Turnpikes boil my ****

[billybigrig]

Carryfast:

Obviously they didn’t seem to think so when they went to all the trouble of putting that 84 tonner Stan Robinson outfit together and it’s only typical rail freight protective regs that stopped it going on the road.

farm1.static.flickr.com/200/5011 … 4aa670.jpg

You could be right but I suspect it was more to do with corners myself

Ask yourself a question CF. How many 44 tonners in this country run at top weight all the time

By the way the Bellechasse outfit was two 45 foot trailers not 40’s.

thedieselgypsy.com/Earlier%2 … ucking.htm

Running under special permit on limited routes in a time of crisis. Hardly general now eh ■■?

You should clip the coupons in the sun CF and pop over to Holland. I see loads of em every week over there

They call them LZVs. They have some really handy set ups

[carryfast]

billybigrig:

Carryfast:

Obviously they didn’t seem to think so when they went to all the trouble of putting that 84 tonner Stan Robinson outfit together and it’s only typical rail freight protective regs that stopped it going on the road.

farm1.static.flickr.com/200/5011 … 4aa670.jpg

You could be right but I suspect it was more to do with corners myself

Ask yourself a question CF. How many 44 tonners in this country run at top weight all the time

By the way the Bellechasse outfit was two 45 foot trailers not 40’s.

thedieselgypsy.com/Earlier%2 … ucking.htm

Running under special permit on limited routes in a time of crisis. Hardly general now eh ■■?

You should clip the coupons in the sun CF and pop over to Holland. I see loads of em every week over there

They call them LZVs. They have some really handy set ups

Where’s the sense in investing in buying and running a 40-44 tonner if it’s only going to be running at a lot less most of the time .However there’s nothing to lose and everything to gain by at least having the max weight capability in addition to the cube in regards to a doubles outfit in just the same way that there’s no point in running a 5 or 6 axle 40-44 tonner that’s only plated to run at 32-38 t max.

I think,like the Stan Robinson outfit,the Bellechasse one was actually a pioneering excercise in regards to getting the regs to allow the introduction of full size A trains.It’s just that whereas the British government won’t accept the idea at all the Canadian government did allow their use but with weight restrictions.It’s my bet that,like here,that has more to do with the rail freight interests than anything to do with any real actual drawbacks in the idea of running such outfits at max weight.

As for the Dutch it’s ironic that the Dutch government can see the advantages even limited to just running a few miles in a small country but the idea gets stalled as usual because the idea of running max weight LHV’s over long distances seems too much politically.Not practically.

[robinhood_1984]

Trucks here are under powered as it is. Armour are pulling A Trains in the Maritimes with 400bph Volvo’s that go up hill at 15mph our less with an A train behind. They’re supposed to have higher power units apparently, yet the brand new Volvo I got which was a gutless 400 downgraded to 350bhp (fuel economy apparently) was taken off me and put on to A trains. It could barely pull one trailer, let alone two.

[carryfast]

robinhood_1984:
Armour are pulling A Trains in the Maritimes with 400bph Volvo’s that go up hill at 15mph our less with an A train behind. They’re supposed to have higher power units apparently, yet the brand new Volvo I got which was a gutless 400 downgraded to 350bhp (fuel economy apparently) was taken off me and put on to A trains. It could barely pull one trailer, let alone two.

It would be interesting to see what the fuel figures for the Scania 620-730 V 8 would be doing that job in comparison to that downrated 400 Volvo motor.

[robinhood_1984]

Carryfast:

robinhood_1984:
Armour are pulling A Trains in the Maritimes with 400bph Volvo’s that go up hill at 15mph our less with an A train behind. They’re supposed to have higher power units apparently, yet the brand new Volvo I got which was a gutless 400 downgraded to 350bhp (fuel economy apparently) was taken off me and put on to A trains. It could barely pull one trailer, let alone two.

It would be interesting to see what the fuel figures for the Scania 620-730 V 8 would be doing that job in comparison to that downrated 400 Volvo motor.

Almost any European truck on the market at the moment would walk all over the junk we have here, especially when power matters with heavy loads. American trucks are much less advanced and as such seem to last longer but thats where the benefits end.

If you could find an old E-reg Volvo FL10 yeard shunter any where, that would quite possibly do better than the new American Volvo I had!

[newmercman]

Carryfast:
If you’re right about all those firms around here that were crying out for under 25 class 2 council drivers

But as I remember it the air freight firms round Heathrow were just that not long distance international operations

Two statements that explain it all

99% of international operators run artics

Long distance? How about starting at the bottom with a little run to Belgium or something similar?

