I have one quite a few occassions taken a single trailer well in excess of 100 foot long from a collection point to delivery point, and managed it without scaring the general unwashed to the point of hysteria. and those trailers dont meet the C&U regulations on turning circle, where the Denby Roadtrain and Stan Robinson concept trucks do
Trunk motors running two trailers only running between certain times , between depots that have easy access for such vehicles from the motorway network make simple economic and enviromental sense
No-one is talking about these delivering to your local Tesco express… this is trunking between depots, each route would be assesed like an abnormal load route is, and if it is passable a permit issued.
If your caught off route. then you , your company and their O licence … well just wave goodbye
STGO operators have managed to move far longer/wider and heavier than the proposed LHV’s fo many years on the current road network, with a little thought as to placement of depots to the road network , and thought as to when in the day they can be used I cant see any issue with the LHV concept
bobthedog:
Not really the truck design issues, rather the road designers and planners. If they were less concerned about putting silly restrictions in place then it would make little difference. I am sat here trying to imagine what that kind of overhang would be like. I imagine lots of traffic lights and lamp posts being the first casualties…
At the end of the day, if other motorists were to actually have an idea, it really would not matter what truck configurations were running because people would give them a wide berth. Because the police are more interested in nicking people for speeding rather than for patently, though less provable, bad and dangerous driving, the motorists learn nothing, not even from their own mistakes.
I am not able to see how these trailers will be safe. When the 26 pallet trailers were introduced, there was no end of trouble with sites not being big enough. This will just make the situation more dangerous.
The practicalities of using a longer type tractor/semi outfit here versus the practicalities and extra benefits which an LHV drawbar outfit could provide are all about truck design issues.It’s a lot better to drive a truck with relatively less tail sweep in all conditions even at night when there’s not many cars on the road anyway.The fact is it’s almost impossible to actually see what a large rear overhang is actually doing in most types of sharp turns on an artic or any type of truck unless it’s a rigid without a trailer.In this case it’s a simplistic design mindset in which they’ve just taken the easy option of trading distance between the unit and trailer axles for large overhangs which just makes the thing far more lethal in real world conditions than either a typical yank type outfit would be driven here or even better that Euro type LHV drawbar outfit.In addition to the driving issues there’s the axle weight balance ones in which too much on the overhang will overload the rear axle on the trailer and lift the drive axle on the unit.In the real world in Europe the efficiency and practicality of a six wheeler rigid coupled up to a 45 foot drawbar trailer is the way to go.
I have one quite a few occassions taken a single trailer well in excess of 100 foot long from a collection point to delivery point, and managed it without scaring the general unwashed to the point of hysteria. and those trailers dont meet the C&U regulations on turning circle, where the Denby Roadtrain and Stan Robinson concept trucks do
Trunk motors running two trailers only running between certain times , between depots that have easy access for such vehicles from the motorway network make simple economic and enviromental sense
No-one is talking about these delivering to your local Tesco express… this is trunking between depots, each route would be assesed like an abnormal load route is, and if it is passable a permit issued.
If your caught off route. then you , your company and their O licence … well just wave goodbye
STGO operators have managed to move far longer/wider and heavier than the proposed LHV’s fo many years on the current road network, with a little thought as to placement of depots to the road network , and thought as to when in the day they can be used I cant see any issue with the LHV concept
Everyone knows that already but it’s the rail lot who keep throwing a spanner in the works.But I’m surprised that the Stan Robinson outfit (unit and two 45 foot semis coupled with a dolly can meet the ridiculous turning requirements but if it’s that or the Denby bog roll b train I’ve got my name down to do the first international run with the Stan Robinson outfit. But having said that I would’nt want to drive even one trailer with the type of overhang in the context of the one in this case.
Agreed, Rikki, but if you recall, 44 tonnes was only supposed to be hub to hub as well. It would only be a short while before these horrendous things were on general haulage duties and things would get out of hand. The thing about STGO and oversized trailers is moot though. With STGO, you would need to be escorted if the load is outlandish, and I think that, if the overhang were 16 feet, you would need beacons, boards and escorts.
I would never advocate the size of vehicles we have here for use in the UK. It would be totally unfeasible even on a hub to hub basis. In fact, I agree about the drawbar argument. On Croomes we had 2 boxes at 26 feet so 52 linear feet of load space. Plenty, in other words, and with it being a drawbar you always had to drive it properly. You also never really lost sight of the trailer, so you could be aware wherever you were. I imagine, if the overhang is going to be 16 feet, that the damage done, even on certain jobs where they would be specially permitted, would be extreme.
