if your a ■■■■■ LHVs are already legal it seem to me. Almost weekly i see alsorts of interesting ■■■■■ combinations. If there not legal for ■■■■■■ then ■■■■■■ must be invisible to vosa…
pavaroti:
if your a ■■■■■ LHVs are already legal it seem to me. Almost weekly i see alsorts of interesting ■■■■■ combinations. If there not legal for ■■■■■■ then ■■■■■■ must be invisible to vosa…
You’ll upset Rob if you keep arguing on this subject. 
But ‘■■■■■ combinations’ (showman’s transport) are allowed to use similar types of outfits as Scandinavian drawbar outfits and they are’nt known for causing carnage on the road every time they go anywhere. 
LHVs are great woud love to drive them and i think they woud create more jobs. The ■■■■■■ have shown us it can be done… 
pavaroti:
LHVs are great woud love to drive them and i think they would create more jobs. The ■■■■■■ have shown us it can be done…
How do you work that one out?
It woud make railfreight already very costly even more so, thats how it woud create more jobs for truckers.
pavaroti:
It woud make railfreight already very costly even more so, thats how it woud create more jobs for truckers.
Eureka someone finally understands how it can be done. 
pavaroti:
LHVs are great woud love to drive them The ■■■■■■ have shown us it can be done…
I can just see the headlines in the industry press and T and D British road transport industry saved by the example set by the country’s ■■■■■■ .
Rail Freight finally seen as outdated and inefficient and finished except for some local heavy bulk carraige work like coal for power stations which will escape the axe.
Carryfast:
pavaroti:
It woud make railfreight already very costly even more so, thats how it woud create more jobs for truckers.Eureka someone finally understands how it can be done.
Most companies run at a loss with trains so they can get the carbon logo on their product, so the trains will always be full. LHV would mean less jobs, for every 3 standard 16.5m trucks you could run 2 LHV thus 1 less driver. Even if rail freight did come under threat they would lower their prices accordingly. They can pretty much charge what they like at this moment in time because every company wants to be seen as green.
merc0447:
Carryfast:
pavaroti:
It woud make railfreight already very costly even more so, thats how it woud create more jobs for truckers.Eureka someone finally understands how it can be done.
Most companies run at a loss with trains so they can get the carbon logo on their product, so the trains will always be full. LHV would mean less jobs, for every 3 standard 16.5m trucks you could run 2 LHV thus 1 less driver. Even if rail freight did come under threat they would lower their prices accordingly. They can pretty much charge what they like at this moment in time because every company wants to be seen as green.
No because when we start using LHV’s the actual true fuel consumption per tonne/kilometre of freight moved door to door will show that it’s the LHV which is more economical and therefore ‘greener’,and when we get all those containers and/or the loads in them,which are at present going by rail onto the road where they belong,there’ll be more jobs for drivers driving drawbar outfits than the situation at the moment where train drivers and the Poles are taking the loads which the government has forced and taxed off of British trucks on some sham ‘environmental’ argument based on untaxed fuel for trains and taxed diesel for trucks at which the Poles have shown,even at present payloads,can still be moved more economically,over long distances,by trucks than trains.
Rail freight door to door the German way.
You need to actually pay attention to where you live. Take a look at the country you are living in, from books if that is all you are allowed. The UK is a piddly little island. Railfreight is only useful there as a way of moving huge quantities of product relatively short distances, and the trains always involve more trucks for collection and redistribution, as well as double the number of freight handlers and planners. It will never be viable.
Having spent a lot of time with 6 wheeled rigids, I know that any twin drive 6 wheeler is much more ■■■■■■■■■■ than a tractor unit. I also know that, with a similar length drawbar trailer, say 28’, it follows just as well as no trailer, but you still have to shunt and manoevre to get around half the corners in London or Manchester. Add the drawbar into that and you are suddenly taking up a lot of road, roadspace that is usually already full of cars before you have vacated it. If you factor in you beloved 45’ trailer, then you have to swing even wider, which is totally impractical. At least with the B Train, you would line it up and it would follow. Yes, they do cut in more, which was rather the point.
I still consider that the A frame idea will make life more difficult. In fact I am convinced it would. Half the time, you would need to drop the trailer from the A frame, get a unit under it, take it to load then reconnect, then drop the whole thing and load your “prime mover” (sounds like something out of Transformers… a Peterbilt 
), then hook it all together and hope the traffic is light enough to be able to move. At least with B train, you could do all the moving yourself.
The UK industry is not organised enough for anything even remotely complex when it comes to collecting or dropping loads. The people you are collecting/dropping at have no concept of what is possible with vehicles.
Big Jon’s dad:
Rail freight door to door the German way.
