The Rubberduck adventure

NEW AND WANNABE DRIVERS (INTERACTIVE)
81

W&D Spec is 4.75 metres shorter than maximum and only needs to weigh 20t !

Just the same as an artic. No difference in the spec for test.

Another cheapo training company that uses 7.5 tonners for the C+E. This practice should be banned imo as it provides absolutely zero real life experience for the real thing.

Just to let you know that the equipment shown on the video is substantially more expensive than an artic - - so where do you get that statement from?? You should also know enough to realise that it’s not a 7.5 tonner. It’s probably 12 tonne/26 tonne train or thereabouts. Indidentally, exactly the same as used by the armed forces for their training. I’m baffled that the prime mover/trailer configuration doesn’t look particularly clever with the coupling being underslung. But I suppose you are one of those drivers who trained on a 16 speed crash box with a 70 ton low loader behind!! The job of the driving school is primarily to get the candidate into a position where they can pass the test. Further training should then be offered (it’s the law!) by employers. Whatever training we provide will never be complete. That’s just the nature of the beast. So, that said, let’s make it as easy as possible to get the licence.

it doesn’t seem right that the minimum spec vehicle can be so much smaller than a real life truck

The rules are the rules and are set by the great and the good in Europe. In lots of ways I agree with your statement and, if the rules changed, there would be a fleet of nice 44 tonners, fully loaded, delivered to the training centre immediately!! BUT, the rules haven’t changed so my comments above still stand. Sorry.

Maybe if trainees did their tests in real sized vehicles they would find employers accepted newbies easier

No evidence of that here. Our trainees generally go from here into work. It’s true that some are sponsored by their employer so clearly have no problem. But those on the “general market” are snapped up without delays very often. As I’ve said earlier, it’s our job to facilitate the test pass; it’s clearly impossible to cover all eventualities in such a complex industry.

Rubberduck, all the best for today. Ignore all the distractions that this thread has attracted and get the result. Pete :laughing: :laughing:

82

Peter Smythe:
Just to let you know that the equipment shown on the video is substantially more expensive than an artic - - so where do you get that statement from??

:unamused: Is this some sort of wind-up? You’re seriously trying to tell me that the setup pictured is “substantially more expensive” than an 18+ tonner, artic unit and artic trailer ■■ :unamused:

You should also know enough to realise that it’s not a 7.5 tonner. It’s probably 12 tonne/26 tonne train or thereabouts.

Looks like a 7.5 tonner and will drive like a 7.5 tonner = no real life comparison to 90% of other artics on the roads that the OP is likely to be driving. :unamused:

Indidentally, exactly the same as used by the armed forces for their training.

And it is also a well known fact that ex forces drivers can’t drive for toffee. I guess this explains why. :unamused:

But I suppose you are one of those drivers who trained on a 16 speed crash box with a 70 ton low loader behind!!

You supposed wrong. I passed my rigid in an 18 tonne Ford Cargo and my artic in (? can’t remember what the unit was) with a 40ft tri-axle trailer. :unamused:

No evidence of that here. Our trainees generally go from here into work. It’s true that some are sponsored by their employer so clearly have no problem. But those on the “general market” are snapped up without delays very often.

LOL. The standard line from the LGV trainers to keep the cash cow going. Funny how reality is the exact opposite and the vast majority of new drivers take many months to get a start anywhere. :unamused:

83

Rob K:

Peter Smythe:
Just to let you know that the equipment shown on the video is substantially more expensive than an artic - - so where do you get that statement from??

:unamused: Is this some sort of wind-up? You’re seriously trying to tell me that the setup pictured is “substantially more expensive” than an 18+ tonner, artic unit and artic trailer ■■ :unamused:

You should also know enough to realise that it’s not a 7.5 tonner. It’s probably 12 tonne/26 tonne train or thereabouts.

Looks like a 7.5 tonner and will drive like a 7.5 tonner = no real life comparison to 90% of other artics on the roads that the OP is likely to be driving. :unamused:

Indidentally, exactly the same as used by the armed forces for their training.

And it is also a well known fact that ex forces drivers can’t drive for toffee. I guess this explains why. :unamused:

But I suppose you are one of those drivers who trained on a 16 speed crash box with a 70 ton low loader behind!!

You supposed wrong. I passed my rigid in an 18 tonne Ford Cargo and my artic in (? can’t remember what the unit was) with a 40ft tri-axle trailer. :unamused:

No evidence of that here. Our trainees generally go from here into work. It’s true that some are sponsored by their employer so clearly have no problem. But those on the “general market” are snapped up without delays very often.

