Carryfast:
newmercman:
This one is pretty decent too.
That one looks like it’s RHD and suspiciously like 6x4 if only the camera shot had been more considerately taken a around a foot further back to be sure.That just leaves the Fuller box and conversion to a rigid.
It is a 6x4, you can tell from the hubs and the suicide mirror tells you it was indeed RHD.
Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk
[zb]
anorak:
I can also see that problems may surface on soft ground, on which a double drive bogie may be less inclined to sink in. The best-of-all-worlds system, of course, is the lift-axle double drive bogie described above, which brings us back to the photo of the Robson-drive 6x2 Scania which sparked this debate off in the first place.
That’s the issue.Using weight to compensate for loss of traction only works when the road surface is strong/firm enough to push the extra axle weight against.IE the totally different specific case of firm but just slippery ground ( IE certainly not deep soft snow or sand ).While effectively clamping the drive wheels in a type of vice against the road surface also obviously puts a load of extra load through the whole drive line.While also smashing expensive to maintain long distance road surfaces,and/or wrecking/collapsing already weak cheaply maintained if maintained at all road surfaces further.
As for the Robson idea as I said it’s shown here doing absolutely nothing because as expected it isn’t providing enough added drive force transmission in the way that a proper double drive set up would.
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
This one is pretty decent too.
That one looks like it’s RHD and suspiciously like 6x4 if only the camera shot had been more considerately taken a around a foot further back to be sure.That just leaves the Fuller box and conversion to a rigid.
It is a 6x4, you can tell from the hubs and the suicide mirror tells you it was indeed RHD.
I’d guess that’s close enough to an iconic 1970’s proper Brit operated Middle East runner. 
Here is one good to
V8Lenny:
Scania 111, because it was easier to service, more reliable and more fuel efficient than 141, 6x2 tag axle with rear airsuspension, front parabolics, factory fitted airconditioning and nightheater.
I’ve spoken to a few operators and drivers over the years that rated the 6 cylinder scanias better than the V8"s when overlanding to the middle east especially off road.they said that the V8"s when bogging down could twist props and snap UJ"s and halfsharfts,where as the 110/111 would simply run out of power and bog down casing no damage
europleb:
I’ve spoken to a few operators and drivers over the years that rated the 6 cylinder scanias better than the V8"s when overlanding to the middle east especially off road.they said that the V8"s when bogging down could twist props and snap UJ"s and halfsharfts,where as the 110/111 would simply run out of power and bog down casing no damage
At that point the advantages of hub reduction together with double drive start to apply.Which is probably where a proper specced Merc wins out.
About 30 years ago I started researching the early British international hauliers for a potential book (which never happened for various reasons some of which I cannot disclose, even now). Concentrating on the double vs single drive issue, then the early into Europe pioneers, such as Fridged Freight (John Wyatt Jnr) preferred double drive even for European work. Of course these were usually using eight wheeler rigids with drawbar trailers and running at gross weights way in excess of the UK maximum of the time (1950s / early 1960s), so double drive was the sensible choice, if only for handling the weights. When he moved onto artics Wyatt used some 3 axle tractors. As for the middle east pioneers, as stated by other contributors, it was very much the unknown, so double drive was the best option for any eventuality. Of course some international hauliers specified double drive units into the 1990s, an example being Lowe of Paddock Wood, a belt and braces option maybe?
Hers a good picture An 89 2 88 290’s A 88 240 A DAF 2800 and Ford Transcontinental
gingerfold:
About 30 years ago I started researching the early British international hauliers for a potential book (which never happened for various reasons some of which I cannot disclose, even now). Concentrating on the double vs single drive issue, then the early into Europe pioneers, such as Fridged Freight (John Wyatt Jnr) preferred double drive even for European work. Of course these were usually using eight wheeler rigids with drawbar trailers and running at gross weights way in excess of the UK maximum of the time (1950s / early 1960s), so double drive was the sensible choice, if only for handling the weights. When he moved onto artics Wyatt used some 3 axle tractors. As for the middle east pioneers, as stated by other contributors, it was very much the unknown, so double drive was the best option for any eventuality. Of course some international hauliers specified double drive units into the 1990s, an example being Lowe of Paddock Wood, a belt and braces option maybe?
