adam277:
Carryfast, you have indicated before you might come out of retirement.
Why dont you just do that and do the EU work that you crave?
When was the last time you drove a truck out of curiosity?
I am genuinely curious if you have driven a truck this century or not.
Don’t be daft. Carryfast actually doing something rather than talking about it? And let’s face it if he couldn’t (didn’t try) get a job doing international work 20+ years ago when half the industry was at it his excuse this time would probably be that the handful of companies that still go over are being mean to him and are nasty bullies. Poor sweetpea
I’m fascinated by this thread! I don’t give a rats ■■■ about wagon and drags but I’m fascinated to see if Switch can actually get the last word here 
. We all know that CF just goes on and on with gradually more nonsensical rubbish until the person he’s arguing with simply gives in and stops posting or merely dies of old age.
However, in this case we have post injury Switch who not only has time on his hands but more importantly this incarnation is definitely more aggressive and up for a ruck! I feel that Switch may just be the first man ever to out CF CF himself. Gentlemen, start your engines.
Perfect assessment
Maybe we should start running bets! And as you note one side affect of the accident has been an inability to suffer fools gladly.
If nothing else it’s something to do. Tho I fear I’ll be back at work before CurryFart gives in
Strap yourselves in!
Just out of interest and I’m probably I’m going to regret this but…
Carryfast please educate me (and anyone else) because I’m struggling with this.
Although it makes no actual difference to the specification of whatever vehicle combination may or not actually happen please can you briefly explain why if an a-frame wag and drag is the solution to all the issues and far superior to a centre balance version as they virtually unseen in this country.
Apart from Tuffnells and UPS virtually no one else uses them.
I think Richard Long has one or two and Advante have a couple of 8 wheeler with big cranes that sometimes pull them.
But everyone else doing cabins / containers / materials / machinery / tankers / hay and straw / curtain side / roll off / skips / removals
uses a conventional centre balance. Surely if they were half as good, easy to manage and flexible as you suggest then there would be a much greater number of them on the road.
8wheels:
Just out of interest and I’m probably I’m going to regret this but…
Carryfast please educate me (and anyone else) because I’m struggling with this.
Although it makes no actual difference to the specification of whatever vehicle combination may or not actually happen please can you briefly explain why if an a-frame wag and drag is the solution to all the issues and far superior to a centre balance version as they virtually unseen in this country.
Apart from Tuffnells and UPS virtually no one else uses them.
I think Richard Long has one or two and Advante have a couple of 8 wheeler with big cranes that sometimes pull them.
But everyone else doing cabins / containers / materials / machinery / tankers / hay and straw / curtain side / roll off / skips / removals
uses a conventional centre balance. Surely if they were half as good, easy to manage and flexible as you suggest then there would be a much greater number of them on the road.
You’re quite right that A Frames are rare here in the UK, but they are more popular in the EU, especially I would say in Germany. And we all know how much better the EU and Germans are than us, so it is obvious that some should wish to copy them.
8wheels:
Just out of interest and I’m probably I’m going to regret this but…
Carryfast please educate me (and anyone else) because I’m struggling with this.
Although it makes no actual difference to the specification of whatever vehicle combination may or not actually happen please can you briefly explain why if an a-frame wag and drag is the solution to all the issues and far superior to a centre balance version as they virtually unseen in this country.
Apart from Tuffnells and UPS virtually no one else uses them.
I think Richard Long has one or two and Advante have a couple of 8 wheeler with big cranes that sometimes pull them.
But everyone else doing cabins / containers / materials / machinery / tankers / hay and straw / curtain side / roll off / skips / removals
uses a conventional centre balance. Surely if they were half as good, easy to manage and flexible as you suggest then there would be a much greater number of them on the road.
It’s because their face doesn’t fit. Big bad men are keeping the poor a frames down and promoting centre balance over the much more deserving and worthy a frame
8wheels:
Just out of interest and I’m probably I’m going to regret this but…
Carryfast please educate me (and anyone else) because I’m struggling with this.
Although it makes no actual difference to the specification of whatever vehicle combination may or not actually happen please can you briefly explain why if an a-frame wag and drag is the solution to all the issues and far superior to a centre balance version as they virtually unseen in this country.
Apart from Tuffnells and UPS virtually no one else uses them.
