with a skelly it must be set for required box ie if loaded 20 ft it must be in the middle with the pins set for loaded 20ft so running with trailer closed up is not legal
mulbs:
with a skelly it must be set for required box ie if loaded 20 ft it must be in the middle with the pins set for loaded 20ft so running with trailer closed up is not legal
The op stated it was empty box so does not apply- crack on mate - no different to a fixed 20?
mulbs:
with a skelly it must be set for required box ie if loaded 20 ft it must be in the middle with the pins set for loaded 20ft so running with trailer closed up is not legal
Again…
(as others have asked)
Which law is being broken?
mulbs:
with a skelly it must be set for required box ie if loaded 20 ft it must be in the middle with the pins set for loaded 20ft so running with trailer closed up is not legal
Not according to vosa.
Old John:
Many years ago, there was a case brought against ABELS REMOVALS, for running rigid trucks with excessively long rear overhangs.
The company’s defence was, that as the bodies were demountable, they were part of the load and not part of the vehicle, and as there was no maximum rear overhang prescribed in law which applied to a load, there was no case to answer.
This defence failed, as the court ruled that as the vehicle could not have carried the load unless it had been contained within the body, that the body was in fact , part of the vehicle , and not part of the load.
As far as I know, this ruling established a precedent which still applies to this day, and should apply equally to an ISO container mounted on a skeletal or any other trailer suitable for the purpose.
In short, if DVSA try to say that a container, whether loaded or empty, is part of a load, I’d take great pleasure in pointing this out to them.ps. It was all a bit embarrassing at the time for ABELS , as I think their chairman, Steve Abel, was also at the time chair of the RHA.
I didn’t think any one was arguing that the container was part of the truck it clearly isn’t. I don’t think the argument is valid any way as a demountable is designed to be carried on a truck. Where as a ISO container is designed to be carried and moved by several different types of vehicle, It is I think a different kettle of fish.
As the container is part of the load an empty container on the skelly means the skelly is loaded and should be in the 20’ position. I have seen Skellies with a speed limit printed on the side and it was for a loaded box and the limit was 5mph in the closed position. I have never seen a limit for an unloaded box but that doesn’t mean you can use it on the roads in the closed position. I don’t think a skeletal trailer is designed to be used on the road in the closed position loaded or not. To me this is the main point.
And before any one mentions it I am talking about extending trailers not ones that are designed to split.
To DD nice one 
I once tried it on a run empty just for the novelty (we didn’t have any stickers on our trailers 
).
It was a a bit of a dog really. Seemed like it was slapping on and off the fith wheel. Every time it slapped down on bumps it made the cab shake . Felt a bit slippy prone round corners for the unit drive wheels. I couldn’t really work out the benefit either as it still didn’t fit into a Tesco car park space . Not sure why I did it really other than the craic. I didn’t get pulled. I didn’t think it was illegal, pointless a bit but not dodgy?
Freight Dog:
I once tried it on a run empty just for the novelty (we didn’t have any stickers on our trailersIt was a a bit of a dog really. Seemed like it was slapping on and off the fith wheel. Every time it slapped down on bumps it made the cab shake
This sums it up quite nicely, when you shorten the trailer the front end lifts which not only takes weight off the rear axle but can lift it when you hit a bump.
So…
No one can tell us why it’s allegedly against the law just, that it is against the law.
I tried it once, and it drives absolute rubbish, as the short wheelbase pushes the tractor unit straight in the corners.
Many manufacturers advise not to drive with a shortened chassis for the forces on the chassis rails and kingpins.
Legal a container is packaging, so it’s qualified as load, empty or not.
A demountable is not packaging, so is a part of the vehicle.
You cannot let a demountable travel on its own, like you can do a container on rails or ship.
And so yes you should carry a waybill or a CMR for an empty container.
(The French and Belgiums and lesser the Germans where famous to fine you for not doing so)
yourhavingalarf:
So…No one can tell us why it’s allegedly against the law just, that it is against the law.
The reason I never mentioned the law is because I don’t know if it is illegal or not, but inadvisable. If it is illegal I would have thought it would be some thing to do with using it in a way that is was not designed for. I’ve read some thing about this before but I can’t remember what. I’m quite sure if they wished our beloved authorities could think of some thing.
Iv.e never heard of a driver has been done for it and plenty do run like that, or they go and ask VOSA where they stand you will never get a straight answer to the question, I have heard of 1 getting done but that was a heavily loaded box, IIRC he actually crashed it.
Just because a sticker says do it like this or like that doesn’t make it law, the majority of them are put on there by the company who owns and runs that trailer and they want it done like that, which is over and above what the manufacurer puts on from new, that’s called company policy.
I have asked VOSA this question before and their answer is, as long as the axle weights are legal, they have no interest.
If anyone is really bothered about it, they should ask VOSA/DVSA next time they see them.
Iv’e done it a couple of times myself, sometimes it makes it easier to get out of tight areas but a bit bumpy as said, so i just open it up to the loaded 30’ box position instead.