Hi it is wrong to open up but every body seems to be doing same as putting general 40foot containers on trombone steps for return loads.
A friendly man from the ministry said it is something they have been told to tighten up on.
So be careful out there
Cheers Rich
Was at a customers the other day, and he told me he’d cancelled his order for an extending combine trailer as his driver claimed he had been talking to VOSA, and the rules for using extended trailers had now been changed, from two items from the same collection point to the same delivery point, to only one over length item at all times 
.
I’m thinking along the lines that the driver wants to keep an easy life, and stick with his present trailer 
but I could be wrong 
the driver is full of [zb] and needs the sack.
Am a touch confused …
assuming we are talking outside notifiable loads , as far as I know there has never been a regulation on long loads being from the same collection point or delivery point.
The only thing close is under STGO 2 in that you can carry from a collection point two items similar that puts you into STGO 2 but as long as after you drop one, and the other puts you into C&U regs you can do want you want. ( note: the weight of the first item has to put you into STGO regs to take advantage of this, both added together doesnt count)
On long… as long have you have a single peice that requires the trailer to be extended . if your running under C&U regs you can put onto the trailer anything else you want up to C&U regs limits, the moment you take off the trailer anything that requires the trailer to be extended you lose the exemption and have to comply with normal limits
Who runs the show? the driver or the gaffer?
Some random driver speaks to some random VOSA guy and the boss cancels an order on their say so. The regulations are fairly simple to understand and are not difficult to find, especially with the internet.
fta.co.uk/emembership/year-b … _loads.pdf
More than one abnormal load
Only one abnormal load may be carried on a vehicle or combination at one time, except as follows:
Category 1
Two or more abnormal indivisible loads may be carried if they are of the same character.
An abnormal indivisible load together with articles of a ‘character similar to the load’ is also
permissable.
Note: In practice this only applies to wide and/or long loads. To apply to heavy loads, one load
would have to make the vehicle exceed 44t gvw (ie to come under STGO regulations),while the addition of a second load ‘of similar character’ must not make the vehicle
exceed 50t gvw (ie to remain within Category 1).
Category 1 and Category 2
Two or more abnormal indivisible loads may be carried if:
1 each load is the same character; and
2 they are loaded at the same place and carried to the same destination; and
3 the overall width of any vehicle used does not exceed the width necessary to carry the widest
single load; and
4 the overall length does not exceed the length necessary to carry the longest single load.
An abnormal indivisible load consisting of engineering plant, together with constituent parts
detached from the plant, may be carried if:
1 the engineering plant and its detached parts are loaded at the same place and carried
to the same destination; and
2 the detached parts do not constitute any lateral, forward or rearward projection of the
load that exceeds any projection existing without those parts.
I imagine the regulations were thought out to prevent Fred Bloggs picking up a 30 metre silo and then nipping into Pallex for a couple of urgent pallets for the local high street.
Sounds like someone (probably the driver) got it wrong, or theres a lot of companies breaking the rules on a daily basis.
The insinuation was that because a combine can be split from its cutter bar, (see avatar piccy) if they can’t both fit on a trailer without it being extended then they had to be carried on two loads.
Now there’s not many combines that can be moved without a movement order to cover the width, so noting the length on the order to cover the length usually keeps things kosher.
Weight wise is not a problem so easy to keep within normal C&U axle and gross weights.
I’m thinking its a load of ■■■■■■■■, and the guy concerned just wants an easy life, with no combines to cart
Another one that could be called upon are the trucks that support cranes with all the ballast blocks… divisible but…
zippy!:
Another one that could be called upon are the trucks that support cranes with all the ballast blocks… divisible but…
Crane ballast works under special VS orders , in effect an exemption from the indivisible load qualification. If the load is divisble and can therefore be carried on another vehicle then I cant see it being legal to extend the trailer.
Rikki-UK:
zippy!:
Another one that could be called upon are the trucks that support cranes with all the ballast blocks… divisible but…Crane ballast works under special VS orders , in effect an exemption from the indivisible load qualification. If the load is divisble and can therefore be carried on another vehicle then I cant see it being legal to extend the trailer.
Was a bit off topic, was leaning to the “indivisible” part! Wondered who would come up with the answer, should have guessed 
.
there’s been no change to the rules, but if you extend lengthwise to fit the header on then it isn’t legal strictly speaking is it?
that’s why continental firms like devriendt carry the machine on a very low beam trailer, with a special frame built up on the neck to support the header, so that one end is almost in the back of the truck cab, and the other is almost touching the combine’s windscreen - quite impressive use of space 
jj72:
there’s been no change to the rules, but if you extend lengthwise to fit the header on then it isn’t legal strictly speaking is it?
