Longer trailers allowed by january 2011?

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Carryfast, you and your drawbar configurations

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

That all depends on your point of view.If it’s new start rate cutting zb’s like me then it’s just a case of get a six wheeler in prime mover spec and a two axle dolly (probably plenty for sale in scandinavia)and just do traction with it with another 15 tonnes going free for every trailer load while the Poles are stuck with fleets of zb tractor units .That’s one box ticked.

You’re also comparing apples and pears by trying to compare short semis linked by fifth wheel couplings with the type of weight and payload capacity of a big drawbar outfit or a proper roadtrain for the reasons I’ve already given.But exactly how much of a difference,if any,would it really make to that cut in issue,considering the way most drawbar outfits and even that triples ozzy roadtrain handle in the real world.If there’s one thing that drawbar outfits have always been known for it’s their ability to follow because of the two points of articulation and steering characteristics of A frames and I’d bet that there’d be absolutely no noticeable difference using a six wheeler rigid coupled to a 45 foot trailer in any place that you’d reasonably expect to get sent into with the current Euro spec artic outfits and in this case that’s the relevant comparison not a mickey mouse yank b train outfit. That’s another box ticked.

The answer to the question why do you want bigger trucks anyway is as above.Just like the supermarkets do pile it high and sell it cheap in this case for every 30 tonnes or so that go’s on the trailer (no unproductive tractor unit weight contributing to the gross and therefore eroding the payload capacity remember) another 15 tonnes go’s free.Which in the real world translates into a payload capacity which is more than the gross weight of the current Euro spec 40 tonne artics .That’s another box ticked.

But to operate zb short trailer b trains would be a no brainer here because we’d have more redundant 45 foot trailers than the existing Polish tractor unit fleet and it would be a lot cheaper to let subbies like me sort out getting a prime mover than to pay for a new fleet of short b train trailers .That’s another box ticked.

But you’re right I can just imagine some idiot loading that mickey mouse semi that started the thread in which it’s already well freighted when some warehouse worker with a Midlands accent says I’ve just got these few more pallets to go on the back. Not to mention the damage it’s new inexperienced driver does with that tail sweep when he turns away from the dock between the two trucks parked next to him.

And after all that it was a wagon and drag that turned out to be the star of destination Doha.Game set and match.

[zetorpilot]

There’s actually no problem with maneuvreability, the scandinavian a-frame combinations that carryfast describes are remarkably agile. In fact for tight turns going forwards I can position my rigid pretty much as I would if it didn’t have the trailer on. I’d say I need to leave less room than for a UK-style artic (which I still drive, very occasionally, usually if I have an artic it has an auxiliary drawbar trailer too, see my avatar, that’s a 13,6m trailer with 8m drag behind). It still amazes me though, even after three years of driving these combinations as my full-time job. The trailer just follows in a different way than an artic.

The nice light w&d’s at my old firm (where I still work from time to time) will allow a 40 tonne payload, and I can easily get under 35 litres per 100km running back empty, or under 40 running fully freighted both ways.

Having said that, the wagon I’'m on mostly now I’m struggling to get under 44, freighted both ways, it has 20hp less than the other wagon and just doesn’t roll as well (both are f13 i-shift, 7 axle combos). Also I’m down to 35 tonne payload due to the heavy body and tipping gear on both wagon and drag.

Also, the w&d combination is a lot more stable than an artic on snow and ice, unfortunately I had the artic+auxiliary (what’s it really called in English?) mostly last winter and it was a real handful, especially when empty.

[bobthedog]

I still don’t see where you are getting your weights from. General rule of thumb is that a Super B here runs at 135000 lbs, 62 tonnes or so. Now assuming the combination tares in at 24 tonnes (which it almost certainly doesn’t) then you have a 38 tonne payload over here. I wasn’t actually suggesting that the UK should run those weights, that would be bad news.

as for an A frame combination being more stable than the Super B… you have got to be kidding.

I also like the way you say about just buying a new power unit to pull an extra 15 tonnes for nothing. I presume you are joking. Kind of defeats the whole object really.

At the end of the day, an A frame with a 45’ trailer behind it is fine for Scandinavia, but a long way from fine for the UK.

