But the training would cost more due to the increased overheads running an artic and rigid as opposed to w+d
Did you read the latest commercial motor Pete? They finally have got round to taking action against the duo that ran Sterling, leaving nearly 500 customers out of pocket to the tune of £600,000.
We were lucky to get that FH13, it was run by Volvo HQ as driver cpc training truck. Has 4 seats, extra windows and loads of extras such as hill start, trailer service brake test button, reversing camera, xenon headlights and other treats. We just had to buy it and frankly we paid less for it than our new DAF rigids, although it was 5 years old when we got it. Amazing however it had only done 95,000km since new! I guess all the cpc work Volvo did was with the sister truck an I shift Volvo. Does anyone drive a manual now??
Tockwith Training, providing quality driver instruction since 1971
Did you read the latest commercial motor Pete? They finally have got round to taking action against the duo that ran Sterling, leaving nearly 500 customers out of pocket to the tune of £600,000.
Certainly did read it and it’s good that the crooks in the job are being weeded out, albeit far to slowly.
Really like that Volvo and, if I thought I could work it, I’d go now and buy one. For all my strong arguments pro W+D there are still those who prefer to train on artic and that’s how it should be. It’s called “choice”. But my customers seem to prefer the W+D option. When I ran an artic, only a couple of years ago, I actually had one customer who insisted on artic and when we went to the parking area he changed his mind immediately - even before I’d introduced him to the artic!
I find this very frustrating. But there is little doubt that I’ll have a senior moment at some point and go and get another artic. I can always go shopping in it and pick up the grandaughter from nursery!!
Well done, Tockwith, on sourcing such a nice truck. Pete 
Tockwith Training:
I think all the salient points have been covered very well. The picture below shows you what we have decided to offer our customers. It drives as good as it looks, is it too big?Tockwith Training, providing quality driver instruction since 1971
I must admit when I see Tockwith Training volvo on the road its looks very impressive.
However my selling point is after passsing the C licence test in this rigid truck you can take and pass your C+E in this same truck with a trailer attached to the rear. Trainees are use to the gear box, clutch, steering etc.
No I dont have a artic rig at the moment any way so can keep my prices down just running one truck. (killing 2 birds with one stone if you like!)
Us trainers dont make the rules on regarding artic or w+d for test.
So just to finalise training schools have a choice which set up to use so do the trainees.
I know whats easiest!
LGVTrainer:
porky:
Wag and drags are better for the trainer as of course its far cheaper that than the alternative. But easier and more likely to pass first time im not so sure.The only way its better for the trainer is to get his pass rate up. Cheaper…? We do 2 day upgrade courses from C to CE using the same vehicle for £514 ( not an advert but I need to make my point) the same course would cost over £1200 if we used an artic becuase of the time it would take to get somebody ready. Same licence but half the cost. Is this not better for the candidate ? So Porky your not sure its easier to pass 1st time on a W&D, well I am sure and it is.
I could copy all Peter’s comments on this thread into my post but why. I have never read rubbish written by Peter, somebody we all know to have supreme knowledge of this game. I know where I would go for training if it was my time again.
newmercman:
I could really pull your pants down and give you a public spanking on that one, so probably better for you if you didn’t go there, not a lot of point in entering a ■■■■■■■ competition if you need to sit down to peeI am not doubting you have given many a spanking to people more knowledgeable than you or even doubting you have pulled many pants down. Nor am I doubting you stand up to pee. What I would question is how many people you have ever trained to pass the test. Either C or CE or no doubt many double L’s in your day. (sorry Mr Expert, I might have to explain what they were)
newmercman:
Just a little reminder to all the newbies, those that can, DO, those that can’t, TEACHIn your own words you clearly can’t (teach) so leave it to us that DO unless you secretly want to teach. It wont take long to teach you to drive but I will have retired long before even I could get your attitude right. Even you were taught once upon a time. Do you remember how tricky that was.