That’s actually the latest British intermodal idea with German subtitles. 
bobthedog:
You need to actually pay attention to where you live. Take a look at the country you are living in, from books if that is all you are allowed. The UK is a piddly little island. Railfreight is only useful there as a way of moving huge quantities of product relatively short distances, and the trains always involve more trucks for collection and redistribution, as well as double the number of freight handlers and planners. It will never be viable.Having spent a lot of time with 6 wheeled rigids, I know that any twin drive 6 wheeler is much more ■■■■■■■■■■ than a tractor unit.
I think that at least we agree on the rail freight issue if you read what I said rail is ok for moving coal to power stations etc over relatively short distances but we’ve got plenty of trunk runs which are relatively more than short distance and Inter City London/Manchester/Glasgow etc are are bit more than just up the road in this ‘piddly little Island’ and longer distance euro runs can be close to the type of distances which would be considered as long distance runs over there.But a double drive six wheeler scandinavian type drawbar prime mover rigid would’nt be much ,if any,different in size to what they use as cab over tractor units over there just like that yank prime mover is’nt and they seem to manage fine in cities like Stockholm etc.Although having said that Scandinavian prime movers are mostly 6x2 not double drive
Carryfast:
bobthedog:
You need to actually pay attention to where you live. Take a look at the country you are living in, from books if that is all you are allowed. The UK is a piddly little island. Railfreight is only useful there as a way of moving huge quantities of product relatively short distances, and the trains always involve more trucks for collection and redistribution, as well as double the number of freight handlers and planners. It will never be viable.Having spent a lot of time with 6 wheeled rigids, I know that any twin drive 6 wheeler is much more ■■■■■■■■■■ than a tractor unit.
I think that at least we agree on the rail freight issue if you read what I said rail is ok for moving coal to power stations etc over relatively short distances but we’ve got plenty of trunk runs which are relatively more than short distance and Inter City London/Manchester/Glasgow etc are are bit more than just up the road in this ‘piddly little Island’ and longer distance euro runs can be close to the type of distances which would be considered as long distance runs over there.But a double drive six wheeler scandinavian type drawbar prime mover rigid would’nt be much ,if any,different in size to what they use as cab over tractor units over there just like that yank prime mover is’nt and they seem to manage fine in cities like Stockholm etc.Although having said that Scandinavian prime movers are mostly 6x2 not double drive
/dog_with_bone_4.gif)
Bob’s still giving a misleading idea about the performance of w&d’s - you really don’t need any more room to go around a corner than a UK artic takes.
I have some pictures from the driving seat of a 77’ long combo (32’ rigid pulling a 40’ trailer, 5’ gap)that I took at the weekend that I’ll put up later when I’ve got time. As for now, I have to get myself to work before I’m late, where I’ll be driving one of these rather than just speculating about what it might be like
Rob K has the most valid point on this whole thread, IT AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN
A trains or B trains both have their advantages and disadvantages, whichever route you go down you’ll need to make a substantial investment in vehicles/trailers, money that just isn’t in the job. I have no experience of either combination, although I did have an a frame wagon and drag for a while, so either combination wouldn’t cause too many issues for me, but I wouldn’t fancy driving either around London, in fact I reckon you should go te other way completely, 4x2 units with decent sized bunks and 40’ trailers, make the job easier, not more difficult 
The biggest disadvantage that I can see with any bigger vehicle is the mayhem they will cause on the roads, too many ‘drivers’ seem to make a balls up out of the simple art of driving up a motorway in a straight line, can you imagine how bad it’ll be if their lorry is twice the size? Overtaking manouveres that start in Luton will be completed by Leeds…On a good day 
It seems newmercman and rob k have a point?! Ignore progress and its benifits and go back to horse and cart then there be plenty jobs for all
newmercman:
Rob K has the most valid point on this whole thread, IT AIN"T GONNA HAPPENA trains or B trains both have their advantages and disadvantages, whichever route you go down you’ll need to make a substantial investment in vehicles/trailers, money that just isn’t in the job. I have no experience of either combination, although I did have an a frame wagon and drag for a while, so either combination wouldn’t cause too many issues for me, but I wouldn’t fancy driving either around London, in fact I reckon you should go te other way completely, 4x2 units with decent sized bunks and 40’ trailers, make the job easier, not more difficult
The biggest disadvantage that I can see with any bigger vehicle is the mayhem they will cause on the roads, too many ‘drivers’ seem to make a balls up out of the simple art of driving up a motorway in a straight line, can you imagine how bad it’ll be if their lorry is twice the size? Overtaking manouveres that start in Luton will be completed by Leeds…On a good day
How is an 82 (or 77) foot overall length outfit ‘twice the size’ of the present EU artics or drawbar outfits 
