I remember loading wheat feed at Spillers,on a 33ft. so when I had a 40ft on it was a bit of a bonus, I just put the same ammount of bags on so the load wasnt a high, but when I got to Hull at Pauls Animal foods, it was sometimes a rip tip, all off the back of the trailer, so then the 7ft was a pain in the rs. Regards Larry
Yes, the perception created by the extra 7 foot of trailer made lorries suddenly so much bigger. Typically 21 to 22 tons of legal payload was achievable in the late '60s at 32 tons gross, depending on the make of tractor unit and trailer. As Dennis has said even at 26 tons gross with a tandem 4 trailer 18 or even 19 tons of payload was feasible, making a lighter combination a very attractive proposition from a revenue earning point of view. Ray Holden at Little Lever had an AEC Mercury (plated at 26 tons gross) coupled to a Pitt tandem 4 trailer and the combination weighed unladen just a shade over 7 tons. When an artic was standardised at 32 tons on 4 axles it was much easier to plan transport than it subsequently became with later weight increases and varying tractor / trailer axle combinations. One downside over the years with all the weight and length increases has been that pro rata haulage rates have decreased and of course each time the regs change investment in new equipment becomes necessary. Now the nation’s self proclaimed favourite haulier is pushing for longer trailers, which if approved will reduce rates even more.
Bewick:
Bewick:
Moose:
thats a tidy flat it must have been a joy to work on without some of the standard fit crap we have these days!
spray flaps,side gaurds,abs,ebs,side marker lamps, to name a few
did it even have spring brake chambers?
mooseYea it did have spring brakes “moose” and ROR axles! They were steady as rocks behind a 4 X 2 tractor,no nodding as you got with a close coupled tandem. Cheers Bewick.
Things are a bit quite to-night!! heres another wide spread for you Moose, McGuffie OHA 301M reversing a Widespread into our trailer park at Crooklands loaded with Workington rail,long before Lawsons were involved!!
I recognise every single pothole Dennis!!!..not being lit at night,it was a nightmare to find a spot to drop the legs NOT in a hole!!
Take care,
David 
At W.H.Williams Spennymoor, to be honest I don’t know how many trailers we had. The first three were a forty foot platform single axle, drop frame Marsden van trailer and 40ft single axle York van trailer. These were bought in 1971.
It was not until drivers complained that with the single axle on the back it made them difficult to manoeuvre in tight access locations that we switched to Tandem axles. We had thought that as weight was not a problem the single axle would be cheaper and cheaper operating costs, but we found that the 40 ft York in particular scrubbed off the rear tyres.
Our next three were 40ft tandem axle York van trailers and two of these were sold later to Ken Devereux Billingham, when for a period we found we were not using our trailers to capacity.
We bought a few second hands including seven we inherited from Thorn domestic Appliances. These were all 28ft single axle van trailers.
However the majority we had built for us by a chap at Fossett near Richmond North Yorkshire. He built us new 40 ft tandem trailer chassis, using second hand refurbished running gear. At the time 33 ft trailers were being disposed of everywhere and we could pick them up very reasonably. That is how we got the running gear. The axles were stripped and completely refurbished and Fletcher built us new trailers, and we never had one problem with them.
Originally we had bodies built by both Marsden and Van Plan and then we commenced with our own company Coachskill. I have attached a photo of a TM pulling a Fletcher trailer with bodywork by Coachskill.
We also had three 40 foot curtainsiders built for us on Fletcher trailers but I cannot remember the company that did this body building for us.
As I said I don’t think anyone knew how many trailers we actually had, all I know we built a lot and only parted with the two we sold to Devereux.
Bewick:
This is a shot of one of our early York SL34 40 footers probably no 7 or 8 standing at the Mill in Beetham the date would be around early '72 and this trailer was only operated at 30 ton GVW at the time coupled to the Atki Borderers we were running.
Dennis,
You need to patch that hole in the flysheet!
Rgds,
David 
curnock:
Wheel Nut:
Chris Webb:
3300John:
Hiya…i did’nt know where to print this photo but as were talking about weights and lenghts.
i woundered what you think of this tipper…i took the snap last month in France…could we
run at 44 ton in the uk with such a short trailer like this one
there was plenty of scrubing from the tyres when he went round tight corners
sorry to go off the 40ft theme but was stunned to see such short trailers and to show you lads
JohnI noticed that sort of tackle when I was in France a couple of weeks ago John. Some artic tippers were so short I thought they were 8-wheelers at first.
It seems the way they are, but the French axle limits are much higher, they allow 13 tonne drive axles at 40 tonne on 5 axles
surely when on top weight it cant be any good on the tyres and clutch with the drag !!
,unless it stretches out lik a slider ■■
The Germans used to run them even closer coupled, there was so little room between the tyres, you could have rolled a perfect Rizla ■■■.
It shouldn’t affect a clutch at all, it is supposed to be “in or out,” or “out or in” depending on your age!
Do you let the clutch out?
or
Do you let it in?
5thwheel:
Bewick:
This is a shot of one of our early York SL34 40 footers probably no 7 or 8 standing at the Mill in Beetham the date would be around early '72 and this trailer was only operated at 30 ton GVW at the time coupled to the Atki Borderers we were running.Dennis,
You need to patch that hole in the flysheet!
Rgds,
David
You cannot be serious!! ( John McEnroe!) And I’m not going up into the loft to find the photo and “doctor” what is,take it from me,a blemish!!! We never put any sheets on our loads that had holes in them and that particular fly sheet looks like it is more-or-less new in any case!! I rest my case M’Lud !! Cheers Dennis.
Glad its a blemish on the photo, I’ve been trying to clean it off my computer screen for 10 mins
Trev_H:
Glad its a blemish on the photo, I’ve been trying to clean it off my computer screen for 10 mins
I’m assuming it’s a blemish Trev!!! It’s a funny sort of hole if it is’nt,it’s as black as hell under that fly if it was a hole!! One thing Trev you’d need “night vision” goggles if you went under looking for ethnics!!! Cheers Dennis.