Does any one know why the good old A frame drawbar outfit is still so common in Germany and Austria yet everywhere else its largely been replaced with the wagon and drag type or abandoned altogether in favour of an artic? The Dutch for example have lots of wagon and drags but very few A frames and the Germans have loads of A frames but relatively few wagon and drags and as for the UK, the A frame has all but vanished save a very small number.
probably something to do with weight distribution and what the countries exports are. a few guys here in Perthshire run A-frames on livestock and agri work, hay bales etc. The only other guys i see with them are Tufnells 
McKellar ran about 8 of these ex german A frames on regular contracts to Italy in the late 80’s early 90’s. Their only advantage was the speed in being able to swap bodies for fast turnaround times because they were heavy & had no cube space! These were on contract for a major german shipping & Forwarder who swore by these type of truck
They can carry more volume than an artic usually.I drove aircraft refuellers which were A frame drawbars and they could carry 44.000 litres.The artics the company were offered could not match that.
Great to drive but you had to be on the ball for reversing! Good fun though.
But what benefit does an A frame have over a wagon and drag in regards cubic volume or being able to change de-mounts? I know that most German A frames are running with those de-mount boxes but couldn’t that also be done with a wagon and drag thats far easier to reverse, and as a consequence, quicker?
robinhood_1984:
But what benefit does an A frame have over a wagon and drag in regards cubic volume or being able to change de-mounts? I know that most German A frames are running with those de-mount boxes but couldn’t that also be done with a wagon and drag thats far easier to reverse, and as a consequence, quicker?
An A frame will follow the PM much closer, it doesn’t cut in, you have no problem with axle or towpin overloads and you can drop them on a bay with a chock without risk of a see-saw. Those Demounts are known as swap bodies, also used on trains and boats, they are 7metre+ and they cannot fit two on a semi trailer.
Most of our fleet are A frames
robinhood_1984:
But what benefit does an A frame have over a wagon and drag in regards cubic volume or being able to change de-mounts? I know that most German A frames are running with those de-mount boxes but couldn’t that also be done with a wagon and drag thats far easier to reverse, and as a consequence, quicker?
For McKellar it was only turnaround times! Being the late 80’s early 90’s there was of course customs clearance to be done but these wagons could drop sealed bodies & be loaded with already cleared bodies for the journey back! At the time a lot of German bodies like these ones were being put onto trains for speedier services & as you said they are still used a lot in Germany now but why not on the conventional caravan type drawbar is a mystery! it must be i can only think be a weight distribution thingy
Wheel Nut:
An A frame will follow the PM much closer, it doesn’t cut in, you have no problem with axle or towpin overloads and you can drop them on a bay with a chock without risk of a see-saw. Those Demounts are known as swap bodies, also used on trains and boats, they are 7metre+ and they cannot fit two on a semi trailer.
So is it just a case of them remaining so popular in Germany/Austria because they have a huge amount of those swap bodies and countries such as the Netherlands who use a lot more wagon and drags dont? The see-saw ing makes sense but arent most of those swap boddies backed on to a door and then de-mounted on to their own legs anyway?
robinhood_1984:
Wheel Nut:
An A frame will follow the PM much closer, it doesn’t cut in, you have no problem with axle or towpin overloads and you can drop them on a bay with a chock without risk of a see-saw. Those Demounts are known as swap bodies, also used on trains and boats, they are 7metre+ and they cannot fit two on a semi trailer.So is it just a case of them remaining so popular in Germany/Austria because they have a huge amount of those swap bodies and countries such as the Netherlands who use a lot more wagon and drags dont? The see-saw ing makes sense but arent most of those swap boddies backed on to a door and then de-mounted on to their own legs anyway?
I suppose some are dropped on their own legs, it just seems the auflieger is less popular with the brummi fahrer than the anhanger
You see these sorts of 3.5t things in Germany as well towed behind 4x4s and Sprinter vans
Wheel Nut:
I suppose some are dropped on their own legs, it just seems the auflieger is less popular with the brummi fahrer than the anhanger
It does just seem that they’ve remained popular in the German speaking lands. You hardly ever see a French, Irish or Pole with an A frame. Maybe its just a case of them not wanting to fix something that isn’t broken while the rest of Europe have taken the option of using whats easiest to drive by the largest amount of people? The UK companies that still use them must have difficulty in finding drivers who can manouver them or spend ages teaching them as they’re like the proverbial rocking horse crap now, whereas in Germany they must make up one in three of the trucks on the road.
robinhood_1984:
But what benefit does an A frame have over a wagon and drag in regards cubic volume or being able to change de-mounts? I know that most German A frames are running with those de-mount boxes but couldn’t that also be done with a wagon and drag thats far easier to reverse, and as a consequence, quicker?