The way things work is that you used to earn your stripes, you had an attitude similar to the want it all right now clowns that moan and whinge on the UK forum about not being given a brand new supermegatoptrotter XXL to do two nights out a week, except that it’s common now, 25yrs ago men were men and went out and did what they had to do

[kr79]

newmercman:

Carryfast:
If you’re right about all those firms around here that were crying out for under 25 class 2 council drivers

But as I remember it the air freight firms round Heathrow were just that not long distance international operations

Two statements that explain it all

99% of international operators run artics

Long distance? How about starting at the bottom with a little run to Belgium or something similar?

The way things work is that you used to earn your stripes, you had an attitude similar to the want it all right now clowns that moan and whinge on the UK forum about not being given a brand new supermegatoptrotter XXL to do two nights out a week, except that it’s common now, 25yrs ago men were men and went out and did what they had to do

You can either do what a mans got to do of stay at home ■■■■■■■■ while knocking one out over rokold and Peter roff pictures.

[billybigrig]

Carryfast:
Where’s the sense in investing in buying and running a 40-44 tonner if it’s only going to be running at a lot less most of the time .However there’s nothing to lose and everything to gain by at least having the max weight capability in addition to the cube in regards to a doubles outfit in just the same way that there’s no point in running a 5 or 6 axle 40-44 tonner that’s only plated to run at 32-38 t max.

Several reasons really CF. Flexibility for one. For example you might take 24 tons of waste paper into a factory and load 4 tons of bog roll back out. In the general haulage market you need to be able to be just that, “general”. No good having an empty 28 tonner in Plymouth if the only back loads need a 44 tonner.
Not all loads are heavy but some are.
Difference in running costs is negligible to be honest.
I drive a 40 ton unit with 420hp yet 95% of our loads barely put me at 25 ton. So I get good journey times and fuel mileage and can still haul those 5% of heavy loads.

As for the Dutch it’s ironic that the Dutch government can see the advantages even limited to just running a few miles in a small country but the idea gets stalled as usual because the idea of running max weight LHV’s over long distances seems too much politically.Not practically.

That’s the point though fella Transports not just about moving heavy loads over long distances. They use them also because of there flexibility. In the same way a wagon and drag with drop boxes would be used here The difference being it simplifies the equipment required and gives greater loading flexibility on diminishing loads

[switchlogic]

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
Where’s the sense in investing in buying and running a 40-44 tonner if it’s only going to be running at a lot less most of the time

Several reasons really CF. Flexibility for one. For example you might take 24 tons of waste paper into a factory and load 4 tons of bog roll back out. In the general haulage market you need to be able to be just that, “general”. No good having an empty 28 tonner in Plymouth if the only back loads need a 44 tonner.
Not all loads are heavy but some are.
Difference in running costs is negligible to be honest.
I drive a 40 ton unit with 420hp yet 95% of our loads barely put me at 25 ton. So I get good journey times and fuel mileage and can still haul those 5% of heavy loads.

Well answered but I considered his question so ridiculous it didn’t warrant an answer! It just shows it startling lack of knowledge of general haulage again

[carryfast]

newmercman:

Carryfast:
If you’re right about all those firms around here that were crying out for under 25 class 2 council drivers

But as I remember it the air freight firms round Heathrow were just that not long distance international operations

Two statements that explain it all

99% of international operators run artics

Long distance? How about starting at the bottom with a little run to Belgium or something similar?

The way things work is that you used to earn your stripes, you had an attitude similar to the want it all right now clowns that moan and whinge on the UK forum about not being given a brand new supermegatoptrotter XXL to do two nights out a week, except that it’s common now, 25yrs ago men were men and went out and did what they had to do

Blimey nmm that’s a bit ironic considering what you’ve said about the type of breaks that got you started.

As I’ve said ‘if’ I’d have thought it worthwhile at the time I’d have got my licence upgraded to a class 1 when I started on the council.However the fact is that the type of feedback which I was getting from job applications and interviews, concerning just the under 25 insurance issue,let alone not having umpteen,probably in many cases bs,jobs running in Euro Land and/or Mid East etc etc experience behind me,which all the competition for even class 2 uk jobs let alone wagon and drags which the licence covered at the time,seemed to be able to bring to the table,made having a class 1 a total waste of time (and money) until at least reaching around 25.

You actually made a comment about air freight firms which as I’ve said were mainly local running jobs in and around the airport,certainly not Belgium.

