JLS Driver SOS:
I am sure, if they paid Truckers a decent salary say R45k for a 60 hour week drivers would be quite happy to drive what ever combination was out there, providing it was legal and safe. just a thought of course and my opinion only.
I’d prefer to get paid 25k-30k to drive a 6 wheeler coupled to a 40-45 ft trailer than 45k to drive an artic that’s got screwed up overhang measurements just to suit the British government’s idiotic ideas on truck design.
But there’d be more chance of getting the 45k if the government removed road fuel duty.
I do think people can be a bit harsh to you at times carryfast but this is quality even for you.
Aggreeed the set ups on trial do look a bit of a liability but the extra bit of agro ain’t exactly worth sacrificing 15k year for.
As I have said before if fuel duty was reduced or abolished rates would be cut within weeks the fact remains there a to many trucks chasing the work available same as to many drivers chasing jobs.
JLS Driver SOS:
I am sure, if they paid Truckers a decent salary say R45k for a 60 hour week drivers would be quite happy to drive what ever combination was out there, providing it was legal and safe. just a thought of course and my opinion only.
I’d prefer to get paid 25k-30k to drive a 6 wheeler coupled to a 40-45 ft trailer than 45k to drive an artic that’s got screwed up overhang measurements just to suit the British government’s idiotic ideas on truck design.
But there’d be more chance of getting the 45k if the government removed road fuel duty.
I do think people can be a bit harsh to you at times carryfast but this is quality even for you.
Aggreeed the set ups on trial do look a bit of a liability but the extra bit of agro ain’t exactly worth sacrificing 15k year for.
See ibson’s post above ^ .One day the wall etc might be a motorcyclist going through on the inside while turning through a right hand turn.
Why the zb don’t they just realise that it’s better to have as much of the length as possible between the pin and the axles which is just a case then of going as wide and turning as late as possible through turns,which is how an artic is designed to be driven, and you can virtually forget about what the opposite rear corner might or might not be doing.However if that means too much cut in to allow the job to get done then obviously the 6 wheeler rigid pulling a 40-45 foot drawbar trailer or,if not,then opposite steering trailer axleS (as opposed to the idea of a steering rear axlE on the usual low cut in large sweep set up in which it’s just there to support the load and follow the sweep) would be the better option.
The fact is it takes the same amount of room to get a given length of artic outfit through a given turn but the difference is it’s more difficult to see what the outfit is doing and to balance the line needed if it’s being shared between a lot of tail sweep and some cut in than it is to just take it as wide as possible if it’s all/mostly cut in instead.
merc0447:
From coop newhouse, apparently there was an accident involving someone’s tail swing
What utter [zb]. It’s a driver issue, maybe driver training or driver awareness stuff but they won’t ban them outright. If they’ve spent thousands on the trailer they’ll just get another driver who can[/b] manage it!!! As for paying drivers extra, yeah, right, another [zb] because I can see that also not[/b] happening! Did they pay drivers extra when they expected them to pull double and triple deck trailers? Or ultra short trailers, how about delivering to tight spaces when you have to do blind side reversing in an S-shape to get on the dock? What about Bus drivers when their double and single deckers were upgraded to bendi-buses. No extra pay, a little extra training but that’s about it. Live and Learn, as it goes. I’ve always been careful with vehicle swing and it’s dangling bits, but then I try not to return it with damage or hit other vehicles and property, it’s more of a personal thing though, you know, bringing it back in one piece
merc0447:
From coop newhouse, apparently there was an accident involving someone’s tail swing
What utter [zb]. It’s a driver issue, maybe driver training or driver awareness stuff but they won’t ban them outright. If they’ve spent thousands on the trailer they’ll just get another driver who can[/b] manage it!!! As for paying drivers extra, yeah, right, another [zb] because I can see that also not[/b] happening! Did they pay drivers extra when they expected them to pull double and triple deck trailers? Or ultra short trailers, how about delivering to tight spaces when you have to do blind side reversing in an S-shape to get on the dock? What about Bus drivers when their double and single deckers were upgraded to bendi-buses. No extra pay, a little extra training but that’s about it. Live and Learn, as it goes. I’ve always been careful with vehicle swing and it’s dangling bits, but then I try not to return it with damage or hit other vehicles and property, it’s more of a personal thing though, you know, bringing it back in one piece [/quote] We got an extra £1 per hour for driving the bendy’s actually
Saratoga:
What utter [zb]. It’s a driver issue, maybe driver training or driver awareness stuff
I’ve always been careful with vehicle swing and it’s dangling bits, but then I try not to return it with damage or hit other vehicles and property, it’s more of a personal thing though, you know, bringing it back in one piece
If that’s right then you’d have no problem if they designed trucks by putting it all on the cut in measurement instead of tail sweep in that case.
