That is really interesting, I didn’t realise that such experiments were ongoing. If allowed it would bring UK trailer lengths closer to the standard US 53 feet one.
Just a small point though what was the 2nd comment all about, seemed to be about having a go at someone over the UK/US spelling of ise/ize, although I couldn’t find the comment referred to. On that point, I noticed on my American forum that a Canadian driver did use the English ise rather than the US ize. I always thought that they would follow the US way and was surorised enough to ask. but I didn’t get a reply.
Would such a trailer make it even more important to take care when turning left for instance from a left lane with vehicles in the right one? Or perhaps taking a wider swing, as we would anyway now, and risk taking out bollards in the centre of the road?
Something, BTW, that I really did manage to do in Bangor N. Wales many years ago with 70 foot beams on a 60 foot trailer. Nothing came of it and I reported as I left town to the council depot where I was due to stop anyway to meet my police ■■■■■■ for the rest of the journey.
Well chaps a bit more info on the 15.6mtr trailer above, it is a Cartwright positive steer rear axle, it is 1.3mtrs high and the pics are of the ID plates to said trailer which is for sale K10 , cheers Buzzer
This type of trailer was discussed some time ago on the “professional” side of TN, I think it’s a self tracker, and locks when reversing.
Positive off the 5th wheel-hydraulic pressure activates the rear steer. Trailer runs pretty much like a 45ft as it turns on the tandem axles in the middle. Yes, you have watch the rear overhang but they go into fields thru standard gates so can’t be to bad. Worst thing is the sway you get on bad roads ie the East Anglian fens!
My view was it’s a liability taking the irrational Brit aversion to cut in to the ridiculous tail sweep extreme.I wouldn’t want to drive the thing whatever they paid me.
I would, I would consider it an interesting experience and would be extremely disappointed if I couldn’t master the technique. But I don’t think that would be a problem, adding as it would do to my professional experience.
I taught myself to drive an artic, no lessons in those days, and, after only one weekend practising on waste land, drove to Liverpool docks and reversed it into a dark warehouse to be tipped.
I too would like to have a wheel around with one of those trailers. Why not?
The longer trailers as shown obviously carry more goods, but need no extra road width. To have the same length trailer with the axles at the back would mean more cut in, and more damage to roads and tyres.
Having pulled conventional extended trailers, the cut in is very noticeable. We can deal with it, but why deal with what can be avoided by good design?
To Patrick @pv83 and all other ‘heavy’ drivers, have you seen this reconstruction and what do you think of it?
For what it is worth my own contribution is in a reply (as ‘D’) to the 3rd comment down, ‘earlmauger’.
Interesting, and to save your grief for the ‘pusher’ driver, both he and his wife were actually on the back of the trailer operating the steering (not sure how the tractor itself was steered) and jumped clear before the impact. Everything else, including the train, or part of it, was written off. Very expensive.
From the accident report:
" no one contacted the railroad in either accident to determine whether it was
safe to cross the tracks."
“the minimum time the vehicle would occupy the crossing was between 57 seconds and 2 minutes 50 seconds. Active railroad grade crossing devices are required to provide a minimum of 20 seconds of warning time to motorists before the arrival of a train, and typically these devices provide between 20 and 25 seconds of warning. The warning devices at this crossing provided a warning time of 25 seconds”
But also this was the second time this occurred here!
“This accident was very similar to the 1993 accident at the same location. Although
the motor carrier was different, the KUA was not only the owner of the crossing and the receiver of both loads, it also had representatives at the crossing during both collisions”
Wow. I got really interested in that and have just finished reading the whole report, though speed reading where I didn’t see it as relevant. Mind blowing. There was a requirement in Florida to notify the rail authorities of the movement, but the carrier, who didn’t know this, had nevertheless tried for a long time to find a contact to do so anyway.
1 of the 3 es cort drivers did not have a permit for Florida, and one of the truck drivers didn’t either.
This came to my notice because of a driver on the American forum pointing us in the direction of the accident. How was I to know that it would prove so fascinating. Thanks for the link @franglais …
As a result of this I have looked at a couple of other NTSB YT reconstructions, one of which was a bit close to me involving a ship collison in an American waterway. The pilot(s) in this case were at fault but it reminded me of my own terrifying experience at the wheel of a tanker through Suez. On that occasion my nervousness was unfounded, my pilot was the soul of calm, as was the captain on the bridge with us. Remembering that, if I had been with these 2 clowns I would have become a dribbling wreck.
I found it amazing that the company (KUA) having the load delivered had a similar accident previously. Not learning from another’s mistake is not good, but not learning from your own mistake is awful. Maybe the personnel had changed, but not putting a suitable procedure in place is terrible.
It happened twice, literally on their own doorstep.
Nothing came of it and I reported as I left town to the council depot where I was due to stop anyway to meet my police ■■■■■■ for the rest of the journey. 