LOL. The standard line from the LGV trainers to keep the cash cow going. Funny how reality is the exact opposite and the vast majority of new drivers take many months to get a start anywhere. :unamused:

See highlighted above. A wonderful sweeping generalisation and a fabulous way to win friends and influence people.

I’m not leaving my chair for the rest of the day, i’ve got a feeling its about to go off hahaha

84

MrHappy, if you do a search of the old posts here you will see the topic has been discussed at length manyyyyyyyy times before. That comment is basically a cut and paste of what some many other drivers have said from their experiences of ex forces drivers, so “don’t shoot the messenger”. I only know 2 ex forces drivers myself - 1 of which actually can’t drive for toffee (no kidding) and the other one is about average. Maybe if they hadn’t been forced to drive 7.5 tonners with camping trailers as training for driving the Faun tank transporters then they might be better at it. :stuck_out_tongue:

85

Sorry Rob K, no offence meant or intended, i’ve seen a few of the old posts, its just that I can’t help enjoying your style of posting. I think its fair to say that that you’re not one to pull any punches when it comes to speaking your mind and although I am a relatively new member after reading posts as a guest for a long time, I have more often than not thoroughly enjoyed most of your postings. Anyway i’m looking forward to this one running now, no hard feeling I hope :sunglasses:

86

MrHappy:
Sorry Rob K, no offence meant or intended, i’ve seen a few of the old posts, its just that I can’t help enjoying your style of posting. I think its fair to say that that you’re not one to pull any punches when it comes to speaking your mind and although I am a relatively new member after reading posts as a guest for a long time, I have more often than not thoroughly enjoyed most of your postings. Anyway i’m looking forward to this one running now, no hard feeling I hope :sunglasses:

:smiley: No offence taken in the slightest. :stuck_out_tongue: Words are like water off the proverbial duck’s back to me. Glad you enjoy my ramblings :open_mouth: . Many don’t and would probably pay good money to see the back of me :laughing: . Anyway, we’ll see just how much you “thoroughly enjoy my postings” when you’re on the receiving end of one of my rants. I hope you’ve got good armour :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :smiling_imp: :smiling_imp: .

87

Haha i’ve no intention of being on the receiving end of one of your outbursts, the pen/keyboard is mightier than the sword and all that! And you know about my armour? Didn’t realise you’d met my wife :laughing:

88

MrHappy:
Haha i’ve no intention of being on the receiving end of one of your outbursts, the pen/keyboard is mightier than the sword and all that! And you know about my armour? Didn’t realise you’d met my wife :laughing:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

89

Rob K:

Peter Smythe:
Just to let you know that the equipment shown on the video is substantially more expensive than an artic - - so where do you get that statement from??

:unamused: Is this some sort of wind-up? You’re seriously trying to tell me that the setup pictured is “substantially more expensive” than an 18+ tonner, artic unit and artic trailer ■■ :unamused:

You should also know enough to realise that it’s not a 7.5 tonner. It’s probably 12 tonne/26 tonne train or thereabouts.

Looks like a 7.5 tonner and will drive like a 7.5 tonner = no real life comparison to 90% of other artics on the roads that the OP is likely to be driving. :unamused:

Indidentally, exactly the same as used by the armed forces for their training.

And it is also a well known fact that ex forces drivers can’t drive for toffee. I guess this explains why. :unamused:

But I suppose you are one of those drivers who trained on a 16 speed crash box with a 70 ton low loader behind!!

You supposed wrong. I passed my rigid in an 18 tonne Ford Cargo and my artic in (? can’t remember what the unit was) with a 40ft tri-axle trailer. :unamused:

No evidence of that here. Our trainees generally go from here into work. It’s true that some are sponsored by their employer so clearly have no problem. But those on the “general market” are snapped up without delays very often.

LOL. The standard line from the LGV trainers to keep the cash cow going. Funny how reality is the exact opposite and the vast majority of new drivers take many months to get a start anywhere. :unamused:

This one looks like a 7.5 tonner although they are probably 12 tonners.

goo.gl/maps/jonV

The MAN Trucks used come in a variety of sizes from 7, 8, 10 and 12 tonne, none of which are representative of a top weight truck, most of us drove these things straight after passing a car test and went on to train on the bigger stuff later. A rigid with a caravan trailer is about as similar to an artic unit as a toothbrush.

Just to put my own experience forward. I took my class three in one of these.

Drove one of these for my W&D experience. Also a KM Bedford before this, with slightly different swap bodies

Then took my Class one in one of these in RTITB colours.