In which case,as I saw it,why go to all the bother and expense of getting a class 1 licence just for the privilege of (maybe) getting a zb local running class 1 job that the bs ers and/or the ones who’s faces fitted etc etc didn’t want when what I was actually looking for was an international job running out to Italy (or Belgium) on wagon and drags which I at least had the licence to drive unlike your example.

In which case I decided that I might as well keep the job I had on the council which,contrary to all the bs about the 1980’s,was just about one of the only jobs that would employ under 25 drivers without much experience probably because all the ones with all the so called ‘experience’ didn’t want it.

If any of it was my fault it was the fact that I never tried to bs my way into any job like a lot of others were doing at the time.But the fact that there were employers out there willing to send 19 year olds to Italy with an artic on a car licence actually says everything about my case of it all being mostly about luck in just the same way that you’d have found things (a lot) different if you’d have gone looking for a job in Canada at that time.

On the subject of ‘earning my stripes’ maybe it might,but I doubt it,change your mind if I told you that I was actually offered a job in Canada in the late 1980’s and it was the Canadian immigration regs,at that time,that stopped me being able to take it,not the lack of any so called ‘stripes’ in having the experience of being lucky enough to find an employer who’d let me drive an artic on international at 19 with a car licence.

While over here,in answer to switchlogic’s ‘advice’,years of constant trying to get onto euro international work finally paid off with a Job offer from European in Dover in the 1990’s.However no surprise I got a phone call from the guvnor saying sorry we’ve had to withdraw the offer because of a decision taken higher up on my lack of continental experience.In which case could I start running out of their Midlands depot on uk work .

With almost 10 years service behind me by that time in a settled uk trunking job you can probably guess my reply.Luckily for me I’d had the sense to not hand my notice in having had plenty of other interviews which sounded just too good to be true.

[carryfast]

switchlogic:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
Where’s the sense in investing in buying and running a 40-44 tonner if it’s only going to be running at a lot less most of the time

Several reasons really CF. Flexibility for one. For example you might take 24 tons of waste paper into a factory and load 4 tons of bog roll back out. In the general haulage market you need to be able to be just that, “general”. No good having an empty 28 tonner in Plymouth if the only back loads need a 44 tonner.
Not all loads are heavy but some are.
Difference in running costs is negligible to be honest.
I drive a 40 ton unit with 420hp yet 95% of our loads barely put me at 25 ton. So I get good journey times and fuel mileage and can still haul those 5% of heavy loads.

Well answered but I considered his question so ridiculous it didn’t warrant an answer! It just shows it startling lack of knowledge of general haulage again

I think you’ve both missed the point that is exactly what I’ve been saying in that a doubles outfit needs the flexibility to be able to haul double the payload ‘weight’.However in this case that flexibility would probably result in a lot more max weight loads that are probably going by rail at the moment.

[billybigrig]

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
Where’s the sense in investing in buying and running a 40-44 tonner if it’s only going to be running at a lot less most of the time

Several reasons really CF. Flexibility for one. For example you might take 24 tons of waste paper into a factory and load 4 tons of bog roll back out. In the general haulage market you need to be able to be just that, “general”. No good having an empty 28 tonner in Plymouth if the only back loads need a 44 tonner.
Not all loads are heavy but some are.
Difference in running costs is negligible to be honest.
I drive a 40 ton unit with 420hp yet 95% of our loads barely put me at 25 ton. So I get good journey times and fuel mileage and can still haul those 5% of heavy loads.

Well answered but I considered his question so ridiculous it didn’t warrant an answer! It just shows it startling lack of knowledge of general haulage again

I think you’ve both missed the point that is exactly what I’ve been saying in that a doubles outfit needs the flexibility to be able to haul double the payload ‘weight’.However in this case that flexibility would probably result in a lot more max weight loads that are probably going by rail at the moment.

You need to stop fixating on max this and max that because not a lot of haulage is max from point A to point B only. Let’s assume it was though. Who would be your doubles main competitor ■■ Rail ■■? not in the least, it would be operators of standard 44 tonners who would be forced to go bigger or work cheaper

[switchlogic]

Carryfast:
everything about my case of it all being mostly about luck

Keep telling yourself that, you may convince someone one day luck my arse.