I think Richard Long has one or two and Advante have a couple of 8 wheeler with big cranes that sometimes pull them.
But everyone else doing cabins / containers / materials / machinery / tankers / hay and straw / curtain side / roll off / skips / removals
uses a conventional centre balance. Surely if they were half as good, easy to manage and flexible as you suggest then there would be a much greater number of them on the road.
I’m going with the simplest explaination is the best.
The Brits are scared of reversing em it really is that simple.
Even in the case of my late Dad’s old regiment obviously going to all the aggro of uncoupling and nosing the thing into position then re coupling it. 
He never told me that maybe because he could actually reverse the thing just like his German counterparts who knows he can’t tell me now.
So assuming the driver can actually drive.
The things can deffo go anywhere that a close couple outfit will go and as shown in that video and the whole Scandinavian and the Swiss road transport industries and a good proportion of the Italian one, no problems with the tail wagging the dog even if you want to pull a trailer weighing significantly more than the prime mover.
Or load transfer from the trailer trashing prime mover axle weight or gross weight calculations.The fact is you can’t load a prime mover to max gross weight then expect to drop a close coupled trailer on the back of it.
Let alone trying to pull a 24t + gross trailer with a 10-15t gross prime mover.
Nor will you be able to get the same load deck length provided by having the axles at each end of the trailer.
Franglais:
You’re quite right that A Frames are rare here in the UK, but they are more popular in the EU, especially I would say in Germany. And we all know how much better the EU and Germans are than us, so it is obvious that some should wish to copy them.
It actually goes right across the aryan world from Scandinavia to New Zealand and some of North America and the Slavic world across Eastern Europe.If they want to use a trailer it will generally be an A frame type.Close coupled has too many downsides.
The reason why the Brits seem to be the exception has more to do with a dumbed down training regime and possibly gross weight and dimensions legislation which gradually favoured artics.Even the laughable extended artic trailer idea seems to follow the rule.
The OP asked the simple question how to avoid the situation of a heavy drawbar trailer wagging a relatively significantly lighter prime mover.A frame drawbars are the default ( only ) solution to that question among other issues like the weight transfer issue.With the bonus of a longer and correctly supported load deck with its axles at each end.
Sorry OP but your question only has one logical answer.Which wouldn’t even be up for discussion if this was Switzerland or Scandinavia or New Zealand and not UK.No need to involve the Fatherland. 
switchlogic:
Perfect assessment
Maybe we should start running bets! And as you note one side affect of the accident has been an inability to suffer fools gladly.
If nothing else it’s something to do. Tho I fear I’ll be back at work before CurryFart gives in
Strap yourselves in!
Telling the OP that an A frame trailer is the best/only answer to his question, regarding a heavy trailer wagging a light prime mover, is foolish in your view.
Who’s calling who an inexperienced fool.
Hopefully you might find a job driving an empty rigid pulling a ‘centre balance’ 
trailer with a 14t + load on it. You seem to be quite good at finding the right ditch for a soft landing.
switchlogic:
Perfect assessment
Maybe we should start running bets! And as you note one side affect of the accident has been an inability to suffer fools gladly.
If nothing else it’s something to do. Tho I fear I’ll be back at work before CurryFart gives in
Strap yourselves in!
Telling the OP that an A frame trailer is the best/only answer to his question, regarding a heavy trailer wagging a light prime mover, is foolish in your view.
Who’s calling who an inexperienced fool.
Hopefully you might find a job driving an empty rigid pulling a ‘centre balance’ trailer with a 14t + load on it. You seem to be quite good at finding the right ditch for a soft landing.
OK some interesting points raised, but there are still some issues that I have.
The bulk of the work for the intended vehicle would be rigid only, drag would not be in constant use so that calls for a 12m long rigid to maximise it’s potential. There are many of our jobs where just getting a rigid in is possible but getting a trailer in too would not be, a shorter rigid would mean less load capacity. Yes the trailer could be longer but that wouldn’t help.
The empty rigid would be somewhere in region of 18-20t, trailer could theoretically be 24t but would be operating at around 20t with a 14t excavator on it. Buckets, and or other attachments for the excavator or a dumper could be carried on the rigid altering the weight balance. That was the original question asked and from the drivers who have responded with experience it would seem that this is not going to be a big cause for concern, the weight and length of the wag is significant enough to counter the effect of the drag.