I always assumed Lowe ran 6x4s because they did so many farm pick-ups. Robert
On the ME run double drive trucks were in the minority,it was mostly road trains which had them.Only a few co’s had them as artics,Oryx freight.Afghan int,Buitelaar and Rynarts were about the only co’s who had them in any quantity.Various co’s had the odd one,mostly for special loads.
Europeans hadn’t really discovered bogie lift vehicles,again a few road trains and the odd artic.We had the problem for double drives in Uk due to the weight [32t] and price factor.A few co’s used to go out with 32t and add on in Europé.
Thanks for clarifying that for me Hutpik, would you say that the rigid and drawbar trailer was the preferred choice in the early years of ME running?
Robert, as I have posted previously Lowe’s was probably an unusual operation in the 1990s when Turners bought the transport side and we took the units and trailers into the Newmarket fleet. I don’t believe there were any more farm collections on Lowes than other fridge operators had. When Turners bought the business, Lowes work was predominantly the NAAFI contract. We inherited ERF 6x4 units some with Gardner 16 litre 6LYT units, others with 10 litre ■■■■■■■■ so quite a difference there! I cannot now remember which had what gearboxes but there were some Eaton Twin Splitters. The trailers were 24 pallet capacity but very heavy, and we finished up using most of them as static fridges at certain customers. Interesting times.
Carryfast:
Look again closely at this especially 4.05 - 4.30.Chocolate teapot seems to be the right description.
youtube.com/watch?v=_b6naEfSPag
It does not appear to be transmitting much torque at all. Is there something wrong with the mechanism, or is the driver in error to deploy it with the tag axle raised? Our Scandinavian contributors’ experience of the things will come in handy here.
gingerfold:
Thanks for clarifying that for me Hutpik, would you say that the rigid and drawbar trailer was the preferred choice in the early years of ME running?Robert, as I have posted previously Lowe’s was probably an unusual operation in the 1990s when Turners bought the transport side and we took the units and trailers into the Newmarket fleet. I don’t believe there were any more farm collections on Lowes than other fridge operators had. When Turners bought the business, Lowes work was predominantly the NAAFI contract. We inherited ERF 6x4 units some with Gardner 16 litre 6LYT units, others with 10 litre ■■■■■■■■ so quite a difference there! I cannot now remember which had what gearboxes but there were some Eaton Twin Splitters. The trailers were 24 pallet capacity but very heavy, and we finished up using most of them as static fridges at certain customers. Interesting times.
Thanks for that! Yes, now that you mention it I remember something of that previous conversation. Cheers, Robert
Hi all.I Think that ‘‘roadtrains’’ were never that prevelant anywhere in the UK transport world.They were always more popular in Europé due to a higher weight system.For ME transport they were usefull if you had split drops[i.e.different countries] as you could have 2 carnet TIR’s which made customs easier.I drove single drive,double drive,artics,and roadtrains.They all had pluses and minuses.I Think at the end it all comes down to personal experience\preference,destinations and finances.
As to the ‘‘Robson drive’’ i Think some people had them fitted as a cheaper\lighter alternative to a double drive.We had a couple of older trucks with them but they are now almost obsolete.They had a tendency to damage tyres.
As regards the utube clip,if you are stuck in soft sand have a good tow rope,lots of friends and some shovels.
Robert, just been thinking about farm collections, and with the growth in supermarket work by the 1990s most of the larger growers and farms had their own pack houses with loading docks etc. They also had “proper” roads into the farms, either concrete surfaces or macadam. Some of the more seasonal fruit growers, i.e, strawberries and other soft fruit, had the age old system of lifting the pallets onto the rear of the trailer for the driver to move them forwards with a hand pump truck, but even they had a good roadway. What we found with some of the fenland farms with roads built on soft, peaty foundations was that over a period of time the roads became very undulating and the sides of the road crumbled and cracked. If it was single track, as most were, then you had to be careful where you put your wheels or you could easily get yourself in to trouble.