[switchlogic]

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
Where’s the sense in investing in buying and running a 40-44 tonner if it’s only going to be running at a lot less most of the time

Several reasons really CF. Flexibility for one. For example you might take 24 tons of waste paper into a factory and load 4 tons of bog roll back out. In the general haulage market you need to be able to be just that, “general”. No good having an empty 28 tonner in Plymouth if the only back loads need a 44 tonner.
Not all loads are heavy but some are.
Difference in running costs is negligible to be honest.
I drive a 40 ton unit with 420hp yet 95% of our loads barely put me at 25 ton. So I get good journey times and fuel mileage and can still haul those 5% of heavy loads.

Well answered but I considered his question so ridiculous it didn’t warrant an answer! It just shows it startling lack of knowledge of general haulage again

I think you’ve both missed the point that is exactly what I’ve been saying in that a doubles outfit needs the flexibility to be able to haul double the payload ‘weight’.However in this case that flexibility would probably result in a lot more max weight loads that are probably going by rail at the moment.

Whichever way you dress it up it was still a stupid question.

[carryfast]

robinhood_1984:

Carryfast:

robinhood_1984:
Armour are pulling A Trains in the Maritimes with 400bph Volvo’s that go up hill at 15mph our less with an A train behind. They’re supposed to have higher power units apparently, yet the brand new Volvo I got which was a gutless 400 downgraded to 350bhp (fuel economy apparently) was taken off me and put on to A trains. It could barely pull one trailer, let alone two.

It would be interesting to see what the fuel figures for the Scania 620-730 V 8 would be doing that job in comparison to that downrated 400 Volvo motor.

Almost any European truck on the market at the moment would walk all over the junk we have here, especially when power matters with heavy loads. American trucks are much less advanced and as such seem to last longer but thats where the benefits end.

If you could find an old E-reg Volvo FL10 yeard shunter any where, that would quite possibly do better than the new American Volvo I had!

Blimey you’ve got operators who are stupid enough to run a downrated 400 motor to pull an A train and then you’re blaming the US manufacturers for it.

The fact is that it’s always been the case that whatever the euro manufacturers can make the US manufacturers can make at least as good if not better.Even the new F 16,let alone an old F10,would be nothing special v a KW with DD 16 motor and an 18 speed Fuller in it.

[carryfast]

billybigrig:

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
Where’s the sense in investing in buying and running a 40-44 tonner if it’s only going to be running at a lot less most of the time

Several reasons really CF. Flexibility for one. For example you might take 24 tons of waste paper into a factory and load 4 tons of bog roll back out. In the general haulage market you need to be able to be just that, “general”. No good having an empty 28 tonner in Plymouth if the only back loads need a 44 tonner.
Not all loads are heavy but some are.
Difference in running costs is negligible to be honest.
I drive a 40 ton unit with 420hp yet 95% of our loads barely put me at 25 ton. So I get good journey times and fuel mileage and can still haul those 5% of heavy loads.

Well answered but I considered his question so ridiculous it didn’t warrant an answer! It just shows it startling lack of knowledge of general haulage again

I think you’ve both missed the point that is exactly what I’ve been saying in that a doubles outfit needs the flexibility to be able to haul double the payload ‘weight’.However in this case that flexibility would probably result in a lot more max weight loads that are probably going by rail at the moment.

You need to stop fixating on max this and max that because not a lot of haulage is max from point A to point B only. Let’s assume it was though. Who would be your doubles main competitor ■■ Rail ■■? not in the least, it would be operators of standard 44 tonners who would be forced to go bigger or work cheaper

I think the idea of multi trailer train outfits is all about max weight point A to point B operations and if it’s not all about competing with rail then it wouldn’t be the rail freight industry that are the biggest objectors to the idea.

But your logic,concerning standard 44 tonner operators,would have applied just the same in the case of operators using drawbar trailers behind the old AEC eight wheelers during the 1950’s.‘If’ it was correct.It’s always been a case of if you can’t beat em join em and it’s how the road transport industry has progressed over the years from using four wheeler Bedfords to those AEC wagon and drag outfits for example.

[billybigrig]

Carryfast:
I think the idea of multi trailer train outfits is all about max weight point A to point B operations and if it’s not all about competing with rail then it wouldn’t be the rail freight industry that are the biggest objectors to the idea.

Here’s the thing though CF. There are no railway sidings going from point A to point B. So as the railways still depend on road to an extent we’re still not directly competing at all. Not to mention once again that heavy bulk movement is a minimal part of this business. Equally not many point A’s or B’s have the infrastructure or location to deal with combination outfits

But your logic,concerning standard 44 tonner operators,would have applied just the same in the case of operators using drawbar trailers behind the old AEC eight wheelers during the 1950’s.‘If’ it was correct.It’s always been a case of if you can’t beat em join em and it’s how the road transport industry has progressed over the years from using four wheeler Bedfords to those AEC wagon and drag outfits for example.