I have one quite a few occassions taken a single trailer well in excess of 100 foot long from a collection point to delivery point, and managed it without scaring the general unwashed to the point of hysteria. and those trailers dont meet the C&U regulations on turning circle, where the Denby Roadtrain and Stan Robinson concept trucks do
Trunk motors running two trailers only running between certain times , between depots that have easy access for such vehicles from the motorway network make simple economic and enviromental sense
No-one is talking about these delivering to your local Tesco express… this is trunking between depots, each route would be assesed like an abnormal load route is, and if it is passable a permit issued.
If your caught off route. then you , your company and their O licence … well just wave goodbye
STGO operators have managed to move far longer/wider and heavier than the proposed LHV’s fo many years on the current road network, with a little thought as to placement of depots to the road network , and thought as to when in the day they can be used I cant see any issue with the LHV concept
Aye but those have got the axles basically as far back on the trailer as is possible, so the overhang is not a problem. I reckon it’s easier to manoeuvre a low-loader or something with a similar axle positioning (eg. skelly) than it would be with the thing being discussed here. Even if you kept them to trunk routes I reckon there’d be carnage before too long; all you need to do is look at how narrow and curved the lanes are on approach to some major roundabouts on motorway junctions and you can already visualise the rear corners of the trailer gouging chunks out of cars as you turn. With that sort of overhang you’d need an ■■■■■■ just to keep the cars from getting down your sides.
If they want to increase length then the Denby set-up would be best, or if they want to keep it as one trailer then use a low-loader style axle layout with self-steer.
bobthedog:
Agreed, Rikki, but if you recall, 44 tonnes was only supposed to be hub to hub as well. It would only be a short while before these horrendous things were on general haulage duties and things would get out of hand. The thing about STGO and oversized trailers is moot though. With STGO, you would need to be escorted if the load is outlandish, and I think that, if the overhang were 16 feet, you would need beacons, boards and escorts.
I would never advocate the size of vehicles we have here for use in the UK. It would be totally unfeasible even on a hub to hub basis. In fact, I agree about the drawbar argument. On Croomes we had 2 boxes at 26 feet so 52 linear feet of load space. Plenty, in other words, and with it being a drawbar you always had to drive it properly. You also never really lost sight of the trailer, so you could be aware wherever you were. I imagine, if the overhang is going to be 16 feet, that the damage done, even on certain jobs where they would be specially permitted, would be extreme.
But there’s a big difference between a badly designed semi trailer and a well thought out LHV outfit.The 44 tonner argument is a red herring because the small extra weight capacity was achieved by just using a 3 + 3 axle configuration not by also increasing load deck space.It’s also a generalisation to suggest that a yank type outfit would’nt work here and vice versa.That yank drawbar outfit which I posted is’nt much,if at all, different to what could be used here and it would’nt have made much,if any, difference to it’s driving characteristics if that was coupled up to a decent semi type length 5 axled trailer both on this side of the Atlantic or over there.But the efficiency level,in relation to fuel efficiency and payload capacity,would be far better than both the average yank or european artic outfit and contrary to the special types comparison for use that type of truck’s road manners would be good enough for it to be used on general haulage or trunk runs in just the same way as current artic designs are used on either side of the atlantic.
If anything was going to work there then a Super B would be closest. They run at 62.5 tonnes on 9 axles, but they are unpredictable on hills, especially in slippery conditions. Just imagine a turnpiker there… Not good.
Not really a generalisation, just an observation. The streets would need serious work to take a high number of long long long vehicles. That trailer in the pics would be awful, say, coming out onto the A4 from Earls Court, or going around Hyde Park, and imagine it in Milton Keynes…
Same could be said of anything that is considered normal here. It’s one thing to have the odd long trailer like Rikki described, but if there were hundreds…
The 44 tonne thing was an additional 3 tonnes of patload compared to the 41 tonnes actually allowed at the time. Nothing modest there, it was way over 10% increase.
bobthedog:
If anything was going to work there then a Super B would be closest. They run at 62.5 tonnes on 9 axles, but they are unpredictable on hills, especially in slippery conditions. Just imagine a turnpiker there… Not good.