Is this the old school tie gang joining forces
I would like to know on what you base your assumptions about me:?:
I’ll tell you how I came to my conclusions, firstly the (riduculous) comment about why anyone would want to take the test in a vehicle that’s more difficult to drive and then the childish reply about have done more miles skidding into laybys, in my response I just played by the rules that were set in front of me 
So perhaps you explain how having a wealth of experience skidding backwards into laybys would benefit someone in their ability to teach driving skills, because I can’t see how it can 
I also mentioned that it doesn’t matter how many miles you’ve done, although I suspect that ones driven forward or even backwards without skidding would be better, anyway I digress, experience has nothing to do with teaching really, I know lots of very good drivers that would make terrible teachers, so the fact that someone has driven all over the place means nothing in this context, hence my remark about the most important statistic for an instructor is their pass rate, not that they have driven a 141 over The Tahir or wherever, that may sound good while you’re stood at the burger van, but is of little importance to the trainee 
Also how do you know the extent of my knowledge As I said to your chum, don’t go there, I’m not silly enough to enter into battle without a substantial armoury at my disposal 
You also question my attitude, yet my point was about training people properly in the first place, what exactly is wrong with that, again I must be missing something
Just for the record, I have trained nobody to pass any test, I’m not a trainer so I leave that to the experts, but I am rather disappointed that some of the ‘experts’ have a rather strange idea about training someone to pass a test that allows them to drive an artic in a much easier to drive wagon and drag 
But the trainers dont make the MTV requirement rules the DSA do. 
Large goods lorries: category C
A category C vehicle is a rigid goods vehicle:
with a MAM of at least 12 tonnes
at least eight metres in length
at least 2.4 metres in width
The vehicle must have:
at least eight forward ratios
a closed box cargo compartment at least as wide and as high as the cab
Category C+E
Category C+E vehicles must:
have at least eight forward ratios
be at least 2.4 metres in width
There are two types of test vehicle in the C+E category:
a drawbar combination of a category C vehicle and trailer with a MAM of 20 tonnes and a length of at least 7.5 metres from coupling eye to extreme rear and a combined length of at least 14 metres
an articulated lorry with a MAM of at least 20 tonnes, a minimum length of 14 metres with a maximum length of 16.5 metres
newmercman:
Is this the old school tie gang joining forces
Who are the old school tie gang? and joining forces against what ? The OP raised a question that he thought important. The 1st reply on this entire thread was
Peter Smythe:
This subject has been discussed in great depth. It’s well documented that I support the method of getting the licence via W+D as it is, without the slightest shadow of doubt, easier. But you should then have between 2 and 4 hours on an artic as they are different animals.To learn on artic simply makes your life harder and I cant understand why anyone would want to do that.
Also bear in mind that, whilst most CE vehicles in the UK are artics, there is an increasing number of W+D out there. So doing it the way I suggest covers you no matter what you end up in.
Good luck with you training - regardless of which route you choose. Pete
Please say what was wrong with that reply.
newmercman:
You shouldn’t be allowed to teach people to push Corgi toys around their Mum’s kitchen
The reply then made about layby’s was clearly in response to your insult above
Of course you are entitled to your opinion but unneccessary insults to somebody with far greater knowledgde about the topic in question was clealy designed to provoke a response. Those that think W&D are better for learning in have great respect for those with different views on here and i’m sure vice versa.
If a newbee wanted to know what life as a professional driver up and down the road was like I have no doubt you would be one of the people to ask. However the OP was about initial licence acquisition and i’m sure the answers are better provided by (a) Someone that has recently taken the test OR (b) Someone that provides training for it.
Anyway no harm done and you have made the thread more lively.
My intention was to liven things up, as you may have guessed
I don’t doubt the integrity of any of you, my ‘victim’ included, the comment I reacted to was out of context, to a degree, but my original point still stands, if you’re going to drive artics then you should pass your test in an artic The artic should also bear some resemblance to one that you will drive on the road after passing the test. Learning in a 12tonner flatbed rigid with a short drawbar trailer may meet the requirements of the DSA, but it doesn’t really help the newbie when he turns up for his first shift and is confronted with, for example, a Renault Magnum and a 13.6m curtainsider does it
I do understand that you are training with the sole purpose of your trainee gaining a pass, the art of being a lorry driver is learned after getting the licence and it’s a perpetual learning curve
It’s obvious why a training school encourages drawbars buy truck to do C test have a trailer sitting in the corner to hook up for c+e cheaper than having an artic sitting there in the corner.
At the end of the day it is far more likely you will end up driving an artic than a drawbar so start off on the right foot.
Things seem better now vbut when I done my test you could drive a artic with a basic six speed box and a 20 foot flat trailer which you are highly unlikely to come across in the real world and I chose my driving school as they used a Volvo fl10 with a 40foot box van which was much more like the kind of truck you would come across as a new driver
Well if we want to make it like real life trucks lets all train and do test in auto’s
Good idea but only thing is you only get auto licence
I suspect it will not be too long before it becomes meaningless to have a manual transmission licence.
More to the pity 
kr79:
Good idea but only thing is you only get auto licence
But thats ok because everyone seems to want the test to simulate vehicles in real life
Well change the reverse in to a blindside in the dark off a main road between two buildings six inches wider than the lorry.