Yep and do you think it’s easy to actually plan long term in this business as a result ■■ Many more small to mid size outfits have gone by the wayside because of this than the demon railways could ever kill
While the vehicles may have gotten bigger the infrastructure has not.

[kr79]

That’s the thing with all these efficiencies in haulage the haulier doesn’t profit.
We have to remember here in Europe the vast majoraty of truck journeys are less than 100 miles not sure about the other side of the pond.
Also the majoraty of full weight rail freight in the uk is coal and aggregates. Low value and not time sensitive so transport rates are nailed to the floor. To compete you will need more than two trailers.

No offence Carryfast but reading your posts about interveiws and feedback etc I think you may have been looking in the wrong place. I think you may have been looking at the nice firms with shiney depots and new lorrys and good work.
Most of the firms who give newbies a start were even when I started driving much later than you were more bomb site yard where it was hard to distinguish the shunter from the best motor an Alsatian running round and some wideboy in a sheepskin coat in the caravan/office that suddenly caught fire when the ministry or vat man wanted to look at records.

[billybigrig]

kr79:
Most of the firms who give newbies a start were even when I started driving much later than you were more bomb site yard where it was hard to distinguish the shunter from the best motor an Alsatian running round and some wideboy in a sheepskin coat in the caravan/office that suddenly caught fire when the ministry or vat man wanted to look at records.

I think I know him

[carryfast]

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
I think the idea of multi trailer train outfits is all about max weight point A to point B operations and if it’s not all about competing with rail then it wouldn’t be the rail freight industry that are the biggest objectors to the idea.

Here’s the thing though CF. There are no railway sidings going from point A to point B. So as the railways still depend on road to an extent we’re still not directly competing at all. Not to mention once again that heavy bulk movement is a minimal part of this business. Equally not many point A’s or B’s have the infrastructure or location to deal with combination outfits

But your logic,concerning standard 44 tonner operators,would have applied just the same in the case of operators using drawbar trailers behind the old AEC eight wheelers during the 1950’s.‘If’ it was correct.It’s always been a case of if you can’t beat em join em and it’s how the road transport industry has progressed over the years from using four wheeler Bedfords to those AEC wagon and drag outfits for example.

Yep and do you think it’s easy to actually plan long term in this business as a result ■■ Many more small to mid size outfits have gone by the wayside because of this than the demon railways could ever kill
While the vehicles may have gotten bigger the infrastructure has not.

I’d say that in the case of intermodal operations road is in direct competition with rail in that there’s no way of getting round the fact that it’s payload weight and the distance that you can haul it that pays the wages and there’s more wages being lost to mile long freight trains hauling piggyback trailers and containers from road transport than there are,or would be, wages being lost from 36-44 tonners to LHV’s.

The only ones who’d argue that point are the enviromentalists and the rail freight interests who usually try to get round the issue by saying that road and rail can and should work together in which road does all the local zb work and rail does all the distance work.The fact is all of the main population centres that are linked by rail freight services have sufficient rail heads to cater for intermodal piggyback and/or container traffic even in the uk let alone North America.

Therefore it’s my case that road transport needs to continue to evolve along the lines that it’s always done of ever increasing weight handling capability over long distances if it’s going to survive in the long term at least as a credible form of long distance trasport.

I’d say that for every small four wheeler Bedford type job that was lost there’s been more jobs gained in the progression to those eight wheeler drawbar outfits which then progressed to 32 tonner artics and then 40-44 tonner artics etc etc and in every sector where LHV’s have been used,such as Scandinavia,they seem to have improved growth and efficiency not removed it.However,as I’ve said,it’s only by making that jump to full weight combined with long distances where that potential can be realised.

I think we’re really arguing about the already proven progression of the road transport industry over the years and it’s the point where these types of outfits are seen as nothing unusual,in just the same way as the average four wheeler Bedford driver of the late 1940’s would probably have shaken his head in disbelief at that AEC eight wheeler drawbar outfit of the 1950’s,let alone a current generation 6-8 axle 44-65 tonner Artic or Scandinavian drawbar outfit,but now it’s seen as nothing unusual,that will be the next step.‘Unless’ that is the road transport industry is now finally,after all these years,going to listen to all the rail freight industry bs and give up it’s dominance by letting rail freight effectively take over the long distance sector.