A frames are more stable and have a more axle weight tolerance because of the difference between train weights v combination weight.On the caravan/close coupled type lash up the trailer weight distribution needs to be balanced to create zero noseweight if the prime mover is loaded to it’s max gross weight.Which isn’t as stable as running with some noseweight.Whereas with an A frame it’s two totally different vehicles in which the weight on the trailer has no effect on the prime mover.All of which outweighs the bit of extra thought and skill needed when reversing which,at least in my case, just added to the level of interest in the job more than boring artics or caravans. 
Carryfast:
A frames are more stable and have a more axle weight tolerance because of the difference between train weights v combination weight.On the caravan/close coupled type lash up the trailer weight distribution needs to be balanced to create zero noseweight if the prime mover is loaded to it’s max gross weight.Which isn’t as stable as running with some noseweight.Whereas with an A frame it’s two totally different vehicles in which the weight on the trailer has no effect on the prime mover.All of which outweighs the bit of extra thought and skill needed when reversing which,at least in my case, just added to the level of interest in the job more than boring artics or caravans.
I was waiting for you to come along with an answer to this. All of what you have said makes perfect sense, but why then have so many countries gone down the path of the wagon and drag if apart from its ease of manouver, its much more impractical when it comes to loading the thing correctly. Theres thousands of wagon and drag types in Britain, France, Holland, Poland, Czech Republic etc etc but you will hardly ever see an A frame from those countries save for a very small amount in the UK on specialist work, but in Germany they use them on just about every type of work going. Have other countries dropped them soley because they’re more difficult to drive backwards and if thats the only reason then why havent the Germans got rid of them too? I understand why they’re a good combination, but I dont understand why its only largely the Germans and Austrians who have kept them in light of that.
robinhood_1984:
Carryfast:
A frames are more stable and have a more axle weight tolerance because of the difference between train weights v combination weight.On the caravan/close coupled type lash up the trailer weight distribution needs to be balanced to create zero noseweight if the prime mover is loaded to it’s max gross weight.Which isn’t as stable as running with some noseweight.Whereas with an A frame it’s two totally different vehicles in which the weight on the trailer has no effect on the prime mover.All of which outweighs the bit of extra thought and skill needed when reversing which,at least in my case, just added to the level of interest in the job more than boring artics or caravans.I was waiting for you to come along with an answer to this. All of what you have said makes perfect sense, but why then have so many countries gone down the path of the wagon and drag if apart from its ease of manouver, its much more impractical when it comes to loading the thing correctly. Theres thousands of wagon and drag types in Britain, France, Holland, Poland, Czech Republic etc etc but you will hardly ever see an A frame from those countries save for a very small amount in the UK on specialist work, but in Germany they use them on just about every type of work going. Have other countries dropped them soley because they’re more difficult to drive backwards and if thats the only reason then why havent the Germans got rid of them too? I understand why they’re a good combination, but I dont understand why its only largely the Germans and Austrians who have kept them in light of that.
Maybe it’s tradition and ( rightly ) staying with the much better engineered idea that they know rather than changing over to the flawed close coupled type just for change sake.They’ve obviously also got a large pool of old school A frame type drivers to pass the reversing skills on at the training stage whereas here the type was already becoming increasingly rare in favour of artics around two generations ago.But there does seem to be more of an unwarranted fear of the things here amongst new drivers than probably exists in Germany,Swiss and Austria where they seem to have stayed in more common use than here or even other continental countries like France where they were still common not long ago.Which probably explains the difference in the more common use here of close coupled type,as opposed to A frames, where drawbar outfits are used,than was the case back in the 1970’s/80’s for example.
nickyboy:
Most of our fleet are A frames
Carryfast:
nickyboy:
Most of our fleet are A frames
tut tut ! is that a 6x2 
Trev_H:
tut tut ! is that a 6x2
Nothing is ever perfect.It’s ze German/Euro way.
Carryfast:
Trev_H:
tut tut ! is that a 6x2Nothing is ever perfect.It’s ze German/Euro way.
I last used an A frame outfit in the 90’s, you were right about the weight distribution Carryfast, I delivered metal bar, profiles etc. the payload was 23t on a 4 axle outfit on air suspension and with a reducing load on multi drops it wasn’t possible to use the caravan type drawbar which would require constantly moving the load to maintain nose weights and axle weights.
Trev_H:
Carryfast:
Trev_H:
tut tut ! is that a 6x2Nothing is ever perfect.It’s ze German/Euro way.
I last used an A frame outfit in the 90’s, you were right about the weight distribution Carryfast, I delivered metal bar, profiles etc. the payload was 23t on a 4 axle outfit on air suspension and with a reducing load on multi drops it wasn’t possible to use the caravan type drawbar which would require constantly moving the load to maintain nose weights and axle weights.
The scary thing is that even VOSA now don’t seem to understand the difference between gross train weight compared to gross combination weight and just tell drivers that they are both the same thing. 
Although you can bet that a lot of their operatives on the ground do when it comes to handing out the penalties. 
While the problem with the flawed close coupled caravan type design is that it needs some noseweight on the trailer to keep it stable.