True if the company is so up its own arse with procedures then there is a flaw if its own training procedures are insufficient. Although 3 months experience after training no matter how crap could negate blame somewhat.
Im guessing its one of those trailers with the rear axle seperate from the tandem two which is rear steer also, never driven one myself but looks like fun.
I’ve pulled a few of these and never had any additional training. You just take it carefully until you are used to the set up. That being said, big companies like DHL do tend to adopt a policy of saying you cant take a dump before you have been risk assessed for using the flush so if they cant prove training on the equipment they shouldn’t have been asking you to pull it under their own rules.
Additionally, it is up to the planners to ensure the equipment used is the most suitable to the job. Given the size of DHL’s trailer fleet and the relatively low number of LSTs on their fleet, you may have a case for arguing that the wrong equipment was used for the job, as evidenced by the fact the trailer was damaged while on that run. Its a long shot and will get you a name as rule book ■■■■ but it may save you a tongue lashing.
I would suggest the compromise between DHL and yourself is that you accept remedial training but not any form of warning, verbal or written. Both parties made mistakes here.
Company unable to provide a mobile phone but require you to ring in within one hour. Does not seem a reasonable stipulation these days. Gone is the ability to park in a layby with a phone box alongside. If company require contact with driver then they should provide the means of so doing.
Company require driver to indicate on insurance claim form that event was his own fault. This is for the insurance company to decide.
3)Company insist on management scrutinising any issue before driver is allowed to defect vehicle . Traffic Commissioner and Health and Safety Executive will take a dim view of this. This is putting the cart before the horse. Unless TM has some form of engineering background he is not qualified to assess defective equipment. A defective guard rail on a double deck tail lift endangers more than just the driver.
4)Company would be expected to have a pre-planned induction and test route/procedure for operating equipment, with an assessor’s check sheet and a signature from the pupil acknowledging understanding of the training given. A quick wizz round the block because the load is late hardly qualifies…especially when it appears that the OP later became a full time employee (with no further proper training■■?)
This all sounds like a very slap-dash hurry up operation only interested in safety concerns in so far as covering their own arses.
Actually quite typical of many companies.
kev909_2000:
If it is DHL just get another job, I personally cant stand them. Nisa at Scunthorpe pain in the ■■■, The Range at Doncaster complete morons . Simples…
I no Nisa is bad but what’s up with the Range?
Rentadent:
I’ve done LST training and it consisted of me and the driver trainer driving around the estate where we are based doing laps between two roundabouts getting a feel for vehicle placement and for how the back reacts to steering, then back to the yard to reverse inside a bay, he was happy with me and I was happy with pulling the trailers, any bumps after that are down to driver error.
How does going around a roundabout have any connection whatsoever to the situation in which serious cut in or tail sweep become an issue in the case of a tighter turn.The design goes against the idea of an artic in taking too much proportionately from where you want it on the cut in and putting it on the sweep.
The result being a far more complicated approach to turning than just the ‘right’ line on a roundabout.To the point where the ideal artic situation of just go in as wide as possible to just account for the cut in.Turns into a balancing act where tail sweep becomes effectively as much of an issue as cut in.With the difference that any potential contact in the case of the former is far more difficult to avoid and account for or see or notice than in the case of the latter.The fact is it is a dodgy design based on the erroneous exaggeration of the downsides of cut in and avoidance of same at the expense of the far worse situation of excessive sweep.
cav551:
3)Company insist on management scrutinising any issue before driver is allowed to defect vehicle . Traffic Commissioner and Health and Safety Executive will take a dim view of this. This is putting the cart before the horse. Unless TM has some form of engineering background he is not qualified to assess defective equipment. A defective guard rail on a double deck tail lift endangers more than just the driver.
The answer to this lies with the driver. If the driver isn’t happy the driver doesn’t take it.
I had this argument over a bolt in a tyre, the boss said it was ok to drive, I disagreed. They couldn’t make me take the load and when it came to the disciplinary meeting, I told the group TM what happened and he sided with me.
nsmith1180:
Additionally, it is up to the planners to ensure the equipment used is the most suitable to the job.
