/traction tyre version in their own range or if it was a special build for MF. 

The MF 17 was built by another manufacturer whose name escapes me at present (I think it was a manufacturer now extinct).  There was also a larger tandem axle version (MF19?) - the first farm I worked on when I left school in 1981 had an ageing tandem axle one in the manufacturers normal yellow paintwork (well, paint and rust at that time  ), and the next door farm had one that was identical apart from being in MF livery.

It was sometimes the case that the equipment that MF sourced from third party manufacturers, although at first glance identical to that manufacturers own product, was built to a slightly different spec for supply to MF - the 60/70's Weeks trailers were a case in point; although similar to the Weeks own version, the MF supplied ones had stronger axles and I seem to think that the MF axles were adjustable to 3 positions on the chassis, where Weeks own version had only two positions (I might have mis remembered that, perhaps someone else could confirm or otherwise).

£12.99 on amazon

The cheapest on Amazon (from 'specialist_book_supplies') is £12.99 + £2.75 postage = £15.74 

I have one also, which I bought via eBay from Peter Lee (eBay name petervanlee), also for reasonable money - perhaps yours came from the same source jaywilli (he sold two or three at around the same time).

The Toy Trust is a charity set up by the British Toy and Hobby Association in 1990.  The Toy Trust raises money primarily from within the UK toy industry and distributes it to various charities helping disadvantaged or disabled children. 

The van money boxes (cat number 40925) were produced by Britains themselves for the trust to use as a fundraising aid and were certainly in use at the London Toyfair at the time (and most probably elsewhere too).  I have no idea how many were made, but I don't imagine it was a huge number.  They were possibly (either partly or perhaps entirely?) donated by Britains as their contribution to the charity that year?

It must have been a reasonably big job, not only involving the making the casting with a coin slot in the roof and producing the tooling to tampo print the logos, but also to retool the interior and floor pan/baseplate to make the money box itself and the trapdoor for getting the money out.

I think that their relative cheapness when sold on eBay may be down to most collectors not knowing what they were and assuming (wrongly) that they were a third party conversion. I think I may have seen yours on eBay super6, I remember an unboxed one a couple of months ago that was missing its locking cover and key.  You can probably find a spare mirror from someone who has chopped/scrapped a playworn one, but the cover would be difficult to replace - mind you, it doesn't show when standing on the shelf 

Few pictures of mine:

There aren't copies of their original price lists with their relevant catalogues then?

No; David has collated each yearls prices for every item in the catalogues into two sets of tables at the rear of the book.  One set lists the items alphabetically by name, and the other numerically by catalogue number, so you can search easily by either method and can easily see the change in retail price over the period covered (1970 to 1979).  Each price entry also carries the page number in the book where the page from the relevent years catalogue for that item may be found.

There are one or two gaps (mainly in the non farm areas) because Britains didn't always put the price of every item on the  retail price list    (1976, the year of the least detailed catalogue, being the worst for this)

Current cheapest prices I can find are:

£15.49 with free post from W H Smith online

£15.74 including postage is cheapest via Amazon 

...but what is it with the German address at the bottom of the ingredients??

Worse than them sourcing the chocolates from Germany - since 2006 Glen Grant has been owned by the Italian 'Gruppo Campari SpA'  \

Thankfully, MacAllan are still Scottish owned 

For those who have all the original catalogues in very good or mint condition, it is well worthwhile as a reference source to avoid having to use the originals and end up with them worn and dog eared   

For less than the current price of two of the early 70's public catalogues it is a very good value reference.  The tabulation of all the prices year by year at the back of the book is great for those who are interested in such things as the price lists are missing from the vast majority of the actual catalogues that are offered for sale nowadays.

Nice assortment there.

The stud in the rear wheel of the 362 is a variation I have seen occassionally - most seem to have the one with the 8 round lumps (simulating studs).

The 9565 trailer in red was first issued in a special value set with a Valmet 805 in 1990 (cat 5751), and again in 1996 as part of a super value set with an MF 6180 (cat 3055).  It was also available on its own in the normal box over this period.

It is not the same model as the 9550 tipping trailer BC has posted, but a retooled version which was obviously based on the same design, but in fact the only parts which are common to both models are the racks/lades/gormers/ladders (or whatever you call them where you are  ). 

I was told when I bought the animal pack from a dealer, that these packs were sold through woolworths on there own.  Has anybody else heard of this?

Woolies did sell a very limited selection of Britains tractor + one implement sets in there for a very short period in the early 90's.  I don't ever remember seeing or hearing of any of these animal packets in Woolies at the time.  It is possible they sold these animals for a time, but would need definate confirmation from someone who definately saw them there.  There are a lot of so-called facts which start off as hearsay, so I would take the dealers story with a small pinch of salt for the time being. 

These animals from the 'Rosette' range of figures and animals was only made in China from 1993 to the end of 1996 when production was returned to the UK for a short while (Ertl then moved production back to China and the UK firm that had been making them went bust  ). 

I would think thes packs were packed by several workers in the Chinese factory, and the specification would probably have been for 1 x large animal + 3 small animals.  They probably didn't specify particular animals, so the variation in contents was probably a case of the workers using whatever was put in front of them.

Looks like an updated and refined (and bigger!) version of the 1960's/1970's Howard RotaDigger 

This was one of Britains' promotional schemes; similar idea to the 'Bumper Value Pack' and 'Super Value Pack' schemes from the same era.

I can't recall what year it was, but from the date on the bag of animals was probably 1995?.  The only indication on the (rainbow banded) box was the sticker you have described (stuck to the front upper left where a picture of the toy usually resided). 

I don't know if the animals were actually in the box, or whether they were kept under the counter and handed over when the purchase was made.  It was a small heat sealed polybag with about four assorted animals in it and a plain black and white stuck on label carrying the CE mark and other legally required information.  It was at the time when plastic figure production had been moved to China and interestingly, the bag usually included a small Chinese made plastic Fir tree which was not actually a Britains model, but was presumably also manufactured in the same Chinese factory as the Britains animals were at that time. 

Here is a picture of the bag and animals from this promotion:

I'd be interested to know the percentage of niggly warranty claims versus the number of major component failures.. I suspect that very few tractor brands have issues of major component failure.

I would agree, I would expect that there would be relatively few major claims within the warranty period, and a significant proportion of premature major component failures can be directly attributed to being abused or misused in some form. 

Even though tractors (and equipment in general) are more technically advanced and sophisticated (and I mean in the true meaning of that word  ), they are in general more reliable now than they were 30 or 40 years ago.  Go back further and tractors were fairly reliable mainly because they were often significantly over engineered and were basic and therefore simple.

I suppose you could do something with them, perhaps along the lines of the old (country & western?) song, "I've got a 1957, '58, '59....... Chevrolet" (or something like that, I've forgotten exactly. Was it Johnny Cash?)

It was - One Piece at a Time