You only start learning about the job once you start it but at least if you learn in something approaching the size of a vehicle you are going to drive it gives you an idea of what it’s like.
I do agree in principle that it would be better for the candidate to have some experience of what he is likely to be driving. However this surely works both ways in that if he passes on a 40ft semi trailer artic then does get a job driving W&D he would have no experience.
To a certain extent the authorities did address this point back in July 2007 when they introduced new higher specification requirements for test vehicles.
newmercman:
Learning in a 12tonner flatbed rigid with a short drawbar trailer may meet the requirements of the DSA, but it doesn’t really help the newbie when he turns up for his first shift and is confronted with, for example, a Renault Magnum and a 13.6m curtainsider does it
You will be pleased to learn that it is no longer possible to take a test in a flatbed lorry. The fixed body must be at least as high as the cab. There must also be a mimimum of 8 forward gears (either range change or splitter)
kr79:
It’s obvious why a training school encourages drawbars buy truck to do C test have a trailer sitting in the corner to hook up for c+e cheaper than having an artic sitting there in the corner.
You have really answered yourself. What is the point of having an artic parked up in the corner doing nothing. Surely that will only increase the overall cost for students. As an estimate we could run 3 rigids all with drawbar facilities and only need 1 trailer between them. You must remember that everybody has to do the rigid. The C+E is optional afterwards.
Peter Smythe:
This subject has been discussed in great depth. It’s well documented that I support the method of getting the licence via W+D as it is, without the slightest shadow of doubt, easier. But you should then have between 2 and 4 hours on an artic as they are different animals.
The ideal solution. This way a candidate has the best of both worlds. A far cheaper training experience with a higher likelyhood of passing 1st time, then some real world practice in an artic but without the pressure of worrying about the test. This would be a good time to start practising blind side reverses up narrow alleyways etc
To be fair I was been sarcastic about the blind side reverse and I can see why you use drawbars as its a business and there’s probally a lot of people who do the c licence and leave it at that.
I think it should have been left you could do class 1 straight away as doing the rigid one week and artic the next doesn’t make you a safer driver just a way of getting two lots of test fees.
Think it got changed because people though it was not a fair representation of real life vehicles, hence ban on flatbeds, now people moan there are two tests c and c+e , you can never please everyone, thats what MTV requirements are the minimum accepted for tests
Completely agree kr79. When you could do class 1 straight away the courses used to be about 8-10 days long. The candidates had far longer to get things right, Now they get either 4 or 5 days to learn much the same as before. it would be interesting to know how the 1st time pass rate has changed since the old days.
kr79:
doing the rigid one week and artic the next doesn’t make you a safer driver just a way of getting two lots of test fees.
Again I agree. I could understand if the requirement was to get commercial experience before moving up but there is no logic at all to the current rules on this.
I have also always felt that a simple solution to learning in a realistic size vehicle would be for the licence to be restricted to the GVW of the vehicle you pass in. Pass in a 12t truck you can only drive up to 12t trucks. Us trainers would then all be clamouring for the 32t rigids and the 44t artics.
I think this subject has generated some very interesting observations, but some of them are ill-informed. 
It seems fairly obvious that there are some simple economics and market forces at work here…
Ulimately, it’s the customer who decides what kind of configuration they choose for their training.
If it was such a clear cut choice as some people seem to think, then surely all those training schools who only offer W&D for C+E training and driving tests would have gone out of business by now?
( Just a thought. )
Peter has tried the idea of having an artic ‘on standby’ for those wishing to have a run in an artic after passing their C+E test in a W&D. I can say this for a fact, because I saw it when I visited Peter’s premises.
I can also say that I saw that said artic carried a load of concrete ballast blocks for added realism.
Now in all fairness, who imagines that this could ever be an unlimited freebie??
There are a number of people who bang on that all this is the trainers’ fault cos they make the rules blah, blah.
However, this could not be further from the truth, becuase the Govt. puts rules, Euro-babble and stealth taxes upon the trainers just as much as they put rules, Euro-babble and stealth taxes upon trainees.
IIRC, there was a time (around 2005ish??) that there was a hastily brought in rule that a person who passed their Cat “C” couldn’t go for C+E for at least a year. Who remembers that one?
Some people blame the first thing they think is a target, but all they’re showing is their ignorance.
dieseldave:
…Peter has tried the idea of having an artic ‘on standby’ for those wishing to have a run in an artic after passing their C+E test in a W&D. I can say this for a fact, because I saw it when I visited Peter’s premises.
I can also say that I saw that said artic carried a load of concrete ballast blocks for added realism.Now in all fairness, who imagines that this could ever be an unlimited freebie??
…
Now that would’ve really interested me.