Adam_Mc:
Who’s the paedo then?..him for trying to get closer or you for driving the kids?
No ones the paedo - I was doing my job driving the coach to Cadbury World which work booked me to do, besides that Ive got a CRB for Hampshire County Council and West Berkshire council and Im going through the processes of getting MoD security cleared too…
Adam_Mc:
Carryfast:
Terry T:
Which would you prefer. Artic + Drawbar or A-Frame ?
The comparison is proper A Frame drawbar outfit versus mickey mouse artic with a caravan type close coupled trailer.It’s usually the ones who are too scared of the real thing who prefer the artic and trailer.Until,that is,they find out that the drawbar outfit would actually be a lot easier to use in the real world.
Would it really be easier? I’ve never driven a proper drawbar a frame doodaa so I’ve no idea what they’re like.
If you can understand the simple idea that it’s a lot easier to reverse a long trailer with relatively shorter truck,regardless of wether it’s an artic or an A Frame,and the difficulty in getting the load distribution/axle weights right on an artic trailer pulling a close coupled trailer it’s easy to see how the choice is a no brainer.
But if you’re using an A Frame it’s just a case of a bit of practice.If it’s that artic/close coupled job you’re using a tractor unit and a long trailer to reverse a short trailer instead of just using a rigid and an A Frame dolly/turntable to reverse a long trailer. 
and getting the weight distribution right would probably be just as difficult as reversing it.
But it’s surprising that some drivers are guessing that an artic with a close coupled trailer would be easier to reverse than a drawbar outfit,because they have’nt driven a drawbar,even though they have’nt driven the artic/close coupled outfit either.
Davey Driver:
Wheel Nut:
Someone may be able to point me to the study I mentioned, it was blamed for the severe damage to the sub-base of our roadsNot the study you were thinking about but it’s a study just the same
http://www.firestoneindustrial.com/pdfs/newsrelease/MI-May-07-Firestone.pdf
“Air suspensions increase pavement
life by 15-60 per cent. This corresponds
to increased static load of 4-
12 per cent. A 15 per cent increase in
vehicle mass limit can save upwards of $500 million
per annum, while increased pavement life ensures significant
reduction in road maintenance cost which forms
90 per cent of the annual road budget in OECD countries”
There is a lot of food for thought there carryfast,but we do lose bridges when we have bad weather.I blame 44 tonners.
gogzy:
merc0447:
I can see a slight change in the future maybe a few extra feet but no this. Our roads cant take the weight and our junctions cant take the length. Also think about RDCS, ok maybe one or two could have the space to expand parking bays and loading areas but most wouldn’t.But if you gave me the keys to one the morra for mulit drop id take it just for a laugh
tesco livingston you could reverse an austrailian roadtrain onto their bays
Brilliant, all companies should buy 1 just incase they ever have to deliver there.
More capacity = Less wagons = Less drivers required.
B1 GGK:
gogzy:
merc0447:
I can see a slight change in the future maybe a few extra feet but no this. Our roads cant take the weight and our junctions cant take the length. Also think about RDCS, ok maybe one or two could have the space to expand parking bays and loading areas but most wouldn’t.But if you gave me the keys to one the morra for mulit drop id take it just for a laugh
tesco livingston you could reverse an austrailian roadtrain onto their bays
Brilliant, all companies should buy 1 just incase they ever have to deliver there.
More capacity = Less wagons = Less drivers required.
If that argument was taken to it’s logical conclusion there’d be no artics or class 1 drivers and every truck would be a four wheeler rigid 
.Which would probably be economically unsustainable in the long term and would result in more jobs being lost than have been created in the class 1 sector of the industry over the years.
Larger trucks=more tonne/mile efficiency=less costs=more demand for the service=more jobs.
So strike a balance between efficiency (less trucks carrying more) and maximum employment (more trucks carrying less) and also those bridge damaging 44tonners. And lets call it 40t on 5 axles.
I can’t understand why anybody would think that 44 tonne on 6 axles would be more damaging to the roads/bridges than 40 tonne on 5 axles. Take your calculator and do the maths. Simples.
Adam_Mc:
Carryfast:
Terry T:
Which would you prefer. Artic + Drawbar or A-Frame ?
The comparison is proper A Frame drawbar outfit versus mickey mouse artic with a caravan type close coupled trailer.It’s usually the ones who are too scared of the real thing who prefer the artic and trailer.Until,that is,they find out that the drawbar outfit would actually be a lot easier to use in the real world.
Would it really be easier? I’ve never driven a proper drawbar a frame doodaa so I’ve no idea what they’re like.