.But using a longer tractor unit and going to a shorter 40 foot semi is’nt going to do much to help with the economic viability of running the thing and therefore makes the slightly bigger bunk irrelevant when you’re looking for a job doing 12 hour shifts as a security guard or stacking shelves at the local supermarket. .But we’re not even talking about driving a typical yank A train or B train around London anyway.The relevant comparison in this case is just the differences between the existing artic and/or drawbar outfits which we can already legally use on general haulage and the type of sensible increases in efficiency which would be provided by an increase in gross weights and overall length to just allow a 45 foot 5 axle drawbar/composite trailer to be used on existing length drawbar prime movers throughout Europe.That would’nt need a ‘substantial investment’ in ‘new’ or different vehicles or trailers at all because,with the exception of a converter dolly,it’s just a case of using a prime mover instead of a unit and pulling the existing semi trailers with that instead of a unit.Simples.But having said that the operation would be suited to the type of bigger power,more specialised,prime movers found and readily available in Scandinavia and the nature of the operation seems to me to provide bigger opportunities to British based owner driver traction operations than the present one sided east european based fleet operations.But it’s not the drivers who are causing the present problems of trucks taking from Luton to Glasgow (let alone Leeds) to complete an overtaking manouvre .That’s down to speed limiters and that’s why wether it’s a yank artic,drawbar outfit,or B train,or A train or 7.5 tonner you have’nt got that problem over there,regardless of truck lengths.Although maybe you could always try and see how that idea of just allowing 4x2 units pulling 40 foot semi trailers would be accepted in North America.
Regarding the above post, dollies are used here too - I see them every day, used to pull ferry trailers. Also, my firm has 13,6 trailers that are used BOTH as the first trailer in an artic / auxiliary combination and also on a dolly behind a rigid.
Anyway regarding the manuverability of the w&d’s, I tried to take some photos at the weekend to illustrate. Obviously we drive on the right here so this is the equivalent of turning left at the lights in the UK.
Approaching a typical turn at traffic lights (this is actually a bit tighter than it looks 
) I’m going to turn right
I haven’t had to move out to the left at all, check from the mirror:
And going round the corner you’ll see I haven’t had to take a large swing at all. The rear wheels of the trailer are about 20cm from the kerb:
As I mentioned previously this is a 77’ combination, a 32’ rigid pulling a 40’ trailer (the container kind of gives that away!). It used to have a 45’ trailer when I first drove it - the extra length being for tipping gear for the container. It followed the same way around corners though.
If you look carefully in the mirror you can get an idea about the way the trailer follows. The steering bogie has two axles, and you can see it’s still pointing fairly straight even though the rigid is pretty much around the corner already. There is a few feet of container already directly behind the rigid. The front shoulder of the trailer never goes outside the area already cleared by the rigid.
I hope this is of interest, but they don’t show just how amazing it actually is - I still can’t quite believe it after three years doing the job.
Zetorpilot:
Regarding the above post, dollies are used here too - I see them every day, used to pull ferry trailers. Also, my firm has 13,6 trailers that are used BOTH as the first trailer in an artic / auxiliary combination and also on a dolly behind a rigid.Anyway regarding the manuverability of the w&d’s, I tried to take some photos at the weekend to illustrate. Obviously we drive on the right here so this is the equivalent of turning left at the lights in the UK.
Approaching a typical turn at traffic lights (this is actually a bit tighter than it looks
I haven’t had to move out to the left at all, check from the mirror:
And going round the corner you’ll see I haven’t had to take a large swing at all. The rear wheels of the trailer are about 20cm from the kerb:
As I mentioned previously this is a 77’ combination, a 32’ rigid pulling a 40’ trailer (the container kind of gives that away!). It used to have a 45’ trailer when I first drove it - the extra length being for tipping gear for the container. It followed the same way around corners though.
If you look carefully in the mirror you can get an idea about the way the trailer follows. The steering bogie has two axles, and you can see it’s still pointing fairly straight even though the rigid is pretty much around the corner already. There is a few feet of container already directly behind the rigid. The front shoulder of the trailer never goes outside the area already cleared by the rigid.
I hope this is of interest, but they don’t show just how amazing it actually is - I still can’t quite believe it after three years doing the job.
Thanks Zetorpilot that’s what I’ve been trying to tell them let’s hope that now they’re going to believe it but there’s none so blind as those that will not see.So are newmercman and bobthedog now going to tell us that they could have done all that with a standard length yank artic outfit or a B train that’s even before we start taking the zb out of the allowed yank payload weights versus the road space they need to run at those weights… As they say those who live in glass houses should’nt throw stones.