Carryfast:
48t on an artic is a joke.It’s the worst of all worlds combination of not enough gross to make it worthwhile and axle weight and load distribution issues.
There are whole countries who disagree with you. Having driven a 50 ton artic in Northern Scandinavia for a couple of years, I can see no logic in your claim.
Logic doesn’t matter with Carryfast.
Nor does the fact that you’ve done actually done it and he hasn’t.
The fact is regardless of anything else he is right and you’re wrong. Dont go down the rabbit hole!
Carryfast:
48t on an artic is a joke.It’s the worst of all worlds combination of not enough gross to make it worthwhile and axle weight and load distribution issues.
There are whole countries who disagree with you. Having driven a 50 ton artic in Northern Scandinavia for a couple of years, I can see no logic in your claim.
Logic doesn’t matter with Carryfast.
Nor does the fact that you’ve done actually done it and he hasn’t.
The fact is regardless of anything else he is right and you’re wrong. Dont go down the rabbit hole!
His logic suggests he needs 600hp and 18 gears to drag a drawbar around the 49 states with 36 tonnes
Nor does the fact that you’ve done actually done it and he hasn’t.
The fact is regardless of anything else he is right and you’re wrong. Dont go down the rabbit hole!
I didn’t deny that anyone has done it.Many have carried a lot more than that on less axles.
Let’s see an axle weight plan and pin weight with 48t let alone 50t on a 6 axle artic with a 15.6m trailer with the same pin to axle distance as a 13.6m trailer.
You really don’t want a light pin at that gross.
Wheel Nut:
His logic suggests he needs 600hp and 18 gears to drag a drawbar around the 49 states with 36 tonnes
To be fair I didn’t actually say 36t gross but by all accounts every bridge across the continent would collapse if 3 or 4 axle rigids pulling 4 axle trailers drove across them.Much better to stay with a 3 axle unit pulling a two axle trailer.For some reason the bridges are happy with 5 axle artics but collapse at first sight of 7 or 8 axle drawbars.Oh wait. berryoil.net
As I read it, its not a whoop whoop to be heavier AND longer, with heavy for intermodal and the longer trailers for the high volume/lower weight work -they mention things like supermarkets etc. gov.uk/government/consultat … n-document
Acorn:
As I read it, its not a whoop whoop to be heavier AND longer, with heavy for intermodal and the longer trailers for the high volume/lower weight work -they mention things like supermarkets etc. gov.uk/government/consultat … n-document
My memory isn’t too good, but when 44t first came in wasn’t that just for intermodal work?
Acorn:
As I read it, its not a whoop whoop to be heavier AND longer, with heavy for intermodal and the longer trailers for the high volume/lower weight work -they mention things like supermarkets etc. gov.uk/government/consultat … n-document
My memory isn’t too good, but when 44t first came in wasn’t that just for intermodal work?
It was it was done by Locomotives and Converter Dollies in 1994, many companies made a niche out of converting an old unit into a ballasted tractor. the weights were rising slowly from 38t to 40 and 41t dependant on suspension and axles.
A few I remember were Bulkhaul. Nexus TDG. W J Riding.
44t was only intermodal when first introduced. Called Combined Transport.
As.an O/D it was a great opportunity to make money.
At that point, everybody ran 3x2. Criteria was 3x3.on air. I was one of the few who invested, and never stopped for months. Enhanced rates were a benefit too. Still wondering what will change this time.
Janos:
44t was only intermodal when first introduced. Called Combined Transport.
As.an O/D it was a great opportunity to make money.
At that point, everybody ran 3x2. Criteria was 3x3.on air. I was one of the few who invested, and never stopped for months. Enhanced rates were a benefit too. Still wondering what will change this time.
Nothing will change, does a driver pulling a double decker get paid more than the man pulling a standard trailer despite the trailer earning more no, did the drivers taking part in the trials for longer trailers get paid more no, the only change will be a rise in profit for companies that have them and when they get used on general haulage extra hassle for the driver trying to get parked up at night.
Acorn:
As I read it, its not a whoop whoop to be heavier AND longer, with heavy for intermodal and the longer trailers for the high volume/lower weight work -they mention things like supermarkets etc. gov.uk/government/consultat … n-document
My memory isn’t too good, but when 44t first came in wasn’t that just for intermodal work?
It was it was done by Locomotives and Converter Dollies in 1994, many companies made a niche out of converting an old unit into a ballasted tractor. the weights were rising slowly from 38t to 40 and 41t dependant on suspension and axles.
1
0
A few I remember were Bulkhaul. Nexus TDG. W J Riding.
You didn’t need to do that we had standard 6x2s running at 44t out of Willesden railhead our trucks where in Crystal Logistics livery
So did we but that was later. I spent a fair amount of time in Willesden or Madchester. Many will remember having to meet the “railwayman” who had to observe loading for Channel Tunnel Units, the boxes were sealed and checked.
We became authorised to do the observation ourselves and carried identifiable seals.
Janos:
44t was only intermodal when first introduced. Called Combined Transport.
As.an O/D it was a great opportunity to make money.
At that point, everybody ran 3x2. Criteria was 3x3.on air. I was one of the few who invested, and never stopped for months. Enhanced rates were a benefit too. Still wondering what will change this time.
Nothing will change, does a driver pulling a double decker get paid more than the man pulling a standard trailer despite the trailer earning more no, did the drivers taking part in the trials for longer trailers get paid more no, the only change will be a rise in profit for companies that have them and when they get used on general haulage extra hassle for the driver trying to get parked up at night.
Mazzer, you are right, but was speaking, and still am, from an O/D point of view. The change I am wondering about is regarding containers.
If a 15.6m trailer is legal, then will a 50ft container be feasible. Surely, commercial pressure for extra profit would force the issue? If it did happen, then axle spread and trailer length would change. Also, sliding bogie trailer would have to be redesigned, if it was too long, it would sag with a 20ft in the middle. Just a thought.
Having used a 28plt fridge trailer.
Everywhere is designed for a 26plt trailer,
1st problem, you stick out when on bay, Mr Plobski turns off bay Bang goes your mirror door etc…
2 Goods in staff moan because the rows only take 26plts or 33euro if at ze germans.
3 parking spaces are designed for 26plt, look at the hassle car transporters have…
Basically the whole distribution infastructre will need making bigger. But won’t happen, we’ll just have to make do as per normal.
biggriffin:
Having used a 28plt fridge trailer.
Everywhere is designed for a 26plt trailer,
1st problem, you stick out when on bay, Mr Plobski turns off bay Bang goes your mirror door etc…
2 Goods in staff moan because the rows only take 26plts or 33euro if at ze germans.
3 parking spaces are designed for 26plt, look at the hassle car transporters have…
Basically the whole distribution infastructre will need making bigger. But won’t happen, we’ll just have to make do as per normal.
Advantages
You can park in the long load bays.
You get room for two pallets of beer from Pidou.
If you park next to a fridge you wont hear it.
Janos:
Mazzer, you are right, but was speaking, and still am, from an O/D point of view. The change I am wondering about is regarding containers.
If a 15.6m trailer is legal, then will a 50ft container be feasible.
There are already 48 ft and 53 ft containers used in North America.
That’s obviously all about volume not weight capacity.
48t + on an artic is a joke.
At least without some serious kit like 4 axle units and/or four axle trailers and an increase in pin to axle dimensions cut in regs.
If it’s divisible loads like pallets then drawbar LHV’s would be the more sensible option.More gross, less cut in and lower axle weights.The government has lost the plot.