gingerfold:
About 30 years ago I started researching the early British international hauliers for a potential book (which never happened for various reasons some of which I cannot disclose, even now). Concentrating on the double vs single drive issue, then the early into Europe pioneers, such as Fridged Freight (John Wyatt Jnr) preferred double drive even for European work. Of course these were usually using eight wheeler rigids with drawbar trailers and running at gross weights way in excess of the UK maximum of the time (1950s / early 1960s), so double drive was the sensible choice, if only for handling the weights. When he moved onto artics Wyatt used some 3 axle tractors. As for the middle east pioneers, as stated by other contributors, it was very much the unknown, so double drive was the best option for any eventuality. Of course some international hauliers specified double drive units into the 1990s, an example being Lowe of Paddock Wood, a belt and braces option maybe?
Belt and braces probably would be that double drive and hub reduction combination.Then the choice between drawbar v artic.In either case the Brits were always going to be on the back foot regards availability of choice and cost.
gingerfold:
Robert, just been thinking about farm collections, and with the growth in supermarket work by the 1990s most of the larger growers and farms had their own pack houses with loading docks etc. They also had “proper” roads into the farms, either concrete surfaces or macadam. Some of the more seasonal fruit growers, i.e, strawberries and other soft fruit, had the age old system of lifting the pallets onto the rear of the trailer for the driver to move them forwards with a hand pump truck, but even they had a good roadway. What we found with some of the fenland farms with roads built on soft, peaty foundations was that over a period of time the roads became very undulating and the sides of the road crumbled and cracked. If it was single track, as most were, then you had to be careful where you put your wheels or you could easily get yourself in to trouble.
Yes, you are right. The only reason I mentioned it was because I was doing a lot of farm pick-ups with fridge trailers in Kent (ie Lowe country!) when those B & C-series were alive. Many farms were in the process of upgrading or had already done so, but there was still a significant number of smaller ones that you could (and did) get bogged down in. There were always tractors on hand to pull you out, of course, so it was never a big issue. Cheers, Robert.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
About 30 years ago I started researching the early British international hauliers for a potential book (which never happened for various reasons some of which I cannot disclose, even now). Concentrating on the double vs single drive issue, then the early into Europe pioneers, such as Fridged Freight (John Wyatt Jnr) preferred double drive even for European work. Of course these were usually using eight wheeler rigids with drawbar trailers and running at gross weights way in excess of the UK maximum of the time (1950s / early 1960s), so double drive was the sensible choice, if only for handling the weights. When he moved onto artics Wyatt used some 3 axle tractors. As for the middle east pioneers, as stated by other contributors, it was very much the unknown, so double drive was the best option for any eventuality. Of course some international hauliers specified double drive units into the 1990s, an example being Lowe of Paddock Wood, a belt and braces option maybe?Belt and braces probably would be that double drive and hub reduction combination.Then the choice between drawbar v artic.In either case the Brits were always going to be on the back foot regards availability of choice and cost.
CF, the main reason for UK not following the continental penchant for draw-bar outfits, was simply because until the late '60s or even early '70s (I’ve forgotten when) there was still an outmoded legal requirement for a drawbar outfit to be double-manned with a trailer man. It was his job to sit in the passenger seat and heave on the trailer brake. When more sophisticated braking was invented, the double-manning rule was not rescinded until it was too late; by which time we had become an artic orientated country. History lesson over! Cheers, Robert
Like you Robert, I can’t remember when the second man, or trailer mate rule was rescinded. 1968 seems to ring a bell with the amendment to C & U Regs that permitted 40’ semi-trailers. Then again, it could have been 1971. Someone on here will provide the definitive answer, no doubt.
Mike is right, few UK operators had 6 wheel tractor units but on Oryx Freightlines all the tractors , with the exception of a few Scanias left over from J&T, they were all 6 wheelers but split 50/50 between 6x2 lift axles and 6x4.
I suspect this was not as the result of any decision but more that to get 30 odd 6 wheeler F89s in a hurry it was a case of taking what they had. As further to that the 6x4s were on Trilex wheels so were probably built for export.
I drove a 6x2 but often ran with 6x4s and on the desert the 6x2 was a little better unless you were really heavy loaded in which case the 6x4 truimphed.
Mike is right it was as much personal preference as anything.
David