I want to be in Europe but not blindly follow them. I think the law is an ■■■ though and since the days of the old HGV L plates and drivers learning on the job it has gone sadly downhill.

Minimum requirements should be a 40’ trailer and at least 8 gears with gear changing exercises included again

90

Peter Smythe wrote:Just to let you know that the equipment shown on the video is substantially more expensive than an artic - - so where do you get that statement from??

s this some sort of wind-up? You’re seriously trying to tell me that the setup pictured is “substantially more expensive” than an 18+ tonner, artic unit and artic trailer ■■ :unamused:

No. That isn’t what I said. Read the top quote and it clearly says “more expensive than an artic” which it is.

Looks like a 7.5 tonner and will drive like a 7.5 tonner = no real life comparison to 90% of other artics on the roads that the OP is likely to be driving

As I’ve been very honest and made perfectly clear, it’s the trainer’s task to help candidates get their licence. The training for driving the “real world” truck HAS to be done by the employer. No argument, no dispute. That is fact. (I also am well aware that many employers try to ignore this small fact)

And it is also a well known fact that ex forces drivers can’t drive for toffee. I guess this explains why. :unamused:

I’m not in a position to comment on that

I passed my rigid in an 18 tonne Ford Cargo and my artic in (? can’t remember what the unit was) with a 40ft tri-axle trailer. :unamused:

Great. So what happens when you have a single axle trailer?? It’s either no problem (although it’s quite different to a tri-axle which could be said to be the easy option) or you have got enough common sense to sort it out. And, if that’s the case, then there’s nothing to worry about.

The point stands that everyone should be trained for whatever they are about to drive.

No evidence of that here. Our trainees generally go from here into work. It’s true that some are sponsored by their employer so clearly have no problem. But those on the “general market” are snapped up without delays very often.

LOL. The standard line from the LGV trainers to keep the cash cow going. Funny how reality is the exact opposite and the vast majority of new drivers take many months to get a start anywhere.

It’s NOT the standard line as, in many cases, it’s not true. I wasn’t speaking for the industry as a whole - as is quite clear from my post - but speaking for our own centre. As I don’t tell lies, I assure you it’s true. There’s been more than one ex trainee on here (not just ours) saying that they’ve got work. What is true is that the person who thinks they will pass a test and then get a shiny new truck and £600 a week will probably be disappointed. We make no claims to be able to get jobs for people although we are well connected and help where we can. We don’t go down the “driver shortage” route either.

Interesting that you passed your test on a Cargo. For donkey’s years these were the bread and butter of the training industry and I’ve had my spine shaken to bits for more years than I care to remember in the perishing things! But interesting that you passed your test on that, probably 5/6 speed and then could jump into an 8 speed. And yet you critisise the current system that insists on using vehicles with a minimum of 8 forward gears. So things have moved on - maybe not as quickly as you (or I) would like - but they have moved on a bit.

I’m on record more than once saying that I wish that we had to train on fully loaded, maximum size trucks. But we are prohibited from using such vehicles for test. Until that changes, there’s not a lot anyone can do.

In the meantime we intend carrying on providing the service we are famous for in the way we’ve done it for years.

What time is Rubberduck’s test? Anyone know? :laughing: :laughing:

91

Dont know the time of the test. But he said he’d be on around 8pm to post the result

92

I remember seeing that now. Thanks for that. :laughing: :laughing:

93

Peter Smythe:

Peter Smythe wrote:Just to let you know that the equipment shown on the video is substantially more expensive than an artic - - so where do you get that statement from??

s this some sort of wind-up? You’re seriously trying to tell me that the setup pictured is “substantially more expensive” than an 18+ tonner, artic unit and artic trailer ■■ :unamused:

No. That isn’t what I said. Read the top quote and it clearly says “more expensive than an artic” which it is.

Peter stop trying to flog a dead horse. Your argument holds no water as you don’t just train with either one or the other, you need both classes of vehicle. You can’t say that a W&D is substantially more expensive because it isn’t. You’ve got to compare it to a rigid vehicle and an artic vehicle as well as the trailer, which instantly shows the W&D up to be a cheapskate option because no tractor unit is needed.

Looks like a 7.5 tonner and will drive like a 7.5 tonner = no real life comparison to 90% of other artics on the roads that the OP is likely to be driving

As I’ve been very honest and made perfectly clear, it’s the trainer’s task to help candidates get their licence. The training for driving the “real world” truck HAS to be done by the employer. No argument, no dispute. That is fact. (I also am well aware that many employers try to ignore this small fact)

We’re not discussing the minimum required standard, we’re comparing the outfit in question with real life experience and there is absolutely zero similarity to a conventional artic except that it bends.

