Would the Drag Wag the Wag?

“I’ve looked for last couple of years at similar spec vehicles that are newer, every one I have found has been a tonne heavier at the point of sale without me adding my stuff to the mix, and that includes lesser specced vehicles on 10 wheels with lesser bodies”

So you’re telling me that EY59OEH, an R420 8x2 sleeper on 10 rims, chassis only, is a tonne lighter than an equivalent new P410 XT on 8 rims? Sorry but I don’t believe you. Remove the bunk and make it a day cab or even a short cab spec and it’s definitely lighter. I think the truth of the matter is you know the weight is doable with the right spec chassis and cab but you don’t want to lose the unnecessary artic spec cab and sleeper that you’ve become accustomed to. :bulb:

You’ve already made up your mind :bulb: . The spec you want is doable with some caveats, crack on. I’m sure the boss will love that you are effectively doubling your workload for the same wage and creating a whole load of extra hassle for yourself in your process. But if means you can meme around Essex in your new W&G artic for the “challenge” because “it appeals to me”, who cares? :smiley:

i ran this one on my job very successfully , i have run it before with just the trailer loaded , didn’t cause too many problems, our backhoes go about 9 tonne max , and it was only a tandem trailer as well so that was about its max.
the only reason my man sold it was i didn’t have enough work for it, it has an andover body with the electric lifting beaver tail , you can see on here where the hitch is positioned, brilliant motor only 1 that could get 3 x 9tonne dumpers plus a 3 tonne dumper on
tony

I don’t know if ‘my’ outfit is relevant to your question but my drag has a 2.6 ton moffett hanging off the arse end with no counter balance weights on the front which must be worse than a nicely balanced machine on the drag?
I don’t have any problems running empty as long as the lift axle is up. With it down it feels a bit unstable [emoji51]

I used to drive an outfit virtually the same as nomi’s and often drove with trailer fully loaded and truck empty with no problem as long as the load was balanced. Agree about ride being “interesting” if trailer empty and lift axle down even with counterweight on trailer!

^^^ yup, empty car transporter of the more modern design (actually a normal low cab tractor unit but used as wag n drag, trailer much longer carrying up to 8 cars where prime mover 4 at most) you only had to put one medium car 1500kg tops on the back of the trailer of an otherwise empty vehicle and it handled about as well as a supermarket trolley, shift that one car forward to the front of the trailer and it would handle fine.

The choices are endless.

10x4_601.jpg

Mick Bracewell:
“I’ve looked for last couple of years at similar spec vehicles that are newer, every one I have found has been a tonne heavier at the point of sale without me adding my stuff to the mix, and that includes lesser specced vehicles on 10 wheels with lesser bodies”

So you’re telling me that EY59OEH, an R420 8x2 sleeper on 10 rims, chassis only, is a tonne lighter than an equivalent new P410 XT on 8 rims? Sorry but I don’t believe you. Remove the bunk and make it a day cab or even a short cab spec and it’s definitely lighter. I think the truth of the matter is you know the weight is doable with the right spec chassis and cab but you don’t want to lose the unnecessary artic spec cab and sleeper that you’ve become accustomed to. :bulb:

You’ve already made up your mind :bulb: . The spec you want is doable with some caveats, crack on. I’m sure the boss will love that you are effectively doubling your workload for the same wage and creating a whole load of extra hassle for yourself in your process. But if means you can meme around Essex in your new W&G artic for the “challenge” because “it appeals to me”, who cares? :smiley:

That’s not what I said, I said that every similar spec vehicle 8x2 beavertail with 20-30t crane was around a tonne heavier when we called to enquire about it’s weight. They have included day cabs, bodies that look flimsy by comparison had 10 steel wheels rather than 12 ally wheels and no retarder which weighs quite a bit. When talking to body builders asking what payloads they’d be able to offer on a like for like replacement and they have come back heavier. I’m not party to all the numbers but everyone says that what we do now can’t be done. The Andover body is a sturdy beast and it does away with the need for a subframe for the crane which saves some weight, I’m also not Euro 6 which apparently are heavier.

As for sleeper / day cab weight reducing the length of the cab will increase the length of the body so it’s one or the other. I’ve not been given an open order book just asked for suggestions based on the work that I do. I do know that I currently sail very close to the wind with some of the machines weight wise. One option under consideration is an FMX with a day cab, although that one spec is heavier than the equivalent FH Sleeper so I have been told.

As for increasing my work, I’d rather be doing something productive than wasting time at the yard. I’m paid well for the hours I do so why shouldn’t i endeavour to give a good days work. I’m not the one paying for it so it’ll be what they decide to buy.

mrginge:
https://www.energyhaulage.co.uk/haulage-transport-national/volvo-fh460-wagon-drag

Blimey, that’s stunning. Nothing more to add, my drawbar experience isn’t very extensive

8wheels:
That’s not what I said, I said that every similar spec vehicle 8x2 beavertail with 20-30t crane was around a tonne heavier when we called to enquire about it’s weight. They have included day cabs, bodies that look flimsy by comparison had 10 steel wheels rather than 12 ally wheels and no retarder which weighs quite a bit. When talking to body builders asking what payloads they’d be able to offer on a like for like replacement and they have come back heavier. I’m not party to all the numbers but everyone says that what we do now can’t be done. The Andover body is a sturdy beast and it does away with the need for a subframe for the crane which saves some weight, I’m also not Euro 6 which apparently are heavier.