[carryfast]

bobthedog:
I still don’t see where you are getting your weights from. General rule of thumb is that a Super B here runs at 135000 lbs, 62 tonnes or so. Now assuming the combination tares in at 24 tonnes (which it almost certainly doesn’t) then you have a 38 tonne payload over here. I wasn’t actually suggesting that the UK should run those weights, that would be bad news.

as for an A frame combination being more stable than the Super B… you have got to be kidding.

I also like the way you say about just buying a new power unit to pull an extra 15 tonnes for nothing. I presume you are joking. Kind of defeats the whole object really.

At the end of the day, an A frame with a 45’ trailer behind it is fine for Scandinavia, but a long way from fine for the UK.

I’m getting my weights from the simple calculation of what would happen if I connected a tandem axle semi trailer loaded at 32 tonnes gross directy onto the back of one of our existing 40 tonner gross artic outfits without using a two axle dolly which is the princible of the B train versus drawbar/a train .Firstly I’ve got to make the load deck of the lead trailer shorter to make room for the fifth wheel coupling and if the axles of the lead trailer are already loaded to their max of around 24 tonnes and you add the weight of the second trailer at it’s kingpin to the 24 tonnes already on the lead trailer’s axles you’re going to put those axles overweight simples.So the only way you can run that outfit is to reduce the max possible weights possible on both trailers which defeats the object of running an LHV.Which is probably why that yank doubles b train artic outfit has less load deck space and runs at less gross weight than either a scandinavian type wagon and drag can or a stan robinson type A train could.The full potential of a doubles artic outfit,at existing Euro type axle weights,using a two axle dolly, would actually mean a gross weight of 80 tonnes and a payload of around 55 tonnes and provide the full load deck space of both standard 45 foot semi trailers not a shortened load deck b train lead and a short pup semi on the back of that.Which is why I call the b train idea mickey mouse and contrary to your idea I’m saying that yes we should be allowed to run proper doubles roadtrains here at those type of weights just as Rikky said.And in that context if you think that a the scandinavian wagon and drag would be too much for us here then you ain’t seen nothing yet. But it’s obvious that if ever Stan Robinson did get his outfit on the road you would’nt be one of those looking to drive it But having said that I’m only looking at it in the context of international euro general haulage not uk work and for that type of work,bearing in mind the cut throat nature of the rates for the job since the east europeans got in the act,then a big drawbar outfit with the advantage of being able to take 15 tonnes for free on the prime mover,in addition to the 30 tonnes or so on the trailer,makes a lot of sense.‘Unless’ we could use the Stan Robinson idea in Europe too on general haulage in which case all bets would be off but it would probably still be the small new start subbies who would have the advantage of not being lumbered with an existing fleet of underpowered tractor units when what’s needed is a heavy haulage unit and in which case it would be a buy one trailer load get ‘almost’ one trailer load free offer,not buy 2 trailer loads get one trailer load free offer But as for the handling of a six wheeler rigid/45 foot drawbar trailer wagon and drag outfit versus the existing euro 45 foot trailer artic outfits,which is the relevant comparison in this context, just read zetorpilot’s post.Nuf said.Although having said that there’s another possibility considering how well that scandinavian drawbar outfit handles in the real world.That’s what if we could have a scandinavian type six wheeler rigid pulling two 45 foot trailers using two dollies.

[bobthedog]

I already said how they loaded them here, You treat the triaxle centre as a pair of tandems, but load them slightly lighter on that joint, then you max out the tandem drives and the tandem pups.
You are still suggesting carrying 15 tonnes for free… I bet any company would love having you as a subby. Using the roadtrain idea works no better in Europe than it would in the UK. The distances covered would never justify it, and the roads simply cannot handle vehicles of that size in any quantity. It was sort of tried in France and in Holland, and the Dutch would only have ever allowed a national maximum of 400 to have been registered nationwide. There simply is not the room to move vehicles of that size in any concentration. It’s one thing to have the odd low loader going into or out of town, but imagine if there were hundreds going in and out. You keep saying that the 6 wheeled rigid pulling a tandem dolly and a 45’ trailer would follow nicely. Tell me this, how is it that the A train turnpikers take at least half as much road again as a standard set up does here, while the Super B takes a lot less road to turn? And they only allow the same gross weight for turnpike trucks as they do for Super B anyway.