It is ( should be ) more an issue of the engineering argument against the government’s,amongst others,idea that any extra length needs to be at the expense of more sweep not more cut in.With,at present,unfortunate drivers caught in the middle 
Carryfast:
Rentadent:
I’ve done LST training and it consisted of me and the driver trainer driving around the estate where we are based doing laps between two roundabouts getting a feel for vehicle placement and for how the back reacts to steering, then back to the yard to reverse inside a bay, he was happy with me and I was happy with pulling the trailers, any bumps after that are down to driver error.How does going around a roundabout have any connection whatsoever to the situation in which serious cut in or tail sweep become an issue in the case of a tighter turn.The design goes against the idea of an artic in taking too much proportionately from where you want it on the cut in and putting it on the sweep.
The result being a far more complicated approach to turning than just the ‘right’ line on a roundabout.To the point where the ideal artic situation of just go in as wide as possible to just account for the cut in.Turns into a balancing act where tail sweep becomes effectively as much of an issue as cut in.With the difference that any potential contact in the case of the former is far more difficult to avoid and account for or see or notice than in the case of the latter.The fact is it is a dodgy design based on the erroneous exaggeration of the downsides of cut in and avoidance of same at the expense of the far worse situation of excessive sweep.
You’re using lots of words to say something quite simple!
You drive according to the trailer, extra rear swing, extra cut in, whatever, it doesn’t take many minutes to get a feel for how a trailer handles and any corners thereafter are handled accordingly.
To get in and out of the road where our yard is requires a tight turn at some traffic lights on the estate, doing this with an LST is no different to doing it with a normal 45ft trailer, you just position it where you need it to be taking into account the rear swing.
They aren’t a dodgy design at all, they are a perfectly adequate design to compensate for the extra length, the only thing that makes them ‘dodgy’ are the drivers that are unable, or don’t compensate for them when pulling one, or those who are scared of anything thats different to the norm.
Rentadent:
To get in and out of the road where our yard is requires a tight turn at some traffic lights on the estate, doing this with an LST is no different to doing it with a normal 45ft trailer, you just position it where you need it to be taking into account the rear swing.They aren’t a dodgy design at all, they are a perfectly adequate design to compensate for the extra length, the only thing that makes them ‘dodgy’ are the drivers that are unable, or don’t compensate for them when pulling one, or those who are scared of anything thats different to the norm.
As I said in the real world that means approaching a tight turn on the basis of a balancing act between almost just as much sweep as cut in.Which isn’t the way an artic was ever designed to be used.The ideal being go in as wide as possible to just take account of cut in with negligable if any sweep.Also bearing in mind that cut in is more visible for more of the time while sweep isn’t visible at all.
Those who are ‘scared’ in this case being those who either won’t allow,or who can’t or who are afraid to handle the,if not most of the,extra length being put on the cut in.
Rentadent:
Carryfast:
Rentadent:
I’ve done LST training and it consisted of me and the driver trainer driving around the estate where we are based doing laps between two roundabouts getting a feel for vehicle placement and for how the back reacts to steering, then back to the yard to reverse inside a bay, he was happy with me and I was happy with pulling the trailers, any bumps after that are down to driver error.How does going around a roundabout have any connection whatsoever to the situation in which serious cut in or tail sweep become an issue in the case of a tighter turn.The design goes against the idea of an artic in taking too much proportionately from where you want it on the cut in and putting it on the sweep.
The result being a far more complicated approach to turning than just the ‘right’ line on a roundabout.To the point where the ideal artic situation of just go in as wide as possible to just account for the cut in.Turns into a balancing act where tail sweep becomes effectively as much of an issue as cut in.With the difference that any potential contact in the case of the former is far more difficult to avoid and account for or see or notice than in the case of the latter.The fact is it is a dodgy design based on the erroneous exaggeration of the downsides of cut in and avoidance of same at the expense of the far worse situation of excessive sweep.
You’re using lots of words to say something quite simple!
You drive according to the trailer, extra rear swing, extra cut in, whatever, it doesn’t take many minutes to get a feel for how a trailer handles and any corners thereafter are handled accordingly.To get in and out of the road where our yard is requires a tight turn at some traffic lights on the estate, doing this with an LST is no different to doing it with a normal 45ft trailer, you just position it where you need it to be taking into account the rear swing.