waynedl:
[quote="Saratoga"We got an extra £1 per hour for driving the bendy’s actually
National Express don’t pay that extra, BTDT personally. Once ‘familiarised’ we are allowed to ignore the ‘No reversing without a banksman’ rule But that’s about it. Prefer driving trucks than buses though…
waynedl:
[quote="Saratoga"We got an extra £1 per hour for driving the bendy’s actually
National Express don’t pay that extra, BTDT personally. Once ‘familiarised’ we are allowed to ignore the ‘No reversing without a banksman’ rule But that’s about it. Prefer driving trucks than buses though…
Same, only drove 2 psv vehicles in the last 6yrs, thank god
Driveroneuk:
Are the drivers towing these being paid more money to compensate for the increased responsibility and vehicle earning capacity? If not, refuse!
Whilst I agree in principle… You gotta be joking right?
Is that what happened when we jumped from 32 to 38 tonnes? 38 to 41? 41 to 44 tonnes?
Nobody will refuse Jonathan because there’s a hundred nationalities waiting in the background to jump in your seat and do the job for less.
Its a bad state of affairs but that’s the way I see it.
Sorry mate but i don’t see it like that, more responsibility equals more pay. So many people are too frightened to stand up for themselves & instead just take it up the ■■■. Man up people. Works for me
Swings and roundabouts.Do you expect to get paid less for pulling a 20 or 30 ft trailer ?.Easier to drive forwards
,but quite a bit more difficult to reverse.
As I have said before if fuel duty was reduced or abolished rates would be cut within weeks the fact remains there a to many trucks chasing the work available same as to many drivers chasing jobs.
This is contradictory - If fuel duty was cut then there would still be too many trucks chasing the work. It certainly wouldn’t be any good for us drivers.
As I have said before if fuel duty was reduced or abolished rates would be cut within weeks the fact remains there a to many trucks chasing the work available same as to many drivers chasing jobs.
This is contradictory - If fuel duty was cut then there would still be too many trucks chasing the work. It certainly wouldn’t be any good for us drivers.
That’s the economics of the madhouse.The Brits have been shafted by so much road fuel taxation for so long they’re now starting to believe it’s a good thing themselves.
So they’re saying that if road fuel duty was doubled there’d be a lot more jobs because there’d be a lot less capacity because of all the operators that would go to the wall. .
Which part of real world economics,in which removal of road fuel taxation would be reflected in lower rates,therefore growth in demand for the service,meaning growth in the industry and higher profits,therefore more jobs not less,don’t they understand.
Unless of course the situation is viewed from the point of view of the rail freight industry.
Which brings the subject back on topic because that’s also exactly the same situation/reason as to why we’re seeing these idiotic trailer designs instead of decent LHV designs instead.
Had a good look at one today the rear axle isnt a conventional rear steer, it is some sort of bizarre dolly axle. Looks weird as hell and there is some sort of device about 6 inches behind the pin (v shaped) and it looks like a turntable above the pin?
So what is the actual measurement from the centre of the two forward trailer axles to the rear of the trailer, the overhang in other words
We run with a long overhang in California to satisfy their retarded laws, it’s 40’ from the pin to the centre of the rear axle, which with a 2’ pin gives you 11’ swinging around behind the rear axle, total overhang is 13’ if you use the centre of the rear bogie as the pivot point, it’s a PITA
newmercman:
So what is the actual measurement from the centre of the two forward trailer axles to the rear of the trailer, the overhang in other words
We run with a long overhang in California to satisfy their retarded laws, it’s 40’ from the pin to the centre of the rear axle, which with a 2’ pin gives you 11’ swinging around behind the rear axle, total overhang is 13’ if you use the centre of the rear bogie as the pivot point, it’s a PITA
Not sure of the actual measurement but you got about 3 foot more than what you would have with a normal triaxle 13.6 metre trailer.
newmercman:
So what is the actual measurement from the centre of the two forward trailer axles to the rear of the trailer, the overhang in other words
We run with a long overhang in California to satisfy their retarded laws, it’s 40’ from the pin to the centre of the rear axle, which with a 2’ pin gives you 11’ swinging around behind the rear axle, total overhang is 13’ if you use the centre of the rear bogie as the pivot point, it’s a PITA
Not sure of the actual measurement but you got about 3 foot more than what you would have with a normal triaxle 13.6 metre trailer.
That’s not too bad then considering it’s clearly 6’ longer - 26 pallets for standard 45’ trailer, this is a 30 pallet trailer - approx 3’ per pallet, 2 per row = 6’?
I looked at 1 in the yard at Hadfields and it looked ok, asked the driver, he said it was great, did exactly what he expected and nothing more or less.
As I have said before if fuel duty was reduced or abolished rates would be cut within weeks the fact remains there a to many trucks chasing the work available same as to many drivers chasing jobs.