Your comment about the 5th wheel in the middle is sort of moot, too. How do they cope with unloading 20’ boxes off 40’ skellys? they use sliders. It would work better than the monstrosity being tested or the monstrosity you propose. You are damned right I wouldn’t drive it. I am far too wary of all the muppets on the road over there to be even remotely tempted by the idea. I have too many miles behind me to find the proposal to consider it as a viable thing, but I would take a Super B into central London, even with one of our tractor units in front of it. That is the criteria I would use for my own personal way of viewing it.
If you think you can reverse an A frame into a space faster than a B train driver then your head is somewhere off this planet. Zetorpilot may well find it better out there in Scandinavia, but it simply wouldn’t work in the UK. If you were to change your insistance to that which they used in France, where they had a 20’ skelly and a 20’ A frame for shifting containers then I would believ you when you say it is better at following, and I accept that the 45’ trailer would spin around in a similar radius to a 6 wheeled rigid, but that is only because a twin drive 6 wheeled rigid turns like the QE2 anyway.

And, most to the point, you have just blown every single argument against US spec trucks when you said a heavy haul tractive unit would be needed. You hammer the length of the trucks here at every opportunity, yet you have more or less said that a vehicle with twin drives would be needed and that requires a longer wheelbase really. Also, heavy haul gear involves more expense. You do make me laugh. On one hand you say you would like to have come out here, then you say, effectively, that North America is clueless about how trucks should be built.

[carryfast]

bobthedog:
I already said how they loaded them here, You treat the triaxle centre as a pair of tandems, but load them slightly lighter on that joint, then you max out the tandem drives and the tandem pups.
You are still suggesting carrying 15 tonnes for free… I bet any company would love having you as a subby. Using the roadtrain idea works no better in Europe than it would in the UK. The distances covered would never justify it, and the roads simply cannot handle vehicles of that size in any quantity. It was sort of tried in France and in Holland, and the Dutch would only have ever allowed a national maximum of 400 to have been registered nationwide. There simply is not the room to move vehicles of that size in any concentration. It’s one thing to have the odd low loader going into or out of town, but imagine if there were hundreds going in and out. You keep saying that the 6 wheeled rigid pulling a tandem dolly and a 45’ trailer would follow nicely. Tell me this, how is it that the A train turnpikers take at least half as much road again as a standard set up does here, while the Super B takes a lot less road to turn? And they only allow the same gross weight for turnpike trucks as they do for Super B anyway.

Your comment about the 5th wheel in the middle is sort of moot, too. How do they cope with unloading 20’ boxes off 40’ skellys? they use sliders. It would work better than the monstrosity being tested or the monstrosity you propose. You are damned right I wouldn’t drive it. I am far too wary of all the muppets on the road over there to be even remotely tempted by the idea. I have too many miles behind me to find the proposal to consider it as a viable thing, but I would take a Super B into central London, even with one of our tractor units in front of it. That is the criteria I would use for my own personal way of viewing it.
If you think you can reverse an A frame into a space faster than a B train driver then your head is somewhere off this planet. Zetorpilot may well find it better out there in Scandinavia, but it simply wouldn’t work in the UK. If you were to change your insistance to that which they used in France, where they had a 20’ skelly and a 20’ A frame for shifting containers then I would believ you when you say it is better at following, and I accept that the 45’ trailer would spin around in a similar radius to a 6 wheeled rigid, but that is only because a twin drive 6 wheeled rigid turns like the QE2 anyway.

And, most to the point, you have just blown every single argument against US spec trucks when you said a heavy haul tractive unit would be needed. You hammer the length of the trucks here at every opportunity, yet you have more or less said that a vehicle with twin drives would be needed and that requires a longer wheelbase really. Also, heavy haul gear involves more expense. You do make me laugh. On one hand you say you would like to have come out here, then you say, effectively, that North America is clueless about how trucks should be built.