Availability is another factor, unfortunately we are not in a good position time wise. Having a Euro IV truck so close to the impending ULEZ is not viable, I know this should have been sorted long ago but the initial soundings on replacing the vehicle hit a block with trying to find a way to build a comparible spec vehicle to the current one and failing. Searching for a built and ready example was also fruitless, i’m sure there was some hope that something would appear magically like it did 10 years ago when we bought the current vehicle.
CoVid happened and we spent a pretty bad shutting up shop, all the plant was off hire and getting parked up. I left in March not knowing if I’d be going back or if I did how long we’d be able to survive. Things picked up a bit and the company streamlined and downsized to get in a better position, the clock had rolled on and now the situation was more sensitive. Getting exactly a vehicle built to spec with everything to our / my / ideal spec from chassis to crane to body would take far too long. We are now looking at options that are available from a supplier who builds for stock or has chassis and cranes available and a selection of options for bodies so you can get a vehicle specced how you want it much quicker. They also supply rental vehicles of a similar spec that can be used as an infill.
Lastly there is is the issue of drivers. There is myself, my colleague who drives the lowloader and one of our young machine drivers who has a little expereince of driving the low loader. This vehicle combination would be my long term and only require someone else to drive if I was on holiday or was off sick (never had a day off yet) The current vehicle is hard enough to find a competent willing driver for (one driver can’t do the crane, the other doesn’t want to as not really current and hates driving a rigid) With the intened spec it could be left as a rigid only and still carry out most of it’s duties. Making it shorter with a longer trailer and therefore an outfit that worked together more often than not would be difficult to find cover for unless you used it as a shorter less useful rigid.
Regardless of whether the trailer comes or not, the vehicle will be more or less the same. If after a couple of years and it proved to be something that wasn’t working, ditching (not literally) the trailer could be considered. It could be sold and the vehicle operated as rigid only, as it would be exactly the same except for the coupling as I’d spec anyway.
Whilst I appreciate there may be some merit to your solution, I don’t believe it is the answer in this particular set of circumstances.
OK some interesting points raised, but there are still some issues that I have.
The bulk of the work for the intended vehicle would be rigid only, drag would not be in constant use so that calls for a 12m long rigid to maximise it’s potential. There are many of our jobs where just getting a rigid in is possible but getting a trailer in too would not be, a shorter rigid would mean less load capacity. Yes the trailer could be longer but that wouldn’t help.
The empty rigid would be somewhere in region of 18-20t, trailer could theoretically be 24t but would be operating at around 20t with a 14t excavator on it. Buckets, and or other attachments for the excavator or a dumper could be carried on the rigid altering the weight balance. That was the original question asked and from the drivers who have responded with experience it would seem that this is not going to be a big cause for concern, the weight and length of the wag is significant enough to counter the effect of the drag.
Availability is another factor, unfortunately we are not in a good position time wise. Having a Euro IV truck so close to the impending ULEZ is not viable, I know this should have been sorted long ago but the initial soundings on replacing the vehicle hit a block with trying to find a way to build a comparible spec vehicle to the current one and failing. Searching for a built and ready example was also fruitless, i’m sure there was some hope that something would appear magically like it did 10 years ago when we bought the current vehicle.
CoVid happened and we spent a pretty bad shutting up shop, all the plant was off hire and getting parked up. I left in March not knowing if I’d be going back or if I did how long we’d be able to survive. Things picked up a bit and the company streamlined and downsized to get in a better position, the clock had rolled on and now the situation was more sensitive. Getting exactly a vehicle built to spec with everything to our / my / ideal spec from chassis to crane to body would take far too long. We are now looking at options that are available from a supplier who builds for stock or has chassis and cranes available and a selection of options for bodies so you can get a vehicle specced how you want it much quicker. They also supply rental vehicles of a similar spec that can be used as an infill.