:
So all the firms selling extendable trailers designed to carry a combine have been encouraging their customers to work outside the law?, or is there some dispensation for a trailer designed to perform a specific task?
jj72:
that’s why continental firms like devriendt carry the machine on a very low beam trailer, with a special frame built up on the neck to support the header, so that one end is almost in the back of the truck cab, and the other is almost touching the combine’s windscreen
That doesn’t maker the header any shorter, I’ve usually got the header right up to the unit cab/combine windscreen before I extend, in the above case their sole priority would be to get the height down and keep the width to a minimum by taking the wheels off, as you well know transporting oversize items through mainland Europe is a real ball-ache
So all the firms selling extendable trailers designed to carry a combine have been encouraging their customers to work outside the law?, or is there some dispensation for a trailer designed to perform a specific task?
Just because it is able to be extended doesnt mean in any particular country it is legal to do so.
Any exemptions in the UK would be per load (or in certain cases for multiple loads such as the special orders for crane ballast) not specific to the trailer so the haulier would be the one to apply for it.
I havent done combine transport but I have not heard of any specific exemption within the law for them.
Big Joe:
Was at a customers the other day, and he told me he’d cancelled his order for an extending combine trailer as his driver claimed he had been talking to VOSA, and the rules for using extended trailers had now been changed,|
and the boss took that as true and didnt look into it■■? im going to tell my boss that if a driver spends more than one night out a week in his truck he must have every conceivable extra fitted inside and also be paid £100 per night out, and its true cos i heard someone say it when i was having my dinner in a cafe, and i will see if he’s as gulible as the customer you were talking to.
The law is here for long loads under STGO I cant find anything different than this for vehicles operating long loads outside STGO regs.
…
opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031998.htm
- (1) If the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (2) are satisfied, an AILV or AILV-combination which falls within Category 1 or 2 may carry two or more abnormal indivisible loads if each load is of the same character, loaded at the same place and carried to the same destination.
(2) The conditions are that -
(a) each of the abnormal indivisible loads to be carried cannot, if they were carried separately, safely be carried on a vehicle (or vehicle-combination) that complies in all respects with the Construction and Use Regulations and the Authorised Weight Regulations;
(b) the overall width of any vehicle used does not exceed the width of vehicle necessary to carry the widest single load;
(c) the overall length of the AILV or the AILV-combination does not exceed the length necessary to carry the longest single load;
Having had a quick read through I cannot see any exemption for combines to be carried in the manner above, and therefore (unless someone spots something in the regs) it seems the driver is correct in that it isnt legal here to extend the trailer over normal C&U limits to simply accomodate a 2nd peice that in itself doesnt require the trailer to be extended.,
Rikki-UK:
I havent done combine transport but I have not heard of any specific exemption within the law for them.
How about Farmers Goods Guv? 
I must have read the OP as something else and missed the fact that it was a combine trailer and the second item was the bed, forget the 30metre silo and two pallets 
Plenty of folk slagging the guy off for being pedantic, but it seems he may be correct
%20Camera%2002%20from%2030_04_2010%2002_42_19.jpg)
Looks like Mr long will be looking for yet another driver thought I hadn’t seen the Claas liveried Grafton trailer recently
And that shows the problem, it may be custom and practise to just open up a few holes on the trailer to get the header on, everyones been doing it for years with no problems - but that doesnt make it legal.
And when something goes wrong, maybe not even the drivers/operators fault, if the vehicle isnt in compliance guess who is going to get shafted?
Until I see something in the regulations that says it is legal to extend the trailer beyond whats needed to carry the longest or heaviest part in order to accomodate a second peice, I would be very wary.
I also recognise this is the real world, and this practise has probably been going on for years with a number of hauliers, and if you start insisting on a second vehicle to carry the header, and all that added expense to your clients then you are probably going to go out of business fairly quickly.
The best you can hope for is that this is noticed by the authorities, they make some sort of definative ruling, (hopefully someone else gets the test case in court and not you ) and if it is needing two vehicles, then look on the bright side everyone will be in the same boat, and you can sub out the second load and take a cut for doing very little.
Rikki-UK:
And that shows the problem, it may be custom and practise to just open up a few holes on the trailer to get the header on, everyones been doing it for years with no problems - but that doesnt make it legal.
very likely, i have to admit i’ve seen it done (and done it) many times but always realised it was pushing it legally speaking, UK or anywhere else