It’s that weight argument again .‘If’ the outfit is loaded,to make best efficient use of the LHV idea,those tractor unit axles are already maxed out and so are the lead trailer’s before you couple the second trailer.If you underload the axles on the lead trailer and the pin on the second trailer,but want to run a true doubles outfit,carrying at least double the amount of payload (but actually more allowing for the weight of the now not required second tractor unit) of a single trailer,with at least double the gross weight of a single trailer outfit,then that idea would overload the second trailer axles and the unit rear axles.Which explains the difference between Denby’s idea and Stan Robinson’s idea and why Denby never did say that his outfit is built to haul the same type of weights or volume that Stan Robinson’s outfit could.But my issue concerning the fifth wheel coupling on the lead trailer is that in addition to overloading the lead trailer axles,by carrying the weight at the pin of the second trailer,it also takes space out of the load deck which means less volume it’s got nothing to do with access to load or unload it although sliders would just take more payload weight potential out of the outfit though.But if the A train users are only taking one and a half times as much room to use twice as many trailers that’s more efficient than the standard artic outfits not less.Although having said that that Ozzy triples roadtrain did’nt seem to need even that much turning into that truck stop entrance.But the reason that they only allow the same weight on A trains as B trains there is probably for the same reasons that they won’t allow LHV 's at all here.But your idea that the use of roadtrains or drawbars in some way defeats the object and is’nt compatible with a liking and respect for American trucks seems to be at odds with the Ozzy road transport industry where they use Dolly connected roadtrains,without hindrance by the law makers,mostly pulled by yank conventional 6x4 tractor units and would probably be just as happy to pull them with yank 6x4 rigids considering that at one time rigids pulling them were more common than tractor units and doubles A trains using full length trailers have been used in the States since the 1960’s though probably never became common because of regs which probably never allowed them to run at their full weight potential and generally throughout all areas.But getting back to LHV’s in the European context I can’t see any reason why a yank cab over 6x4 rigid like that KW prime mover which I posted could’nt be used to run with a 45 foot drawbar trailer between and into most European cities in just the same way that the Scandinavians have run similar type outfits (usually 6x2 though) between and into their cities for years.By the way I thought it’s so good I’d post it again .

www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/m … railer.jpg

[bobthedog]

Considering as I know exactly what you are getting at, may I suggest that you reread the posts made and look up how Super Bs actually work, then think reasonably about it.

B trains were not made to carry double the weight, just considerably more without the need to pull huge lengths. If adding so much length to vehicles were desirable, don’t you think turnpikers would be allowed on all routes here, where we don’t have the same space constraints? The B trains have 60 feet as a standard here, that is actual, available deckspace. Yes, it is 30 feet less than that thing of Robinsons, and 10 or so less than your A frame thing, but that is just what they have here, not necessarily the only way it could be. Here, they like short nosed trailers. My 53’ vans have a 3’ kingpin to front, most decks have 19". So say you had a 3’ overhang on both trailers, you would be up to 63 feet before you even thought about how far behind you can go. I am willing to bet that it would take very little to get beyond 70’ of deckspace on a vehicle which will outperform an A frame.

On European routes, can you not imagine how difficult it would be with a huge drawbar outfit on roundabouts, slip roads, city streets where lights run so close together? A truck measuring that sort of length would be way over 80 feet long. Sitting at a set of lights could often leave it blocking another junction behind it. Turning onto some of the slip roads, especially in places like Germany, would be impossible I would have thought.

You are hung up on Stan Robinsons idea, yet that is nothing more than a turnpiker, only 16 feet shorter loadspace. It is in no way a new idea. So you clearly just have this vision of yourself driving down the road getting admiring looks, when the reality is that people would just hate that truck more than ever. There are already enough people killed in collisions in the UK through overtaking. Why make it any worse than it is?

[carryfast]

bobthedog:
Considering as I know exactly what you are getting at, may I suggest that you reread the posts made and look up how Super Bs actually work, then think reasonably about it.

B trains were not made to carry double the weight, just considerably more without the need to pull huge lengths. If adding so much length to vehicles were desirable, don’t you think turnpikers would be allowed on all routes here, where we don’t have the same space constraints? The B trains have 60 feet as a standard here, that is actual, available deckspace. Yes, it is 30 feet less than that thing of Robinsons, and 10 or so less than your A frame thing, but that is just what they have here, not necessarily the only way it could be. Here, they like short nosed trailers. My 53’ vans have a 3’ kingpin to front, most decks have 19". So say you had a 3’ overhang on both trailers, you would be up to 63 feet before you even thought about how far behind you can go. I am willing to bet that it would take very little to get beyond 70’ of deckspace on a vehicle which will outperform an A frame.