Lastly there is is the issue of drivers. There is myself, my colleague who drives the lowloader and one of our young machine drivers who has a little expereince of driving the low loader. This vehicle combination would be my long term and only require someone else to drive if I was on holiday or was off sick (never had a day off yet) The current vehicle is hard enough to find a competent willing driver for (one driver can’t do the crane, the other doesn’t want to as not really current and hates driving a rigid) With the intened spec it could be left as a rigid only and still carry out most of it’s duties. Making it shorter with a longer trailer and therefore an outfit that worked together more often than not would be difficult to find cover for unless you used it as a shorter less useful rigid.
Regardless of whether the trailer comes or not, the vehicle will be more or less the same. If after a couple of years and it proved to be something that wasn’t working, ditching (not literally) the trailer could be considered. It could be sold and the vehicle operated as rigid only, as it would be exactly the same except for the coupling as I’d spec anyway.
Whilst I appreciate there may be some merit to your solution, I don’t believe it is the answer in this particular set of circumstances.
Carryfast:
switchlogic:
Perfect assessment
Maybe we should start running bets! And as you note one side affect of the accident has been an inability to suffer fools gladly.
If nothing else it’s something to do. Tho I fear I’ll be back at work before CurryFart gives in
Strap yourselves in!
Telling the OP that an A frame trailer is the best/only answer to his question, regarding a heavy trailer wagging a light prime mover, is foolish in your view.
Who’s calling who an inexperienced fool.
Hopefully you might find a job driving an empty rigid pulling a ‘centre balance’ trailer with a 14t + load on it. You seem to be quite good at finding the right ditch for a soft landing.
Nice that you think I’m calling you a fool based on one post. Let’s go with that shall we? To save your self confidence. Sort of charming really, you don’t even seem that old yet post like a confused octogenarian in isolation. In a care home. Who’s dinner is an hour late.
Carryfast:
You seem to be quite good at finding the right ditch for a soft landing.
Ah I just had a sad thought. I’ve taken a truck into the ditch more times than you’ve taken a truck abroad. Poor Carryfast, upstaged by a young, I’m 23 you know, foolish bus driver. Yet again.
And yes spot on assessment, and Irish bog was a great choice, only needed one corner panel
Carryfast:
Franglais:
You’re quite right that A Frames are rare here in the UK, but they are more popular in the EU, especially I would say in Germany. And we all know how much better the EU and Germans are than us, so it is obvious that some should wish to copy them.
It actually goes right across the aryan world from Scandinavia to New Zealand and some of North America and the Slavic world across Eastern Europe.If they want to use a trailer it will generally be an A frame type.Close coupled has too many downsides.
The reason why the Brits seem to be the exception has more to do with a dumbed down training regime and possibly gross weight and dimensions legislation which gradually favoured artics.Even the laughable extended artic trailer idea seems to follow the rule.
The OP asked the simple question how to avoid the situation of a heavy drawbar trailer wagging a relatively significantly lighter prime mover.A frame drawbars are the default ( only ) solution to that question among other issues like the weight transfer issue.With the bonus of a longer and correctly supported load deck with its axles at each end.
Sorry OP but your question only has one logical answer.Which wouldn’t even be up for discussion if this was Switzerland or Scandinavia or New Zealand and not UK.No need to involve the Fatherland.
The issue with the A-frames is they are just a complete pain in the ■■■ to reverse.
I dont care how good you are at reversing A-frames. Just trying reverse 100-200 yards in a straight line can be a complete pain.
I like A-frame trailers in general they are nice to drive. But that is one of the main reasons they are not popular.
Carryfast:
adam277:
When did driving around Europe become the best quality work in the industry?
Pay is often poor and your often stuck in a tin can eating cans of cold baked beans.
Nights out in a truck cab goes with the territory of lots of driving between far flung destinations through great terrain.
To be fair a decent truck cab isn’t a bad place to be for a few nights out.Some people actually live in worse colder places.
As for cold beans if Carslberg did motorway service stations and restaurants they’d all be run by Movenpick.No cold beans needed to be eaten on the Barking/Paris/Milan run at least.
How many nights out in a truck have you had I wonder?
8wheels:
OK some interesting points raised, but there are still some issues that I have.
The bulk of the work for the intended vehicle would be rigid only, drag would not be in constant use so that calls for a 12m long rigid to maximise it’s potential. There are many of our jobs where just getting a rigid in is possible but getting a trailer in too would not be, a shorter rigid would mean less load capacity. Yes the trailer could be longer but that wouldn’t help.
