Yeah, it’s hard to imagine that you can legally have a gvw of 50tons in a rigid vehicule thats not in a special class.Of course we can’t compare the Gardner engines of yesteryear to their modern equivalent any more than we can compare them to the earlier wood and coal fed steam powered engines.Everyone agrees(almost) in their day they were the horse for the course,but when they lost their shoes they were put out to grass.
gingerfold:
Increasing gross vehicle weights. Every time there has been an increase in gross vehicle weights and / or vehicle lengths history tells us that the hauliers’ profit margins have been squeezed further. There is no proportionate increase in rates paid by the customer for a larger vehicle that is more costly to buy and operate. Customers (tipper users excepted) generally pay for the full load they want moving, not by its weight or number of pallets (groupage and pallet network stuff excepted). The last thing those of us running or managing businesses in the hire and reward general haulage sector (in its widest meaning) want is longer and / or heavier vehicles, because we cannot afford the investment it would require and there would not be any additional return on our capital invested in such equipment. The only way to reduce the number of lorries on the road is to run our fleets more efficiently by more double shifting etc if we can and those are the opportunities we are always trying to identify.
That paragraph says it all about the difference between the British view of how to run an efficient operation and the Scandinavian one and that view has applied through recent history.I also explains in large part the reason why the British manufacturers went under but their Scandinavian competition didn’t.Because as we’ve seen with all the protests against why using LHV’s doesn’t work there aren’t many operators who’ve ever grown their businesses by staying with smaller lower weight trucks when size and/or dimension limits were increased or by downsizing in the case of those who were running max weight vehicles.
There’s been lots of comments related to Bewick’s success when defending the Gardner way of doing things but the inconvenient truth is it doesn’t seem like he wanted to stay running at 32 t gross when the weight limits were increased and he also obviously didn’t want to stay with the Gardner idea of specific outputs and power to gross weight ratios.No surprise when those weights were increased he took advantage of that increase like all the rest and also took advantage of the extra power outputs of Scandinavian trucks compared to running an old fashioned Gardner powered fleet.
It seems obvious that just as I’ve said most of the advantage that the scandinavians had in the uk market and the reason for British trucks being lumbered with outdated power ouputs,especially in the form of naturally aspirated Gardner engines being used into the 1980’s,was in large part owing to the outdated views of many British operators just like those above and the government being biased towards rail transport by artificially holding back the efficiency of the British road transport industry.
On that issue nothing seems to have changed and you can bet that ‘if’ the euro parlaiment does eventually come to it’s senses,by allowing 60 t gross LHV’s to operate throughout europe,then the Brits as usual,will be behind everyone else but they’ll be there eventually running 600-750 hp trucks like all the rest and just like before it’ll be the Scandinavian manufacturers who’ll have the advantage in that case,of already having the required power outputs to do it,all based on the different views,towards road transport,which apply in their domestic market.
The so called ‘great’ Gardner engine was just a symptom of everything that was ( still is ) backward in the thinking of the British road transport industry and the British government’s views towards same.
Back home after a week in the sun with “the lads” (hangover still present) and its the same old same old ,at least he`s consistent
Let’s for the sake of argument assume that CF’s wish for 60 tons comes in tomorrow along with the trailers or multiple trailers to accommodate the load. Who is prepared to not only drive the things, but to load and unload them with a pump up truck for the same money - or probably more realistically less- than they are getting today? Remember it is the workers’ duty to subsidise the multi-million pound companies that will ultimately reap the benefit from such an increase.
Perhaps more on theme, how many bhp would you expect under the bonnet. I’ll settle for a 6LW and the time to see the countryside meander by.
C/F my man I wonder how this country has survived the wars that they encountered, & all without yor comments or help, You condem British workers & the Industry, So why dont you make a right arse of yourself again & put up for goverment & see how many votes you get Eh, If you turn out like a boat anchor it would be no more than you deserve, you are a loser before you start, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
C/F my man I wonder how this country has survived the wars that they encountered, & all without yor comments or help, You condem British workers & the Industry,
If you had read my posts and were able to understand them you’d have known that I’ve actually been defending British workers and the British truck manufacturing industry,against accusations that they contributed to the demise of that industry and their own jobs.When the reasons are mostly,if not all,the result of the British government’s economic and transport policies compared to the Scandinavians and the Europeans and the backward demands of the uk truck market.
cav551:
Let’s for the sake of argument assume that CF’s wish for 60 tons comes in tomorrow along with the trailers or multiple trailers to accommodate the load. Who is prepared to not only drive the things, but to load and unload them with a pump up truck for the same money - or probably more realistically less- than they are getting today? Remember it is the workers’ duty to subsidise the multi-million pound companies that will ultimately reap the benefit from such an increase.
So a train load of 40 and 20 ft containers go’s by rail and then gets taken to/from the rail head to/from it’s destination by road.Who unloads and loads that as things are now 
.The aim is to take the bit that rail is doing at present but the rail freight lot don’t like the idea of competition.
Well C/F If you are as smart as you claim to be, why not go into politics & try your hand there ?, & see if you can put the country back into form & the Great back into Great Britain, Im sure If you could pull it off you would be a hero & not the unliked object that you are on this thread that leads a sad life in my book, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well C/F If you are as smart as you claim to be, why not go into politics & try your hand there ?, & see if you can put the country back into form & the Great back into Great Britain, Im sure If you could pull it off you would be a hero & not the unliked object that you are on this thread that leads a sad life in my book, Regards Larry.
Whatever.If you think that’s a more intelligent contribution to the discussion.