Not really a generalisation, just an observation. The streets would need serious work to take a high number of long long long vehicles. That trailer in the pics would be awful, say, coming out onto the A4 from Earls Court, or going around Hyde Park, and imagine it in Milton Keynes…
Same could be said of anything that is considered normal here. It’s one thing to have the odd long trailer like Rikki described, but if there were hundreds…
The 44 tonne thing was an additional 3 tonnes of patload compared to the 41 tonnes actually allowed at the time. Nothing modest there, it was way over 10% increase.
9 axles needed to take 62.5 tonnes says everything about the inefficiencies of b trains.Unlike drawbar and roadtrain outfits they impose axle loads on whatever they’re coupled to just like a semi on a tractor unit does.But anything bigger than an eight wheeler rigid can be a pain in central London anyway and I’d still say that a six wheeler rigid/45 foot drawbar trailer outfit could go anywhere that the current sized artics could go without a problem.In that case the trailer is’nt longer at all the extra length is all on the prime mover and a bit extra on the drawbar A frame.But unlike a tractor unit the prime mover is actually a productive entity in it’s own right because it’s able to carry a load.The B train idea would probably involve a longer overall length and more axles required to carry the same,if not less, payload than a drawbar outfit would.
Sorry, 8 axles on a Super B. 1 steer, 2 drive, triaxle lead and tandem pup…
What you say about the 6 wheel rigid and 45’ drawbar has more merit than the monstrosity in the OP, but it would be too long for safety. No, not because the driver isn’t good enough, but because it would be 80’ long and there are too many idiots who would try to squeeze past.
Those Super Bs follow really well. You would be surprised. And if they were purpose built so you had 2x30’ trailers, or 35’ even, then they would be a safer option I reckon. Too many kamikaze people in the UK to make any sort of extra long drawbars safe.
bobthedog:
Sorry, 8 axles on a Super B. 1 steer, 2 drive, triaxle lead and tandem pup…
What you say about the 6 wheel rigid and 45’ drawbar has more merit than the monstrosity in the OP, but it would be too long for safety. No, not because the driver isn’t good enough, but because it would be 80’ long and there are too many idiots who would try to squeeze past.
Those Super Bs follow really well. You would be surprised. And if they were purpose built so you had 2x30’ trailers, or 35’ even, then they would be a safer option I reckon. Too many kamikaze people in the UK to make any sort of extra long drawbars safe.
Think you’d find that using a three axled tractor unit would’nt work for anyone doing euro work whereas a three axled rigid would to start with.Using two 30 or 35 foot semi trailers would then make it difficult to provide enough room for the other 5 axles.However even if you could use a relatively short tri axle on the first trailer that still only gives you at best 44 tonnes gross between the unit and the first trailer and less load space that you had with the original 45 footer but you’ve got the weight of the tractor unit to subtract from your payload as well just like the single trailer artic outfit.However like I said the axles of the first trailer would then also have to take the additional weight imposed on them by the second two axled semi trailer so you’ve got an axle weight problem if you want to run a b train at significantly higher weights than our current five or six axle artics or drawbars provide.Which is why a Turnpike Doubles,Stan Robinson Road Train outfit,or a six wheeler rigid coupled up to a five axled 45 footer drawbar beats those b trains anytime.That’s before we’ve even got round to the aggro of reversing two relatively short semi trailers or even worse a tri axle 40 footer (which is probably the only way you’ll get room for those three axles) coupled to a shorter pub semi on the back.So you’ve designed an outfit with less load space and which can’t handle the weight that mine could and which would probably be less practical to use and probably not much,if at all,shorter overall length than my 80 footer.A bit like the Denby idea in that case
bobthedog:
Sorry, 8 axles on a Super B. 1 steer, 2 drive, triaxle lead and tandem pup…
What you say about the 6 wheel rigid and 45’ drawbar has more merit than the monstrosity in the OP, but it would be too long for safety. No, not because the driver isn’t good enough, but because it would be 80’ long and there are too many idiots who would try to squeeze past.
Those Super Bs follow really well. You would be surprised. And if they were purpose built so you had 2x30’ trailers, or 35’ even, then they would be a safer option I reckon. Too many kamikaze people in the UK to make any sort of extra long drawbars safe.