This is contradictory - If fuel duty was cut then there would still be too many trucks chasing the work. It certainly wouldn’t be any good for us drivers.
That’s the economics of the madhouse.The Brits have been shafted by so much road fuel taxation for so long they’re now starting to believe it’s a good thing themselves.
So they’re saying that if road fuel duty was doubled there’d be a lot more jobs because there’d be a lot less capacity because of all the operators that would go to the wall. .
Which part of real world economics,in which removal of road fuel taxation would be reflected in lower rates,therefore growth in demand for the service,meaning growth in the industry and higher profits,therefore more jobs not less,don’t they understand.
Unless of course the situation is viewed from the point of view of the rail freight industry.
Which brings the subject back on topic because that’s also exactly the same situation/reason as to why we’re seeing these idiotic trailer designs instead of decent LHV designs instead.
Not saying high fuel costs are good for the industry as it’s a hinderance to cash flow and a bed debt even a relatively small one can put a firm under due to cash flow.
The fact remains haulage unless it’s something specialised offers a ■■■■ poor return on your investment.and the cost of transporting goods especially over long distances is a tiny amount of the cost price
Look at the USA although it has gone up a lot there fuel is still a lot cheaper than us countries this side of the Atlantic and there economy is hardly booming.
As I have said before if fuel duty was reduced or abolished rates would be cut within weeks the fact remains there a to many trucks chasing the work available same as to many drivers chasing jobs.
This is contradictory - If fuel duty was cut then there would still be too many trucks chasing the work. It certainly wouldn’t be any good for us drivers.
That’s the economics of the madhouse.The Brits have been shafted by so much road fuel taxation for so long they’re now starting to believe it’s a good thing themselves.
So they’re saying that if road fuel duty was doubled there’d be a lot more jobs because there’d be a lot less capacity because of all the operators that would go to the wall. .
Which part of real world economics,in which removal of road fuel taxation would be reflected in lower rates,therefore growth in demand for the service,meaning growth in the industry and higher profits,therefore more jobs not less,don’t they understand.
Unless of course the situation is viewed from the point of view of the rail freight industry.
Which brings the subject back on topic because that’s also exactly the same situation/reason as to why we’re seeing these idiotic trailer designs instead of decent LHV designs instead.
Not saying high fuel costs are good for the industry as it’s a hinderance to cash flow and a bed debt even a relatively small one can put a firm under due to cash flow.
The fact remains haulage unless it’s something specialised offers a ■■■■ poor return on your investment.and the cost of transporting goods especially over long distances is a tiny amount of the cost price
Look at the USA although it has gone up a lot there fuel is still a lot cheaper than us countries this side of the Atlantic and there economy is hardly booming.
That’s just looking at it from the wrong perspective.The question is what would happen to the North American economy,especially it’s road transport industry,if road fuel there was taxed at uk levels.
But as I’ve said elsewhere in the real world transport rates aren’t based on each individual item that makes up the load they’re more often based on just a trailer/container load etc per mile and it’s obvious at present road fuel taxation levels that sending it by road is becoming less and less economically viable ( which is actually government policy even though no one has actually voted the loopy greens into government ) unless an operator can be found who’s prepared to suffer most of the expense of that taxation by taking it off the profit margin for the job.
There’s probably been more jobs lost in the road transport industry because of that fact than through overcapacity.
However getting back on topic the question remains why the British/Euro fixation on having less cut in at the expense of tail sweep,which goes against the whole design reasoning of artic outfits,and/or resistance to using LHV drawbar outfits,instead of longer artics,where the issue of cut in,becomes too much of a liability. .
newmercman:
We run with a long overhang in California to satisfy their retarded laws, it’s 40’ from the pin to the centre of the rear axle, which with a 2’ pin gives you 11’ swinging around behind the rear axle, total overhang is 13’ if you use the centre of the rear bogie as the pivot point, it’s a PITA
California,GLA/LEZ and other mad euro loopy green truck design/measurement regs anyone spotted the connection and pattern here.
newmercman:
We run with a long overhang in California to satisfy their retarded laws, it’s 40’ from the pin to the centre of the rear axle, which with a 2’ pin gives you 11’ swinging around behind the rear axle, total overhang is 13’ if you use the centre of the rear bogie as the pivot point, it’s a PITA
California,GLA/LEZ and other mad euro loopy green truck design/measurement regs anyone spotted the connection and pattern here.
Oh California are way in front in the loony stakes
You have to have to comply with their ridiculous axle settings, but only if you have a 53’ trailer, you can have the wheels on the arse of a 52’ 11" trailer and be legal, but add an inch and you have to run with a 13’ overhang The same applies to their stupid side skirt laws, they only apply to 53’ trailers, BOCs
But that’s about it. Prefer driving trucks than buses though…
. 