I’ve driven with both of these configurations and A-Frame wins artic+drawbar hands down.
When reversing with an A-frame you see all the time where your trailer is going but you don’t see that with artic+drawbar. With artic headboard of the semi more or less blocks your mirror from the side you are reversing the drawbar to. Also it’s way easier to correct trailers direction with a relatively long overhang and short drawbar than it’s with no overhang and long drawbar (approx 11.5 metres from fifth wheel to drawbar hitch with an artic). Also for me it’s much easier to see from mirror where a-frame trailer is heading than it’s to see where drawbar in back of the artic is heading, but this might come easier with practice. With these I’m trying to say that with artic+drawbar you have to correct immediately you see trailer heading the way you want or it’s too late.
When going forward (and backwards also) you have to be mindful with artic+drawbar so that you don’t bend drawbar of the caravan by turning too sharply. With A-frame you don’t have this kind of problem and you can turn just so sharply as you need to (like this and I probably wouldn’t try this either with artic+drawbar). Even with a dolly+semi type a-frame you can turn so sharply as you need to although it’s clumsier than real a-frame trailer. A-frame also cuts less in corners than artic+drawbar. For a real comparison between these check for example this video:
Note how much further artic driver pulls before turning. You can also look the position of dolly tyres and compare it to the way how you’d drive a with a tractor unit.
Another example of a place you can get a-frame pictured into is junction like this. This summer I drove in and out to this junction with a 25.25 metres a-frame and there was about 1-1.5 metres left between trailer tyres and the tree in picture. This just to give you some picture where you can get 25 metres of drawbar outfit into.
Carryfast:
… So there’s no reason why that spec of 8 axle drawbar outfit should’nt be running at at least 65 tonne GTW not 60 t.Effectively it’s just a 25 tonner 3 axle rigid pulling a 40 tonne gross 5 axle trailer.That’s not the same thing as running a 5 or 6 axle artic at 60 t gross.
Catch with the 60 tonnes is that it’s with a seven axles, not with eight. In Finland and Sweden limit is 60 tonnes on seven axles. If this harmonizing is pushed by Finland and Sweden like original post states, it likely would be 60 tonnes on seven axles throughout the EU and not on eight. Eighth axle is used mostly to prevent trailer rear axle(s) from overloading (with 2+2 trailer) or to increase trailer stability (with 1+3 trailer). 2+3 axle trailer also isn’t so awkward than 2+2.
Kyrbo:
Adam_Mc:
Carryfast:
Terry T:
Which would you prefer. Artic + Drawbar or A-Frame ?
The comparison is proper A Frame drawbar outfit versus mickey mouse artic with a caravan type close coupled trailer.It’s usually the ones who are too scared of the real thing who prefer the artic and trailer.Until,that is,they find out that the drawbar outfit would actually be a lot easier to use in the real world.
Would it really be easier? I’ve never driven a proper drawbar a frame doodaa so I’ve no idea what they’re like.
I’ve driven with both of these configurations and A-Frame wins artic+drawbar hands down.
When reversing with an A-frame you see all the time where your trailer is going but you don’t see that with artic+drawbar. With artic headboard of the semi more or less blocks your mirror from the side you are reversing the drawbar to. Also it’s way easier to correct trailers direction with a relatively long overhang and short drawbar than it’s with no overhang and long drawbar (approx 11.5 metres from fifth wheel to drawbar hitch with an artic). Also for me it’s much easier to see from mirror where a-frame trailer is heading than it’s to see where drawbar in back of the artic is heading, but this might come easier with practice. With these I’m trying to say that with artic+drawbar you have to correct immediately you see trailer heading the way you want or it’s too late.
When going forward (and backwards also) you have to be mindful with artic+drawbar so that you don’t bend drawbar of the caravan by turning too sharply. With A-frame you don’t have this kind of problem and you can turn just so sharply as you need to (like this and I probably wouldn’t try this either with artic+drawbar). Even with a dolly+semi type a-frame you can turn so sharply as you need to although it’s clumsier than real a-frame trailer. A-frame also cuts less in corners than artic+drawbar. For a real comparison between these check for example this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4gOV5zXT3s
Note how much further artic driver pulls before turning. You can also look the position of dolly tyres and compare it to the way how you’d drive a with a tractor unit.
That video shows the advantages that the drawbar has over the artic with trailer in the amounts of cut in between the two types.They should also have repeated the same test but in reverse and that would have also shown how much easier that the drawbar outfit would be to use going backwards as well as forwards. 
We also seem to agree that an 8 axle outfit seems to have the advantage over a 7 axle outfit in terms of axle weight issues and stability on the road especially in the case of a 7 axle artic and close coupled trailer configuration.