And it is also a well known fact that ex forces drivers can’t drive for toffee. I guess this explains why. :unamused:

I’m not in a position to comment on that

I passed my rigid in an 18 tonne Ford Cargo and my artic in (? can’t remember what the unit was) with a 40ft tri-axle trailer. :unamused:

Great. So what happens when you have a single axle trailer?? It’s either no problem (although it’s quite different to a tri-axle which could be said to be the easy option) or you have got enough common sense to sort it out. And, if that’s the case, then there’s nothing to worry about.

The point stands that everyone should be trained for whatever they are about to drive.

Are you for real? Because I passed in a tri-axle 40fter that somehow puts me at a disadvantage because I might get a single axle trailer one day? WTF. There is virtually no difference whatsoever other than the tri-axle pivoting on the centre axle. Hardly rocket science. :unamused: I’ve pulled trailers with anything from a single axle up to 5 axle self steered low loaders and none of them take more than 10 mins to get used to so that’s another null and avoid argument from you.

No evidence of that here. Our trainees generally go from here into work. It’s true that some are sponsored by their employer so clearly have no problem. But those on the “general market” are snapped up without delays very often.

LOL. The standard line from the LGV trainers to keep the cash cow going. Funny how reality is the exact opposite and the vast majority of new drivers take many months to get a start anywhere.

It’s NOT the standard line as, in many cases, it’s not true. I wasn’t speaking for the industry as a whole - as is quite clear from my post - but speaking for our own centre. As I don’t tell lies, I assure you it’s true. There’s been more than one ex trainee on here (not just ours) saying that they’ve got work. What is true is that the person who thinks they will pass a test and then get a shiny new truck and £600 a week will probably be disappointed. We make no claims to be able to get jobs for people although we are well connected and help where we can. We don’t go down the “driver shortage” route either.

Alright, so you claim to be “well connected” and can usually place trainees - well done. But the vast majority of trainers aren’t and newly passed drivers end up sitting at home twiddling their thumbs for 6 months waiting for responses to their apps and/or the bell to ring with some agency kid offering a days work.

Interesting that you passed your test on a Cargo. For donkey’s years these were the bread and butter of the training industry and I’ve had my spine shaken to bits for more years than I care to remember in the perishing things! But interesting that you passed your test on that, probably 5/6 speed and then could jump into an 8 speed. And yet you critisise the current system that insists on using vehicles with a minimum of 8 forward gears. So things have moved on - maybe not as quickly as you (or I) would like - but they have moved on a bit.

Again, hardly rocket science. Slap stick across > another 4 gears, or flick switch, move stick > another 4 gears. Any monkey can do it. It only starts to get complicated in the artics when you’ve got 18 of them to stir in the DAFs for example, or oddball 3 over 3 layouts in the Volvo’s and Scania’s. In fact they should have C+E test done in a Foden fitted with the 13 speed Fuller Road Ranger :laughing: . If you can master that without thinking about it then you can drive any other artic in the UK.

94

Hi Rob K

Let me try to make my point without being misunderstood!

Peter stop trying to flog a dead horse. Your argument holds no water as you don’t just train with either one or the other, you need both classes of vehicle. You can’t say that a W&D is substantially more expensive because it isn’t. You’ve got to compare it to a rigid vehicle and an artic vehicle as well as the trailer, which instantly shows the W&D up to be a cheapskate option because no tractor unit is needed.

My point was that the equipment shown on the video is more expensive than an artic. That was all I said, no more - no less. And that is true. You introduced the thing about running an 18 tonner + an artic and that wasn’t the point I was making. I CAN say a W&D is substantially more expensive as I’m buying them on a regular basis. Having also bought God knows how many artics I think I can say that I know what I’m talking about.

There is virtually no difference whatsoever other than the tri-axle pivoting on the centre axle. Hardly rocket science. :unamused: I’ve pulled trailers with anything from a single axle up to 5 axle self steered low loaders and none of them take more than 10 mins to get used to so that’s another null and avoid argument from you.

I don’t really know why we’re arguing about this!! We agree totally that if you can drive, you can (after 10mins) get used to anything.

Alright, so you claim to be “well connected” and can usually place trainees - well done. But the vast majority of trainers aren’t and newly passed drivers end up sitting at home twiddling their thumbs for 6 months waiting for responses to their apps and/or the bell to ring with some agency kid offering a days work.