On European routes, can you not imagine how difficult it would be with a huge drawbar outfit on roundabouts, slip roads, city streets where lights run so close together? A truck measuring that sort of length would be way over 80 feet long. Sitting at a set of lights could often leave it blocking another junction behind it. Turning onto some of the slip roads, especially in places like Germany, would be impossible I would have thought.

You are hung up on Stan Robinsons idea, yet that is nothing more than a turnpiker, only 16 feet shorter loadspace. It is in no way a new idea. So you clearly just have this vision of yourself driving down the road getting admiring looks, when the reality is that people would just hate that truck more than ever. There are already enough people killed in collisions in the UK through overtaking. Why make it any worse than it is?

Nothing to do with admiring looks as the idea of a truck is to make a living and in it’s most practical setting here a Stan Robinson type outfit would be in it’s element on long distance trunking and most people are,or should be, concentrating on what’s going on around them on the motorways not trying to admire the difference between different types of trucks and a scandinavian type drawbar outfit is close enough to the existing euro artics for no one really to take any notice even if they did get a lot of drivers who were more interested in posing than using the thing for what it’s meant for in earning a living.But you could use that argument in regards to the motives for any driver driving any type of truck if you decided to.But if they’re cutting things fine enough for the length difference between the existing artics and a scandinavian drawbar to cause problems on roundabouts or for cars overtaking then they’re just an accident waiting to happen anyway.But the fact is the Germans and some other European states are already involved in trials of that type of LHV anyway.

[bobthedog]

Pretty sure I just said about the trials…

[carryfast]

bobthedog:
Pretty sure I just said about the trials…

But in this context I meant in the face of criticism from the British authorities who’ve already decided not to co operate,not because of the abilities of LHV’s to be used without a problem on European roads,but because their increased efficiency threatens the rail freight interests in that they know that LHV’s would probably prove to be cost effective enough to outperform the efficiency of rail in getting freight from one place to another.So the question as to wether LHV’s will be allowed on European roads will depend on wether the EU will take a different view .Although having said that the east european road transport industry would probably be happy for the status quo to remain as it is considering that they’re benefitting from the British one being held back from making itself more competitive and efficient in the context of small operators trying to compete in the international sector against cheaper east european competition.The LHV idea would probaly suit small sub contract traction operations better than large fleet operators and if not they would’nt have lost anything anyway.

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast do the nurses let you have access to the computer all the time?

In almost all your rants and raves about East Europeans staying with the tried and tested trucks while the Brits are allowed to use LHV or double bottomed Detroits and double drive tractors.

Do you honestly think they are going to sit back and let that happen. The list of EU members is growing year by year, which gives us all equal access to the same market.

As for you being the only one capable of handling these lorries on the roads, and for less money than anyone else, it is probably a good job you are not involved in road transport anymore.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:
Carryfast do the nurses let you have access to the computer all the time?

In almost all your rants and raves about East Europeans staying with the tried and tested trucks while the Brits are allowed to use LHV or double bottomed Detroits and double drive tractors.

Do you honestly think they are going to sit back and let that happen. The list of EU members is growing year by year, which gives us all equal access to the same market.

As for you being the only one capable of handling these lorries on the roads, and for less money than anyone else, it is probably a good job you are not involved in road transport anymore.

I think that Zetorpilot’s post shows that I’m not the ‘only’ one capable of handling these lorries on the roads although the reasoning as to those who are so against the idea is open to question.The list of EU members is growing year by year but they’re the usual no hopers who are just in it for what they can wring out of the developed EU economies and our government is in it for the cheap labour opportunities.But that’s a different argument.However the British road transport industry has always been (up to recently) based more on small operators while the east europeans are more based on fleets.It’s obvious even to a trained monkey that LHV’s would be more efficient and more suited to small sub contract traction operations than the east european fleets as newmercman’s post shows,(unless he’s wrong for once )but there’s only one way to find out.But at the moment the east europeans are doing exactly my idea of handling the trucks they’ve got for less money than anyone else and if you check out the amounts of east european trucks running through Dover every day hauling British imports and exports while the Brits are all running cream cakes 100 miles up the road to the supermarket,for an unsustainable wage in the long term,it’s probably my idea which would obviously work out better than yours.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Carryfast, you and your drawbar configurations

1st, to operate ‘your’ combination everyone would have to A, buy new prime movers or B, modify existing tractor units FAIL

^ See above post.