Curryfart!!!
I’m with crazyfreak on this one, the artic towing a smaller trailer would be horrible to drive forwards, let alone in reverse and it would be a total nightmare getting even weight distribution, a 6x2 rigid with a converter dolly and a 13.6m trailer is by far the best way to go
Before you get carried away freaky boy, I said 6x2, no need for double drive…or heat on the windscreen…and it’d need a good fuel surcharge
The A-Frame looks way easier to drive. Having a turning point so near the back would make reversing rather tricky.
What about A-Frame vs B-Double. Who has driven both of those ?
newmercman:
I’m with crazyfreak on this one, the artic towing a smaller trailer would be horrible to drive forwards, let alone in reverse and it would be a total nightmare getting even weight distribution, a 6x2 rigid with a converter dolly and a 13.6m trailer is by far the best way to goBefore you get carried away freaky boy, I said 6x2, no need for double drive…or heat on the windscreen…and it’d need a good fuel surcharge
Blimey that’s good enough for now.
But I’m just off to the local ■■■■■ truck park to find a Foden 6X4 prime mover that they use to pull similar outfits then I’ll put a decent Detroit 60 series in it and an 18 speed Fuller,then I’ll look for a dolly in Gotenburg (blonde and truck versions ),and that’s all sorted.
But it’s war with the Poles so no chance of the fuel surcharge I’ll stick with the idea of send around 25 tonnes and send 15 tonnes free,and fill up the twin tanks,which the rigid’s got plenty of room for,in Luxembourg . 
The reason why a 60 tonne combo would damage the road more than one smaller lorry following a bigger one is that the force distributed to the road surface under braking would be greater with the combo as it would be applied in one go to the same bit of tarmac. The same bit of shoddy resurfacing that we see done on the cheap so much these days. In scandinavia the road surfaces are decent quality.
Unfortunately, politics and public opinion do influence decisions of voters and policy makers and we often see a good idea fail because it is not implemented and supported to succeed ( what always succeeds? a parrot with no teeth.)
If this mega-truck idea is properly planned and thought out, it may have an application in certain areas of certain businesses. Maybe operators would have to follow soecial types rules? I don’t know.
Anyway, I’ll have to find a job before any of this affects me, Knocking on doors on monday. wish me luck.
danny-jones:
The reason why a 60 tonne combo would damage the road more than one smaller lorry following a bigger one is that the force distributed to the road surface under braking would be greater with the combo as it would be applied in one go to the same bit of tarmac.
How does a 25 tonner six wheeler rigid coupled to a 40 tonner A Frame drawbar trailer fit the description of a ‘smaller lorry following a bigger one’ and how does that outfit distribute all of the braking forces ‘in one go’ ‘to the same bit of tarmac’ .
The outfit is,in fact,two totally seperate vehicles with no load transfer between the two in just the same way that a three axle rigid followed by a 5 axle artic outfit is.Except in this case the drawbar trailer actually has the advantage of transmitting the braking forces,at it’s front axles,through a two axle dolly/turntable made up of 8 wheels not the of 6 wheels of a 4x2 tractor unit’s drive axle and steer axle.
Seems like someone else who can’t understand the difference between Gross Train Weight and Gross Combination Weight.
gogzy:
merc0447:
I can see a slight change in the future maybe a few extra feet but no this. Our roads cant take the weight and our junctions cant take the length. Also think about RDCS, ok maybe one or two could have the space to expand parking bays and loading areas but most wouldn’t.But if you gave me the keys to one the morra for mulit drop id take it just for a laugh
tesco livingston you could reverse an austrailian roadtrain onto their bays
No good, it would require too much pink chalk.
Coffeeholic:
gogzy:
merc0447:
I can see a slight change in the future maybe a few extra feet but no this. Our roads cant take the weight and our junctions cant take the length. Also think about RDCS, ok maybe one or two could have the space to expand parking bays and loading areas but most wouldn’t.But if you gave me the keys to one the morra for mulit drop id take it just for a laugh
tesco livingston you could reverse an austrailian roadtrain onto their bays
No good, it would require too much pink chalk.
at least somebody saw the funny side to it
newmercman:
I’m with crazyfreak on this one, the artic towing a smaller trailer would be horrible to drive forwards, let alone in reverse and it would be a total nightmare getting even weight distribution, a 6x2 rigid with a converter dolly and a 13.6m trailer is by far the best way to goBefore you get carried away freaky boy, I said 6x2, no need for double drive…or heat on the windscreen…and it’d need a good fuel surcharge
Would that be diesel or gas? … and how many spark plugs??