As for sleeper / day cab weight reducing the length of the cab will increase the length of the body so it’s one or the other. I’ve not been given an open order book just asked for suggestions based on the work that I do. I do know that I currently sail very close to the wind with some of the machines weight wise. One option under consideration is an FMX with a day cab, although that one spec is heavier than the equivalent FH Sleeper so I have been told.

As for increasing my work, I’d rather be doing something productive than wasting time at the yard. I’m paid well for the hours I do so why shouldn’t i endeavour to give a good days work. I’m not the one paying for it so it’ll be what they decide to buy.

Check out those Swiss two and 3 axle prime movers and 4 axle drawbars.There’s a reason why they don’t generally bother with an 8 wheeler pulling a short trailer.
What’s the point of a 4 axle and long load deck prime mover when the relatively high tare weight means that you can’t use all the load deck space without then putting it overweight on gross anyway.As opposed to a nice big trailer with a relatively light tare.While the A frame type doesn’t by design wag the dog as shown by the 2 + 4.So 6 wheeler rigid with a sleeper and the crane with a bit left on it for some type of load. :bulb:
But for some reason the Brits seem to be scared of A frames. :confused:

switchlogic:

mrginge:
https://www.energyhaulage.co.uk/haulage-transport-national/volvo-fh460-wagon-drag

Blimey, that’s stunning. Nothing more to add, my drawbar experience isn’t very extensive

The question is what’s the payload of the prime mover after subtracting the weight of the crane.Also looks like it has to be twin steer if it’s mounted in that position regardless.Chinese 6 with a 4 axle Swiss type A frame drawbar possibly. :bulb:

Assuming similar rules apply there that apply here, a three axle dog trailer can carry more weight than a tri-axle pig. Weight transfer to the truck does not occur with the former, either.
Those pig trailers must be using a saucer coupling to overcome the vertical loading, more time consuming than a ringfeeder used with a dog.

Star down under.:
Assuming similar rules apply there that apply here, a three axle dog trailer can carry more weight than a tri-axle pig. Weight transfer to the truck does not occur with the former, either.
Those pig trailers must be using a saucer coupling to overcome the vertical loading, more time consuming than a ringfeeder used with a dog.

You’ll upset Dan with that logic. :laughing:
I’m guessing Dog means A frame and Pig means close coupled.
Nope they haven’t got their heads around the idea of no weight transfer with an A frame a opposed to close coupled here yet.Nor the fact that an A frame doesn’t wag the wag with a high weight mismatch between prime mover and trailer unlike the close coupled design.

Although to be fair you could say the same about the advantages of the Gross Train Weight A train v the disadvantages of the Gross Combination Weight B train going unnoticed down under. :wink:

Just had to look up pigs and dogs to translate that! Your dog trailers are a -frames, that’s something that’s not common here and I’m pretty sure would be too unwieldly needing far more space than we usually have available.

The spec we are looking at is a triaxle (pig) with 8t axles giving a theoretical payload of around 19t. Tracked excavators over 16t get wider so as well as getting potentially tail heavy you’d end up wide a wide load at the rear. The trailer is not built for this with slide out extensions so that’d not be something happening. With a triaxle you should be able to get enough space to place the machine so it balances nicely.

Today would have been the perfect use for such a setup as proposed. I had to do two round trips of an hour each way which could have easily been done it one in hit. Had I got everything out in one trip I would have been available for a movement of one coming back from fairly close by that needed doing sooner than I could get there. So my colleague in the low loader did that job.

What today took about 7 hours of driving by both vehicles could have been done by one in about 3 hours.

8wheels:
Just had to look up pigs and dogs to translate that! Your dog trailers are a -frames, that’s something that’s not common here and I’m pretty sure would be too unwieldly needing far more space than we usually have available.

The spec we are looking at is a triaxle (pig) with 8t axles giving a theoretical payload of around 19t. Tracked excavators over 16t get wider so as well as getting potentially tail heavy you’d end up wide a wide load at the rear. The trailer is not built for this with slide out extensions so that’d not be something happening. With a triaxle you should be able to get enough space to place the machine so it balances nicely.

Today would have been the perfect use for such a setup as proposed. I had to do two round trips of an hour each way which could have easily been done it one in hit. Had I got everything out in one trip I would have been available for a movement of one coming back from fairly close by that needed doing sooner than I could get there. So my colleague in the low loader did that job.

What today took about 7 hours of driving by both vehicles could have been done by one in about 3 hours.

Going by the original question a close coupled ( pig ) trailer will inherently have an effect on the prime mover either in the form of the wag which you asked about and/or an imposed load on it.If by ‘balanced nicely’ you mean minimising the nose weight that just increases the tendency of the trailer to wag the prime mover.
Don’t really see where Brit operators get the idea that an A frame trailer is any more ‘unwieldly’ than a close coupled one.
It just means a bit more thought and planning being applied to reversing it not automatically more space needed to put it anywhere that a close coupled trailer will go for the equivalent load deck.