They aren’t a dodgy design at all, they are a perfectly adequate design to compensate for the extra length, the only thing that makes them ‘dodgy’ are the drivers that are unable, or don’t compensate for them when pulling one, or those who are scared of anything thats different to the norm.
Would it be rude to ask, Mr Dent, whether there are any other corners on your regular drive. It’s just that this sounds like the voice of there and back, straight line motorway trunk experience talking.
Personally I found Carryfast’s synopsis of the situation both erudite and concise.
Malcolms have a few and only drivers who have had the training are allowed near them. I think it is a day training videos, lecture and a few hours driving examination then there is a certificate t say you are competent for VOSA. These trailers are on a two year trial for this country. They are 15 feet longer and rear steer. The consensus is that as soon as a cyclist is hit by ne they will be banned form this country as cyclists rule OK
Thanks for all the replies, some very helpful information there.
fwiw I said I am ultimately responsible and I meant it, however; there are circumstances that have to be taken into consideration and that’s why I highlighted them.
So I was very happy to get back to the depot and put my hands up but then the beaurocrats decided to swing into action and that’s what I’m trying to defend against. in what I consider to be a hypocritical move considering what they get away with
To clarify: At the time of training (as an agency driver then) had I refused, the agency would have binned me for several weeks, so I was under pressure to accept at a time of year when regular work dries up.
Once again thanks for your input 
alder:
They are 15 feet longer and rear steer
You mean 5ft longer with a positive rear steer which actually makes them nicer to pull than a standard 45ft
chaversdad:
alder:
They are 15 feet longer and rear steerYou mean 5ft longer with a positive rear steer which actually makes them nicer to pull than a standard 45ft
A rear steer axle put behind the fixed trailer axle/s makes no difference whatsoever to the fact that anything past the centre line of those fixed axles is overhang and that it takes the same amount of room overall,measured corner to corner and front to back to turn a 50 foot artic trailer regardless of axle position.
In this case the engineers and legislators have gone for the simplistic counterproductive idea that it’s all about minimising more manageable cut in at the expense of less manageable sweep.Probably based on the erroneous idea that Italian design methods,which are all about it doesn’t matter about the overall dimensions,the priority is to keep ( most of ) the wheels on the road on tight mountain bends,translates to navigating a 50 foot artic trailer between the obstructions found in the average uk environment.
Makes no odds to me anyhow as i only ever pull an extandable trailer which is usually opened up to 60ft ,tbh i cant see what all the drama is about over an extra 5ft
chaversdad:
Makes no odds to me anyhow as i only ever pull an extandable trailer which is usually opened up to 60ft ,tbh i cant see what all the drama is about over an extra 5ft
You would if they said that the extra length can only go on the overhang behind the axles not between the pin and axles.
Carryfast:
chaversdad:
Makes no odds to me anyhow as i only ever pull an extandable trailer which is usually opened up to 60ft ,tbh i cant see what all the drama is about over an extra 5ftYou would if they said that the extra length can only go on the overhang behind the axles not between the pin and axles.
No not really, if i load my trailer myself i usually opt to only open it to 55ft and leave 5ft of steel hanging over the back, its never caused me a problem and i deliver to small engineering places in city centres or remote farms with single track access, its called just getting on with the job and not making a ■■■■■■■ drama out of something so trivial
The results:
Apparently I will not be receiving a warning (verbal or written) but my line manager will now speak to me and have a counselling session!!
Have tried to raise the fact that employees handbook say’s; “For clarity” if business communications are required then a mobile phone “must be” supplied and the company “shouldn’t rely” on or expense personal or private mobile phones. So I asked for a mobile phone.
Line manager say’s no phones supplied its a local agreement as drivers weren’t using company mobiles they agreed to have them taken away??
So my point now is: they later bring in a new rule (golden hour) where you must communicate any damage to a lorry within 1hr yet go against the company’s handbook rule of providing a means to do so.
So then later when a private mobile lets you down (as in my case) or if a driver forgets it or refuses to use his, they still want too (I assume this is what the counselling will be about) discipline a driver for not being able to phone in. Ie:22 total reliance on a private phone.
Think I’m going to have fun playing with this one and wondering if I should contact head office HR or compliance to see what they think?
regards
Jim