Carryfast:
I’m just as confident that more than 50% of all the 20ft boxes out of a total shipment have to go as single not a pair.Because a pair would put it over 44t gross or at least create the type of ‘isssues’ which the OP is asking about.
It’s equally obvious that having sorted that problem ( like the Dutch etc examples ) then it’s worth investing in decent drawbar kit to provide the required loading/tipping flexibility.
You know like both boxes able to be loaded/tipped in different locations while left on the trailer and prime mover respectively on a loading dock and no weight distribution issues if one of them has to be dropped.
But no it’s so much better to struggle on with our stupid gross weight and dimensions regime resulting in the wrong vehicle for the wrong job.
How do you put a 40 Std or HC on a drawbar then? Or a 45?
Have a look at a splitter trailer. You can tip 2 20s at once, in different locations, you can pick up either half too, and you can put a 40 or a 45 on. Problem solved without the need for a sodding drag
Good grief Carryfast, wagon and drag for boxes got killed off years ago by the advent of splitters.
I was running 6 tractors out of SCT around 2001ish, and seriously looked in to getting a couple stretched - there were a few outfits running them exclusively round Southampton dock at the time, and this was before the shipping lines cottoned on, when they were still paying round trip on both boxes. But then we stopped being able to get away with loading, say, a Maersk and a K Line empty on one 14-pin trailer and the same on another and charging full whack for all four, and the writing was on the wall. The rates plummeted for 2 x 20ft on W&D and next thing splitters came along. Game over.
Carryfast:
I’m just as confident that more than 50% of all the 20ft boxes out of a total shipment have to go as single not a pair.Because a pair would put it over 44t gross or at least create the type of ‘isssues’ which the OP is asking about.
It’s equally obvious that having sorted that problem ( like the Dutch etc examples ) then it’s worth investing in decent drawbar kit to provide the required loading/tipping flexibility.
You know like both boxes able to be loaded/tipped in different locations while left on the trailer and prime mover respectively on a loading dock and no weight distribution issues if one of them has to be dropped.
But no it’s so much better to struggle on with our stupid gross weight and dimensions regime resulting in the wrong vehicle for the wrong job.
How do you put a 40 Std or HC on a drawbar then? Or a 45?
Have a look at a splitter trailer. You can tip 2 20s at once, in different locations, you can pick up either half too, and you can put a 40 or a 45 on. Problem solved without the need for a sodding drag
It’s obvious that the resulting 3 + 1 artic, after dropping the rear section of the trailer, is going to create more trailer axle weight issues than a 4 axle rigid.
As for how do you put a 40/45ft on a drawbar.
The question is how do you put a 20ft and a 40ft onto an artic.
( All where where sane Gross weight legislation applies which was my point. pinterest.co.uk/pin/517351075919924413/
Have a look at a splitter trailer. You can tip 2 20s at once, in different locations, you can pick up either half too, and you can put a 40 or a 45 on. Problem solved without the need for a sodding drag
can you really pick /hook up to the rear section of a splitter on it’s own■■?
m.a.n rules:
Have a look at a splitter trailer. You can tip 2 20s at once, in different locations, you can pick up either half too, and you can put a 40 or a 45 on. Problem solved without the need for a sodding drag
can you really pick /hook up to the rear section of a splitter on it’s own■■?
Carryfast:
It’s obvious that the resulting 3 + 1 artic, after dropping the rear section of the trailer, is going to create more trailer axle weight issues than a 4 axle rigid.
As for how do you put a 40/45ft on a drawbar.
The question is how do you put a 20ft and a 40ft onto an artic.
( All where where sane Gross weight legislation applies which was my point. pinterest.co.uk/pin/517351075919924413/
What you’re failing to account for in all of this, Carryfast, is that the shipping lines ain’t stupid. As soon as they realise you’re carrying more boxes on one vehicle, the rates will drop, as they did before. It’s like a Leeds operator said to me not long ago, when talking about LHTs - if you can get more on the trailer, that’s less trailer loads so less money overall. The rates don’t rise proportionately - and neither do the drivers’ wages.
Lucy:
What you’re failing to account for in all of this, Carryfast, is that the shipping lines ain’t stupid. As soon as they realise you’re carrying more boxes on one vehicle, the rates will drop, as they did before. It’s like a Leeds operator said to me not long ago, when talking about LHTs - if you can get more on the trailer, that’s less trailer loads so less money overall. The rates don’t rise proportionately - and neither do the drivers’ wages.
It seems clear that there’s no room for the type of tonne mile efficiency that it would take to make the difference so long as the industry is crippled by the 44t gross limit.
The 9 axle outfit in the photo looks anything but obsolete and the operator isn’t going to invest in that kit if it ain’t making money.
While we can bet that the driver isn’t going to be getting a tenner an hour or less to drive it.
The idea that more = less goes against the whole history of truck development and the resulting economies of scale to date.
The problem is that everyone seems to be using the UK example as their reference point.
As opposed to that example and places like NZ etc.
LHV’s have always been the solution to more efficiency ever since the move to 32 tonnes gross and from 4 wheelers to 8 wheelers and 8 wheelers + two axle trailer before that.
No one ever downsized in search of more profitability.
While more tonne/mile efficiency logically means more demand for the industry’s services.
It’s obvious that means sharing the proceeds of that increased efficiency with the customer to create the increased demand.Profitability based on growth not pointlessly trying to restrict supply.
The problem is that our government is vehemently opposed to that as the last thing it wants is a thriving growing road transport industry as it has shown to date in that single simple photo.
While the split trailer is more a reflection of a regime which limits 2 x 20ft boxes to 44t gross.Admittedly I was under the wrong impression that the rear section didn’t have it’s own pin.But it’s equally obvious that it’s weight limited because a 3 + 1 artic is going nowhere because of the weight distribution issues and how do you get the correct weight distribution on the pin of the rear section after the front section has been removed.At best surely it’s only going to work as a 2 x empty box delivery and 2 x loaded box collection system at one location only ?.
Carryfast:
I’d doubt if there’s many situations where two loaded 20ft boxes won’t put it over 44t gross.
There are many situations where two loaded 20ft boxes don’t put it over 44t gross?
Much more than 50% of a ship load of 20ft boxes.I’d doubt it.
Why else would anyone want to go to all the trouble of investing in dedicated 2 x 20 ft 50t gross on 7 axles type kit.
At which point how is a splitter type artic trailer any use.
While at best, even at 44t gross, a splitter type semi trailer still creates similar, if not even worse, issues regarding weight distribution that the OP is referring to.
The truth is this country is lumbered with inferior kit options because the gross weight and dimensions regime enforces them.