8wheels:
Just had to look up pigs and dogs to translate that! Your dog trailers are a -frames, that’s something that’s not common here and I’m pretty sure would be too unwieldly needing far more space than we usually have available.

The spec we are looking at is a triaxle (pig) with 8t axles giving a theoretical payload of around 19t. Tracked excavators over 16t get wider so as well as getting potentially tail heavy you’d end up wide a wide load at the rear. The trailer is not built for this with slide out extensions so that’d not be something happening. With a triaxle you should be able to get enough space to place the machine so it balances nicely.

Today would have been the perfect use for such a setup as proposed. I had to do two round trips of an hour each way which could have easily been done it one in hit. Had I got everything out in one trip I would have been available for a movement of one coming back from fairly close by that needed doing sooner than I could get there. So my colleague in the low loader did that job.

What today took about 7 hours of driving by both vehicles could have been done by one in about 3 hours.

No offence ment here but do you know what you are letting your self in for ? Pulling a drag with crane type work can be exhausting I’ve see many blokes come then be desperate to go back on the artic .

Punchy Dan:
No offence ment here but do you know what you are letting your self in for ? Pulling a drag with crane type work can be exhausting I’ve see many blokes come then be desperate to go back on the artic .

I hated Hiab work with a four wheeler rigid let alone a wagon and drag or an artic.Nothing but aggro from having to put down the legs to slinging it and dropping it in the right place and looking out for all the potential points of conflict.A truck driver ain’t supposed to be a crane operator. :wink:

How is it exhausting? :laughing:
I guess for the average container jockey who never gets out of the cab it may be exhausting.

8wheels:
Just had to look up pigs and dogs to translate that! Your dog trailers are a -frames, that’s something that’s not common here and I’m pretty sure would be too unwieldly needing far more space than we usually have available

youtube.com/watch?v=2CbL0bOLVuc

adam277:
How is it exhausting? :laughing:
I guess for the average container jockey who never gets out of the cab it may be exhausting.

If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn’t comment.

No offence ment here but do you know what you are letting your self in for ? Pulling a drag with crane type work can be exhausting I’ve see many blokes come then be desperate to go back on the artic .

Yes and no,

I’ve been in the plant movement / crane work game for 15 years driving 8 wheelers. 13 of those I’ve been covering on a CAT 2 step frame lowloader. The majority of the crane work is container, non mechanical plant or materials. All been done with the exception of week using a manually operated crane. And usually little or no help in slinging or whatever.

This afternoon I was loaded by forks with a full load of NMP in some very sketchy stillages and had to take them to the customers yard where there is never help as it’s a compound on a farm. You cannot get the vehicle in the compound so it all has to be lifted over a mesh security fence. Each stillage (stillage is a generous term) was rusty jaggy metal open sided frame full of bits and pieces that grab the chains and make it lift unevenly. After settling each one down it was a walk around to the gate to enter the compound, unhook and repeat. This stuff is the worst thing I do but yes it’s exhausting alright. Thankfully most crane work of pallets of materials or other lumps that can be lifted easier and placed more conventiently are far more common but still require a lot of clambering about.

I’m not a high mileage hero, much of my work is actually out of the cab rather than driving for hours at a stretch. The ability to move two containers at a time or a combination of plant that would otherwise need two trips if the lowloader wasn’t available is the immediate goal. We have some customers with their own vehicles who we sometimes move containers for to help them out when setting up or clearing sites, being able to double up would be definately be of interest.

I’ve not sold this suggestion as a dream ticket, I’ve said that it will not be suitable for every job and will be difficult at times. The current vehicle needs updating due to ULEZ, DVS and general old age, due to the increasing weights of the plant we move and increasing chassis weights replacing it like for like just won’t work. Rather than just accept a reduction in payload with the same size crane and therefore buy a less useful vehicle, the logical step is to increase the crane capacity to make us more attractive / capable in that area.

I found a brand new Scania G450XT the other day with a 40tm crane and beavertail body. Looked great but cost £255k, the same money would buy a Volvo FH460 with 36tm crane, plant body, trailer with change. It has been looked at as a long term investment, and if the trailer is not out every day due to lack of demand / need so be it. If they do buy it we can work out how to use it most effectively and seek work that will most suit it’s potential.

I’m not afraid of hard work, getting dirty and getting things done. I get frustrated by not having the right tools for the job or for working inefficently despite being hourly paid. If there is a better way that saves time I’m all for it. I’ve been lucky enough to be consulted for my advice and thoughts and was told that it’s a vehicle that needs to work for them and work for me. There are no TGV horns, lightbars and such involved. Just a well specced vehicle that should perform well over the coming years.

Of course I will believe it when I see it, and could still end up with an Iveco.

And as regards A frame trailers, I’d avoid them if for no other reason that every other plant / site or 99% of W&D outfits over here don’t run them. I’ll take that as a recommendation in itself.