Think you’d find that using a three axled tractor unit would’nt work for anyone doing euro work whereas a three axled rigid would to start with.Using two 30 or 35 foot semi trailers would then make it difficult to provide enough room for the other 5 axles.However even if you could use a relatively short tri axle on the first trailer that still only gives you at best 44 tonnes gross between the unit and the first trailer and less load space that you had with the original 45 footer but you’ve got the weight of the tractor unit to subtract from your payload as well just like the single trailer artic outfit.However like I said the axles of the first trailer would then also have to take the additional weight imposed on them by the second two axled semi trailer so you’ve got an axle weight problem if you want to run a b train at significantly higher weights than our current five or six axle artics or drawbars provide.Which is why a Turnpike Doubles,Stan Robinson Road Train outfit,or a six wheeler rigid coupled up to a five axled 45 footer drawbar beats those b trains anytime.That’s before we’ve even got round to the aggro of reversing two relatively short semi trailers or even worse a tri axle 40 footer (which is probably the only way you’ll get room for those three axles) coupled to a shorter pub semi on the back.So you’ve designed an outfit with less load space and which can’t handle the weight that mine could and which would probably be less practical to use and probably not much,if at all,shorter overall length than my 80 footer.A bit like the Denby idea in that case
■■■■ me, you must have a big kitchen to push that around in Carryfast
I have no idea what you mean about fitting the axles in the space available. The Super Bs here are about that length. I think the standard is 30’, but I am not sure. They are largely designed for weight here, but still have more loadspace than standard trailers.
But the premise of this new length trailer is load space, not weight. I was just saying what they use here. You could easily have a 4 wheeled unit pulling a tandem lead and tandem pup giving you 44 tonnes and totally evened out weight dispersal without any tailswing at all, and without any lead swing, either. In fact, an 18 tonne tractor and 2x 18 tonne trailers is 54 tonnes, although I accept that would never really work out. It would with a triaxle lead though.
You would also have maybe 55 feet of usable loadspace with a second articulation and without any noticeable cut in. Using a 6 wheeled rigid with a 45’ trailer behind would take an enormous amount of roadspace to turn a junction, would give a double articulation ahead of the centre of the vehicle and would leave the trailer completely out of sight for any manoevre. A super B on 6 axles would give you another advantage over these horrendous trailers… If you get into a place which is tight, you can drop the pup and go in with one short trailer at a time. With a 6x2, a tandem and a tandem, you could conceivably go to 58 tonnes using the 9 tonne axles on tandems.
Can you just imagine trying to reverse what you are suggesting at any of the older RDCs? It simply wouldn’t work. And trying to reverse those monstrosities being tested in somewhere like Sainsburys, Charlton or Basingstoke would be a challenge and a half.
Carryfast:
…
I’d still say that a six wheeler rigid/45 foot drawbar trailer outfit could go anywhere that the current sized artics could go without a problem.
…
I’d have to say I think you’re right. I was a bit sceptical at first, but now I’d agree completely (I’ve been driving them for three years). They do need a bit more room when reversing though, but on the road there shouldn’t be a problem at all.
Also, despite being over 82’ long there are no trailer tailswing or shoulder swing problems. A bit of care is needed with the tail of the rigid maneuvering in tight spaces if you are empty and the bogie is raised, but it’s a minor detail, just being aware of the issue is enough to stop it being a problem.
The artic + auxiliary combination needs a bit more room on corners, the second trailer cuts in noticeably and some left turns at traffic lights type situations might pose a problem in some tighter town centres. Also reversing can need a lot of room, you need to swing the front of the artic trailer around quite a lot to push the second trailer where you want it to go. The trick is to try to organise things so you are as near as possible only reversing straight backwards.
B-trains I can’t comment about as I’ve never driven them, but my old company had one and from what the driver said I’d say it was comparible to the artic + auxiliary. That particular one needed a castering bogie on the link to meet the turning circle requirements.
bobthedog:
I have no idea what you mean about fitting the axles in the space available. The Super Bs here are about that length. I think the standard is 30’, but I am not sure. They are largely designed for weight here, but still have more loadspace than standard trailers.
Can you just imagine trying to reverse what you are suggesting at any of the older RDCs? It simply wouldn’t work.