What sort of a reply is that ? From a person that seems to be above every one , Why dont you go & preach your crap elsewhere & do us all a favour Eh. Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
What sort of a reply is that ? From a person that seems to be above every one , Why dont you go & preach your crap elsewhere & do us all a favour Eh. Regards Larry.
Is the wind blowing a bit where you are to-night Larry ? Well go to the coservatory doors and try “■■■■■■■■ into it,you’ll have more luck than trying to “reason” with CF,Oh! sod it I’ve ■■■■■■ all over my Boiler suit legs,the Wife will go mad when I take these off when I get up in the morning !!! Cheers Dennis.
Dennis, I would rather ■■■■ on him as spoil a good boiler suit, come on you or I couldnt or wouldnt go to work smelling of hit & miss would we ? We a proper motivated Hauliers that worked & emloyed the best drivers that one could get & did our bit for King & Country, So C/F can go back to his corner & think some more ■■■■■ to spout about Great Britain, I think he mustnt of had a hard paper round like most of us did, I will give it some thought & see if I can fathom out what makes him tick, Duracell comes to mind,Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
What sort of a reply is that ? From a person that seems to be above every one , Why dont you go & preach your crap elsewhere & do us all a favour Eh. Regards Larry.
Well said Larry, some of us might start to use this thead then.
How come CF wasn’t on the U.S. Marshals flight back to the U S of A last night,from Mildenhall ,we should have gone down and “collared” the bugger Larry and snuck him into the luggage hold for the trip 'ower,one things for certain,he wouldn’t have been able to say 'owt when they got him off at the other end( well that would be a change eh!),he’d be like a Foxes glacier mint—frozen solid !! Cheers Dennis.
Aye Dennis that would have rid us of him for good, but mind you he speaketh with forked tongue, That is If he thawed out , But he is a lucky sod, because he is still preaching his CRAP On this thread , Mind you to be fair he hasnt cost us tax payers as much as the one eyed git has, I think, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Aye Dennis that would have rid us of him for good, but mind you he speaketh with forked tongue, That is If he thawed out , But he is a lucky sod, because he is still preaching his CRAP On this thread , Mind you to be fair he hasnt cost us tax payers as much as the one eyed git has, I think, Regards Larry.
Hang on there Larry,he would cost us a dammed site more if ever he got his hands on “the levers of power”,summat like what Harold Wilson said “get off your Asses you are now in the land of milk and honey” I think Doh! my head hurts !! Cheers Dennis.
Aye Dennis, Perhaps he is related to owld Harrold (■■■■■■■ Wilson, Who said youve a pound in ya pocket , but of course the greedy old git who sold us down the river meant his bloody pocket, Regards Larry.
cav551:
Let’s for the sake of argument assume that CF’s wish for 60 tons comes in tomorrow along with the trailers or multiple trailers to accommodate the load. Who is prepared to not only drive the things, but to load and unload them with a pump up truck for the same money - or probably more realistically less- than they are getting today? Remember it is the workers’ duty to subsidise the multi-million pound companies that will ultimately reap the benefit from such an increase.Perhaps more on theme, how many bhp would you expect under the bonnet. I’ll settle for a 6LW and the time to see the countryside meander by.
Whether you like it or not it will happen cav551.The Scandinavians have been running at 60 tons for years,they have no problem getting drivers to operate multiple trailers.The Dutch and the Germans are in the process of doing the same,so it’s pretty safe to assume that Britain and the rest of the EU will probably follow in time.At the moment in Holland it’s mainly confined to containers i.e. 1 40ft + 1 20ft,but in Scandinavia they also operate with tilts.I’m sure Bma finland can give more information than me.It would be interesting to hear his views.As for the industry bearing the brunt of the costs to upgrade to 60 tons regrettably that’s always been the case when any change regarding weights and length have been made.I agree with you that it’s not fair, the transport industry is and always has been,(at least for the last 30 years) squeezed almost dry absorbing these extra costs,hence the drive to produce more and more efficient engines and cut down to a minimum driver error(auto gearboxes,cruise controls etc.) in an effort to maximise any small profit that there may be.
Well at least you’re very predictable CF, the reply to my earlier post about longer / heavier vehicles is exactly what I expected and it proves once again, backward thinking or not on my part, that YOU have no knowledge or experience of managing a road transport operation. It might be backward thinking but it is economic reality.
Let me give you an example of how haulage margins have been squeezed over the years. Early 1970s, a fleet spec 32 tons gvw artic cost on average £5000 to purchase. On an average week the vehicle would earn £600 of revenue, 12% of the vehicle’s purchase cost. Today a DAF 85CF costs in the region of £65,000 to buy (depending on the purchasing scheme and dealer discounts). On a good week it might earn £2,600 of revenue, 4% of its purchase cost. The 1975 cost of derv was the equivalent of £0.35 per gallon, today it is £5.32 (net of VAT). Then you would get 6 mpg out of most 32 tonners, (7 mpg with a Gardner), my fleet average today is 8.0 mpg. (mainly 44 tonners). Drivers’ wages in 1975 were £50 a week, today average earnings of my drivers is £520 per week, which is quite close to the industry norm. I’m sure that I don’t need to elaborate any more, you will get the picture. Oh and by the way if in almost 40 years a driver’s wages have increased by a factor of 10, my salary as a manager has increased by a factor of 6, so don’t throw out one of your completely un-informed left wing diatribes about owners and managers taking all the profits out of road haulage.
The fuel is the killer I’m sure I read a post of Bewicks saying fuel was around 30% of his running costs. When I was doing ferry trailers it was almost 50% and I quickly realised I was on to a loser.