The empty rigid would be somewhere in region of 18-20t, trailer could theoretically be 24t but would be operating at around 20t with a 14t excavator on it. Buckets, and or other attachments for the excavator or a dumper could be carried on the rigid altering the weight balance. That was the original question asked and from the drivers who have responded with experience it would seem that this is not going to be a big cause for concern, the weight and length of the wag is significant enough to counter the effect of the drag.
Availability is another factor, unfortunately we are not in a good position time wise. Having a Euro IV truck so close to the impending ULEZ is not viable, I know this should have been sorted long ago but the initial soundings on replacing the vehicle hit a block with trying to find a way to build a comparible spec vehicle to the current one and failing. Searching for a built and ready example was also fruitless, i’m sure there was some hope that something would appear magically like it did 10 years ago when we bought the current vehicle.
CoVid happened and we spent a pretty bad shutting up shop, all the plant was off hire and getting parked up. I left in March not knowing if I’d be going back or if I did how long we’d be able to survive. Things picked up a bit and the company streamlined and downsized to get in a better position, the clock had rolled on and now the situation was more sensitive. Getting exactly a vehicle built to spec with everything to our / my / ideal spec from chassis to crane to body would take far too long. We are now looking at options that are available from a supplier who builds for stock or has chassis and cranes available and a selection of options for bodies so you can get a vehicle specced how you want it much quicker. They also supply rental vehicles of a similar spec that can be used as an infill.
Lastly there is is the issue of drivers. There is myself, my colleague who drives the lowloader and one of our young machine drivers who has a little expereince of driving the low loader. This vehicle combination would be my long term and only require someone else to drive if I was on holiday or was off sick (never had a day off yet) The current vehicle is hard enough to find a competent willing driver for (one driver can’t do the crane, the other doesn’t want to as not really current and hates driving a rigid) With the intened spec it could be left as a rigid only and still carry out most of it’s duties. Making it shorter with a longer trailer and therefore an outfit that worked together more often than not would be difficult to find cover for unless you used it as a shorter less useful rigid.
Regardless of whether the trailer comes or not, the vehicle will be more or less the same. If after a couple of years and it proved to be something that wasn’t working, ditching (not literally) the trailer could be considered. It could be sold and the vehicle operated as rigid only, as it would be exactly the same except for the coupling as I’d spec anyway.
Whilst I appreciate there may be some merit to your solution, I don’t believe it is the answer in this particular set of circumstances.
You could try Mac’s Truck sales and see if they could advise you or put you in touch with a past customer of theirs, only seen their adverts for plant wagons and have had no dealing with them in the past.
I run 8 wheel hook loaders with tandem axle close coupled trailers and have in the past run with an empty bin on the unit and the trailer at full wack, 18 ton, and it was not a problem and have done it on numerous occasions. The unit would be grossing around 17.700 kgs and the trailer at its plated weight of 18,000 kgs. Sorry I cannot be more helpful
pete smith:
You could try Mac’s Truck sales and see if they could advise you or put you in touch with a past customer of theirs, only seen their adverts for plant wagons and have had no dealing with them in the past.
I run 8 wheel hook loaders with tandem axle close coupled trailers and have in the past run with an empty bin on the unit and the trailer at full wack, 18 ton, and it was not a problem and have done it on numerous occasions. The unit would be grossing around 17.700 kgs and the trailer at its plated weight of 18,000 kgs. Sorry I cannot be more helpful
You havent been listening, a tandem axle close coupled trailer is for fools and failed coach drivers! 
Wheel Nut:
pete smith:
You could try Mac’s Truck sales and see if they could advise you or put you in touch with a past customer of theirs, only seen their adverts for plant wagons and have had no dealing with them in the past.
I run 8 wheel hook loaders with tandem axle close coupled trailers and have in the past run with an empty bin on the unit and the trailer at full wack, 18 ton, and it was not a problem and have done it on numerous occasions. The unit would be grossing around 17.700 kgs and the trailer at its plated weight of 18,000 kgs. Sorry I cannot be more helpful
You havent been listening, a tandem axle close coupled trailer is for fools and failed coach drivers!
0
I’m not sure I can be trusted with such a fancy trolly
Just noticed your signature line Wheel Nut,