I didn’t say we can usually place trainees. I said we help where we can. I also made it clear I was speaking for us alone - - not the entire training industry!

Again, hardly rocket science. Slap stick across > another 4 gears, or flick switch, move stick > another 4 gears. Any monkey can do it. It only starts to get complicated in the artics when you’ve got 18 of them to stir in the DAFs for example, or oddball 3 over 3 layouts in the Volvo’s and Scania’s.

Your point being■■? I merely indicated to you that we are using more industry compatable vehicles now than has been in the past. And, as you say quite correctly, hardly rocket science.

95

Peter Smythe:
Hi Rob K

Let me try to make my point without being misunderstood!

Peter stop trying to flog a dead horse. Your argument holds no water as you don’t just train with either one or the other, you need both classes of vehicle. You can’t say that a W&D is substantially more expensive because it isn’t. You’ve got to compare it to a rigid vehicle and an artic vehicle as well as the trailer, which instantly shows the W&D up to be a cheapskate option because no tractor unit is needed.

My point was that the equipment shown on the video is more expensive than an artic. That was all I said, no more - no less. And that is true. You introduced the thing about running an 18 tonner + an artic and that wasn’t the point I was making. I CAN say a W&D is substantially more expensive as I’m buying them on a regular basis. Having also bought God knows how many artics I think I can say that I know what I’m talking about.

It’s like talking to Rog sometimes talking to you. Word twisting-orama.

I said

Another cheapo training company that uses 7.5 tonners for the C+E. This practice should be banned imo as it provides absolutely zero real life experience for the real thing.

You replied

Just to let you know that the equipment shown on the video is substantially more expensive than an artic - - so where do you get that statement from??

#SIGH#

You are not comparing like for like. You can’t say it’s substantially more expensive because it isn’t just an artic. It’s a rigid vehicle (to train C people) and it’s also an artic (to train C+E people) so to quantify your statement you need to be comparing the cost against a separate C vehicle and a separate C+E vehicle which, as I’ve stated 3 times now, makes it substantially cheaper because you only have 2 bits to buy instead of 3. Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend?

96

He would of taken his test by now so hope he passed, from his diary he was confident so he should not have had any problems, but as we all know anything can happen on that 1 hour test, all it takes is that 1 idot!!!

And i’m rather glad i trained on a proper artic as it has no doubt prepared me better for when i get a job (still looking). Also i think the W&D is the cheaper option no doubt, they buy a Rigid to learn C, can then use that same rigid with a trailer on it for C+E which would by far be cheaper than buying another unit plus a trailer for it.

97

Peter Smythe:
The rules are the rules and are set by the great and the good in Europe. In lots of ways I agree with your statement and, if the rules changed, there would be a fleet of nice 44 tonners, fully loaded, delivered to the training centre immediately!! BUT, the rules haven’t changed so my comments above still stand. Sorry.

at least you’re honest about it :wink:

Maybe if trainees did their tests in real sized vehicles they would find employers accepted newbies easier

No evidence of that here. Our trainees generally go from here into work. It’s true that some are sponsored by their employer so clearly have no problem. But those on the “general market” are snapped up without delays very often. As I’ve said earlier, it’s our job to facilitate the test pass; it’s clearly impossible to cover all eventualities in such a complex industry.

so why do we regularly read on here about newly passed drivers struggling to get jobs because they don’t have 2 years experience ?
( and don’t give me the insurance excuse as I’ve read many policies and none of them mentioned it )

Rubberduck, all the best for today. Ignore all the distractions that this thread has attracted and get the result. Pete :laughing: :laughing:

Indeed I hope he passes today

98

Do employers ask what size truck a newly qualified driver took there test in? - I’ve never heard that one

I think can see where Rob K is coming from in regards to the outlay by a training school
He seems to be comparing a C + a CE price with a C and a +E price

I wonder if I will need to copy and paste the W&D CE fireworks this evening …

99

I am going to take the side of rob k on this one.

The fact is that it is more expensive for a trainer to have a rigid and an arctic compared to having just one wagon a drag.

The vast majority of c+e vehicles on the uk roads are semi trailers and units so this is what the trainees should be trained on. I think if you ask most employers they would want this.

I thought Peter was all for getting drivers ready for the industry and not just training to pass the test but this seems not to be the case.

100

I deffo think that training in a full size rigid rather than a 12 tonner is an advantage to the trainee once the test is passed and you are out alone, at least you get over the size aspect whilst you have the instructor with you. One less thing to worry about when starting out for real.

Oh and being picky the tank transporters are Osh Kosh :smiley:

I’ll get me coat.