I’ve already reversed the existing length artics and six wheeler rigid/drawbar outfits in a lot less room than the average RDC.Yes I could imagine coupling the 45 foot trailer to the six wheeler rigid with an A frame drawbar or dolly and it would’nt have been a problem.In most respects the two points of articulation of drawbar outfits are an advantage not a disadvantage once you’ve got used to reversing with them but longer trailers are actually easier to reverse than short ones.Therefore I’d prefer to reverse a six wheeler rigid/45 foot drawbar outfit than the existing length type and I’d also prefer the Stan Robinson road train outfit/turnpike doubles outfit than a b train with a long and short pup set up.But I think that the longer lead trailer on a long/short pup b train outfit over there would be longer than 30 foot and a 30 foot tri axle would be an ‘unusual’ design even if they did go to all the trouble of fitting three axles into the space available.But the only way to make a b train designed for weight is to give it more axles than a drawbar or road train outfit would need and in this case the comparison over there would’nt be with standard single trailers but the difference between a turnpike doubles outfit (A train) and a B train.
I’d say that the b train has less load space and less weight capacity because the first trailer is’nt anything like existing conventional trailer design for load space or axle placing as it’s actually a relatively long trailer made up of a relatively short load deck with a fifth wheel coupling and why if the guvnor’s got any sense he’d go for the A Train if possible which provides two full length trailers and more weight capacity just like the Stan Robinson outfit.But I’d also guess that the payload weight capacity of that b train is probably less than that which the six wheeler rigid and 45 foot drawbar trailer can provide on 8 axles.I’d say that you’ve forgotten that a tandem axle semi trailer is actually a lot more than an 18 tonner because that’s just the weight on it’s rear axles the second semi trailer then has to be coupled up to the lead trailer where it imposes the same weight,on the already loaded first trailer’s axles,as the second tractor unit would have taken taken .
Without actually measuring it, I can’t be sure. But suppose that you were to take a triaxle 45’ trailer, remove the body and put a 5th wheel over the top of axle 3, then put a body on ahead of that. It wouldn’t take that much to make a rear door tip possible for a start, and you would still have 30’ of loadspace. Agreed that you would have more on the combination you mention, or on a standard A Train with 2x40’ trailers, but the whole thing is ■■■■■■■■■■■ A Trains are pretty unpopular here except for grain haulers who mostly drive through elevators and the such. B Trains don’t seem quite as common as they were, either, come to that. I would think, with a 4.2 metre tractor unit, that a B Train would be more manoevreable and versatile than any drawbar setup simply by virtue of 2 trailers. Having seen some of the places they take them, I know that you always have options with something like that, options you would lack with a rigid/semi trailer drawbar outfit.
In the weights thoughts, I never suggested anything in particular. I was saying that a tandem is 18 tonnes on a trailer, a triaxle is 24 tonnes and a 4 wheeled unit is 18 tonnes, while a 6x2 unit is only about 22.5 tonnes. With a 6x2 tractor and a triaxle lead you have 44 tonnes gross, then another 18 tonnes on the tandem at the rear gives 62 tonnes of tolerance. Then you have the actual tare weights to think of, and the weight transfers when pulling a drawbar, same as you would with a B Train.
You may well have reversed one of your wagon and drawbars outfits in a tight space. I can’t see them ever being a good idea on UK roads. I can foresee there would be endless capers with them, same as there would with any longer, heavier vehicles. As things stand, 44 tonnes has destroyed the roads over there. The tramlines were getting worse all the time when I was there and I don’t see that will have improved now.
In honesty, the thread was about that monstrous trailer they are actually testing. If it was done as a stunt to try and persuade people to consider better options then it has already worked to some extent because most of us here consider it to be simply awful, and have come up with what we consider to be smarter options… The UK cannot handle 100’ combinations. I think we all know that. I don’t mean the truck drivers, I mean the motorists and the road system.
bobthedog:
Without actually measuring it, I can’t be sure. But suppose that you were to take a triaxle 45’ trailer, remove the body and put a 5th wheel over the top of axle 3, then put a body on ahead of that. It wouldn’t take that much to make a rear door tip possible for a start, and you would still have 30’ of loadspace. Agreed that you would have more on the combination you mention, or on a standard A Train with 2x40’ trailers, but the whole thing is ■■■■■■■■■■■ A Trains are pretty unpopular here except for grain haulers who mostly drive through elevators and the such. B Trains don’t seem quite as common as they were, either, come to that. I would think, with a 4.2 metre tractor unit, that a B Train would be more manoevreable and versatile than any drawbar setup simply by virtue of 2 trailers. Having seen some of the places they take them, I know that you always have options with something like that, options you would lack with a rigid/semi trailer drawbar outfit.