[phil_the_book]

Just one question lads will the driver get any more money for all this i seem to remember 28 to 32 to 38 to 44 ton was always a promise of more dosh but it never quite appeared its all getting bigger except the money .

[carryfast]

phil the book:
Just one question lads will the driver get any more money for all this i seem to remember 28 to 32 to 38 to 44 ton was always a promise of more dosh but it never quite appeared its all getting bigger except the money .

But overheads like fuel taxes have gone up by more than the rate of productivety so the guvnors have to keep running just to stand still but everything is relative and the question is how much could the job pay on long distance euro work or uk trunking running at a maximum of 28 or 32 t gross with less than 20 t of payload. But if you reduce capacity rates might go up in the short term but demand for road transport would then fall in favour of rail freight.

[jessicas_dad]

zippy!:

Cruise Control:
VOSA seem to ‘turn a blind eye’ to it, you only have to drive down the A14 to see t-cabs hauling 45ft trailers. so why make it law if peole openly abuse it and get away with it, just like the picture i wonder who many times he has been pulled by VOSA because of his overall lenght, probably never.

Trust me, they don’t!

dont they ive seen the snt t -cab with tautliners on the A14 all the time and so afr nothings been done.

[carryfast]

jessicas dad:

zippy!:

Cruise Control:
VOSA seem to ‘turn a blind eye’ to it, you only have to drive down the A14 to see t-cabs hauling 45ft trailers. so why make it law if peole openly abuse it and get away with it, just like the picture i wonder who many times he has been pulled by VOSA because of his overall lenght, probably never.

Trust me, they don’t!

dont they ive seen the snt t -cab with tautliners on the A14 all the time and so afr nothings been done.

But unfortunately they’d probably notice if someone decided to pull two 45 foot trailers with a yank conventional.

[gogzy]

Carryfast:

jessicas dad:

zippy!:

Cruise Control:
VOSA seem to ‘turn a blind eye’ to it, you only have to drive down the A14 to see t-cabs hauling 45ft trailers. so why make it law if peole openly abuse it and get away with it, just like the picture i wonder who many times he has been pulled by VOSA because of his overall lenght, probably never.

Trust me, they don’t!

dont they ive seen the snt t -cab with tautliners on the A14 all the time and so afr nothings been done.

But unfortunately they’d probably notice if someone decided to pull two 45 foot trailers with a yank conventional.

They’d notice if your were pulling a 45ft tautliner with a yank wagon

[bobthedog]

Nope, you arguments hold no water at all. In 1996, roadfreight was recognised as being 6 times as efficient as railfreight. Now, after successive government theft, it is no much better but it always will have the advantage of accompanied freight, timed deliveries within reasonable windows.

Regarding driving the things you propose, I reckon I could, but I know I wouldn’t want to. As has been said, it wouldn’t pay me more to do it, so why would I put myself out. I certainly wouldn’t invest 100K in a new heavy haul tractor to pull it. You would, you say, well then you wouldn’t survive for long. The UK roads cannot handle 100’ combinations, and UK motorists are too dim. Many UK truck drivers are altogether too militant for anything like this to be viable, and I reckon Stan Robinsons people must have seen the turnpikers or aussie roadtrains and thought “Hey, great idea!”.

I wonder if you just came up with this insistance that the drawbars used in Scandinavia would work in the uk just to be difficult.

[newmercman]

Ere Carryfast,

If the nurses will let you out for the day, see if you can wangle a trip up to Trinty Terminal at Felixstowe, then jump in the water, oops sorry, just thinking out loud Up there you’ll be in your own little nirvana so make sure you take plenty of kleenex, they run double trailer outfits internally in the docks, or they did the last time I was up there