In the weights thoughts, I never suggested anything in particular. I was saying that a tandem is 18 tonnes on a trailer, a triaxle is 24 tonnes and a 4 wheeled unit is 18 tonnes, while a 6x2 unit is only about 22.5 tonnes. With a 6x2 tractor and a triaxle lead you have 44 tonnes gross, then another 18 tonnes on the tandem at the rear gives 62 tonnes of tolerance. Then you have the actual tare weights to think of, and the weight transfers when pulling a drawbar, same as you would with a B Train.
You may well have reversed one of your wagon and drawbars outfits in a tight space. I can’t see them ever being a good idea on UK roads. I can foresee there would be endless capers with them, same as there would with any longer, heavier vehicles. As things stand, 44 tonnes has destroyed the roads over there. The tramlines were getting worse all the time when I was there and I don’t see that will have improved now.
In honesty, the thread was about that monstrous trailer they are actually testing. If it was done as a stunt to try and persuade people to consider better options then it has already worked to some extent because most of us here consider it to be simply awful, and have come up with what we consider to be smarter options… The UK cannot handle 100’ combinations. I think we all know that. I don’t mean the truck drivers, I mean the motorists and the road system.
I’d say that most of that seems to be based on some unfounded prejudice against A frame drawbar or dolly connected road train outfits.The fact is that configuration actually is anything but ■■■■■■■■■■ and unlike the b train set up there are no axle weight transfer issues either.The gross weight of a tandem semi trailer is’nt 18 tonnes and the gross weight of a tri axle semi is’nt 24 tonnes and there’s no way that you could connect a tandem or tri axle semi trailer directly onto the back of a tri axle semi using a fifth wheel instead of a drawbar dolly without (1) putting the lead trailer over the axle weights if both are loaded to capacity and (2) having to trade load deck space on the lead trailer for space to put the fifth wheel.But if you still think that an A train is ■■■■■■■■■■ check out the first minute of this video and see how well a triple dolly connected roadtrain follows in real world urban situations.But as for road damage that’s an axle weight issue not a gross weight one and a 65 tonne 8 axle six wheeler rigid/5 axle trailer drawbar outfit would be better in that regard than the 32 tonnner four axle artic outfits which we were running before we went to 38 tonnes on five axles let alone 44 tonnes on six axles with the added advantage that the weight would be spread out across what are effectively two seperate vehicles.
Time for you to read what I wrote again. I said that the AXLES had a gross weight of 24 tonnes. If the imposed weight on the kingpin is 13 tonnes then the GVW of the trailer would be 37 tonnes as is normal on any 44 tonne combination. Believe it or not, I was not born yesterday and am not nearly the fool you think I am. As for overloading the B Train, utter nonsense. Having a 3 axle lead trailer would give you 24 tonnes of tolerance, so you would load it heavier on the front of the lead and the rear of the pup to even things out on a Max GVW load. Problem solved.
I also know that an A frame drawbar follows well, but it is also more difficult for people to reverse until they have had lots of experience at doing so. When the Dairy Crest drivers first got their drags they could take 20 minutes to back it into the milk dock at Davidstow. Just imagine the chaos that would cause on a road in the Capital.
Now you accuse me of having a prejudice against A frame drawbars. I don’t, as a rule, but I would have in the UK. It is all well and good saying that they work fine in Scandinavia, but there are only about 12 people in the whole of Scandinavia so there would not be the same issues, would there.
You clearly are misguided about the whole Super B thing, and are equally clearly prejudiced against them, despite Denby liking the whole concept as an example, and despite them working well in Canada and some northern States. So tell me, how could the ability to drop the rear trailer, put the lead on a dock, pick up the pup and drop that on a dock be less advantageous than having to try to manoevre a 45’ trailer behind a 26’ rigid body truck (on an A frame)?
Just for the record, I asked my boss today. The lead deck was 28’ and the rear was 32’. 60 feet of loadspace, a huge weight tolerance, much better stability… And the pup follows within a foot or so of the lead trailer on the line. It still has that ridiculous monstrosity being proposed nailed into the ground.
bobthedog:
Time for you to read what I wrote again. I said that the AXLES had a gross weight of 24 tonnes. If the imposed weight on the kingpin is 13 tonnes then the GVW of the trailer would be 37 tonnes as is normal on any 44 tonne combination. Believe it or not, I was not born yesterday and am not nearly the fool you think I am. As for overloading the B Train, utter nonsense. Having a 3 axle lead trailer would give you 24 tonnes of tolerance, so you would load it heavier on the front of the lead and the rear of the pup to even things out on a Max GVW load. Problem solved.
I also know that an A frame drawbar follows well, but it is also more difficult for people to reverse until they have had lots of experience at doing so. When the Dairy Crest drivers first got their drags they could take 20 minutes to back it into the milk dock at Davidstow. Just imagine the chaos that would cause on a road in the Capital.
Now you accuse me of having a prejudice against A frame drawbars. I don’t, as a rule, but I would have in the UK. It is all well and good saying that they work fine in Scandinavia, but there are only about 12 people in the whole of Scandinavia so there would not be the same issues, would there.
You clearly are misguided about the whole Super B thing, and are equally clearly prejudiced against them, despite Denby liking the whole concept as an example, and despite them working well in Canada and some northern States. So tell me, how could the ability to drop the rear trailer, put the lead on a dock, pick up the pup and drop that on a dock be less advantageous than having to try to manoevre a 45’ trailer behind a 26’ rigid body truck (on an A frame)?
Just for the record, I asked my boss today. The lead deck was 28’ and the rear was 32’. 60 feet of loadspace, a huge weight tolerance, much better stability… And the pup follows within a foot or so of the lead trailer on the line. It still has that ridiculous monstrosity being proposed nailed into the ground.
It’s ok I’m not suggesting that you’re any fool or born yesterday but it’s the type of intelligent discussion that needs sorting because it’s that type of confusion concerning the use of drawbars and roadtrains that’s stopping the type of efficiency which the industry will need to survive here in Europe at least.It sounds like you’ve seen some bad examples of wagon and drags being used over here which is’nt helping your view of them.I went straight from around 14 years on artics onto six wheeler rigid and standard length drawbars here.Within around a day or two I had to pass the firm’s test for wagon and drags before they’d let artic drivers use them which was (a lot) more difficult than anything in the driving test.After that I used them in exactly the same way as the artic and usually found it as quick,if not quicker,to reverse them anywhere than the 45 footer artic trailers certainly nowhere near 20 minutes to get one on the dock with a tight 90 degrees either blind side or not between artic trailers with inches either side and one depot needing a tight 90 degree reverse off of a narrow road as well through depot gates before that which usually caused headaches for the artic drivers but not with the wagon and drag.I’d say that before you’d got both b train trailers on the dock I’d already be in the canteen eating my sandwiches even with a 45 foot drawbar .But on the weight issue I can’t see where you’re getting that ‘weight tolerance’ from.It’s a simple calculation that if you’re loaded to max gross on the lead trailer then all of your axles on both the unit and that trailer are at max gross too or you’re not at max gross weight.In that case there’s no way that you can then drop another semi also loaded at max gross weight onto a fifth wheel at the back of the lead trailer without putting those already max weight loaded trailer axles on the lead trailer overweight.It’s time for zetorpilot to give another opinion and if only we could get some others who are already using six wheeler rigids coupled to 45 foot trailers in Europe to give their answer as to wether they’d prefer a long/short pup trailer b train outfit instead.But yes Denby’s b train might have a similar load deck length to a rigid/45 foot trailer drawbar outfit but probably not exactly as much and there’s probably no way that his b train could run at 65 tonnes gross or get anywhere near the type of payload capacity both weight and cube of a decent drawbar or A train outfit but it’s open for him to give his view.But we’re agreed about the dogs dinner that they’re trying to get round all the issues with in this case though.
1st, to operate ‘your’ combination everyone would have to A, buy new prime movers or B, modify existing tractor units FAIL
2nd, manouverability, a B train with it’s two short trailers follows tighter than a regular 13.6m trailer, your 24m drawbar is a ■■■■■■■■■■ thing, a B train could get into anywhere that a regular artic can, even if space is limited, simply splitting the trailers will allow access to almost anywhere, your drawbar can’t do that FAIL
BUT, why the [zb] do you want bigger lorries anyway? is your todger really that small
The original trailer that started the thread is a joke, that’s what happens when beaureaucrats get involved, turning radii and all that old bollox, that trailer is an accident waiting to happen, the tail will wag the dog
But having said that I would’nt want to drive even one trailer with the type of overhang in the context of the one in this case.
