Rover8FFR Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Travelling very slowly but a MASSIVE vehicle. Unfortunately without an MBT :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utt61 Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Not so long ago I met a convoy of these coming towards me on the narrow windy stretch of the A31 just west of Wimborne, presumably en-route to Bovington. Very imposing, especially when they are 3 feet or so wider that their half of the carriageway. There were (as I recall) five of them carrying sheeted loads which appeared to be Challengers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woa2 Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 When I worked in Newbury a couple of years ago I frequently saw these vehicles travelling along the A34. Looked like they were going from/to Ludgershall to Southampton delivering Tanks & other tracked vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rover8FFR Posted May 7, 2010 Author Share Posted May 7, 2010 The photo probably doesn't show the massive scale of these vehicles, especially next to a Smart Car! The driving position is certainly a good one, especially at that height. It was a nice treat to see after a long day in Chelmsford doing meetings. :cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Travelling very slowly but a MASSIVE vehicle. Unfortunately without an MBT :-D Without the MBT there it has a much better chance of staying on its wheels...and it won't be delivering a Challenger into someones front garden.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Without the MBT there it has a much better chance of staying on its wheels...and it won't be delivering a Challenger into someones front garden.... Are you suggesting this is a real possibility? Difficult to imagine a more stable load platform than this (compare it with the WW2 Pioneer and trailer :shocked:). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Someone has posted a pic on here showing one on its side and commented that they may have a problem with the trailer hydraulics Tony ! :embarrassed: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Without the MBT there it has a much better chance of staying on its wheels...and it won't be delivering a Challenger into someones front garden.... I live near to Chetwynd Barracks, formerly known as MoD Chilwell. I remember when a Challenger 1 fell off a trailer into someones garden a few years back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antar Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 What you have to remember is that this outfit is actually only the same width as any normal HGV due to the requirement for it to meet C & U when travelling unladen. The vehicle it replaced was a Scammell Commander and Cranes trailer which was a 10'6" wide tractor and 12' wide trailer. Now that was an imposing vehicle to meet coming the other way down a country lane !!! The current Oshkosh / King outfit has to open its trailer outriggers to carry MBT's ect greatly increasing the overhang on the trailer which obviously creates stability issues. The cranes trailer had no such issues due to the wheel track bieng about 11' wide. There were no fancy hydraulics on the Crane Trailer to go wrong just plain old walking beams giving the most stabillity possible. If you ever pass King Trailers in Market Harborough you will see at least 3 of the "new" trailers in for modification or repair. All the old Commander / Cranes outfits were "sold" to the Jordanian Army with the Challenger 1's and are enjoying their second life in the sunshine after spending over 25 years in UK, Germany, Gulf war 1 and Bosnia in their first life. We call it progress ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Thanks for that explanation John - difficult to get an idea of how comparatively narrow it is from photos - the shape of the Oshkosh is quite deceptive when it comes to width. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extrogg Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Looks like one operated by FTX Fasttrax. http://www.ftxlog.com/index.html Very impressive vehicle!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7917143_ITM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recymech66 Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Someone has posted a pic on here showing one on its side and commented that they may have a problem with the trailer hydraulics Tony ! :embarrassed: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Now that takes some explaining to the guvnor ! :blush: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recymech66 Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Now that takes some explaining to the guvnor ! :blush: Well boss, it was like this:blush: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Well boss, it was like this:blush: Very interesting pics mate ! Thanks for sharing them !:nut: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 OK stop!!!! Sorry I asked!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 OK stop!!!! Sorry I asked!!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 What you have to remember is that this outfit is actually only the same width as any normal HGV due to the requirement for it to meet C & U when travelling unladen. Width for the tractor is 2.59m, trailer is 2.89m with inriggers, 3.47m with outriggers so wider than an LGV and not conforming to C&U regs. They run under STGO cat 3 with civilian drivers. Although the older artic trailers were lower and more stable they suffered from tyre problems and often were followed by a Land Rover to spot overheated or punctured tyres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 (edited) Width for the tractor is 2.59m, trailer is 2.89m with inriggers, 3.47m with outriggers so wider than an LGV and not conforming to C&U regs. They run under STGO cat 3 with civilian drivers. Although the older artic trailers were lower and more stable they suffered from tyre problems and often were followed by a Land Rover to spot overheated or punctured tyres. I understand that they comply with C&U Axle loadings whereas the Commander and its trailer had not. but although now within normal legal axle weights, they are indeed too wide to run under C&U regs. Edited May 9, 2010 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Rat Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Width for the tractor is 2.59m, trailer is 2.89m with inriggers, 3.47m with outriggers so wider than an LGV and not conforming to C&U regs. They run under STGO cat 3 with civilian drivers. Although the older artic trailers were lower and more stable they suffered from tyre problems and often were followed by a Land Rover to spot overheated or punctured tyres. Nothing much has changed since WW2 as the Rogers trailers in Italy suffered constant blow outs when hauling plant over the mountains and normally had a Bedford QL (sometimes a Matador) full of spare wheels and tyres. There is discussion at high level at present concerning the future of the current Oshkosh/King outfits. DR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recymech66 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 I'm not a user but have recovered a few, in my view I would say the Oshkosh unit itself is an extremely good bit of kit, possibly let down by the Kings trailer obviously the trog users could varify either way.:cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 I'm struggling with this one, what exactly are we seeing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antar Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I'm struggling with this one, what exactly are we seeing here? Looks like a container handler (USA) which has fallen off a transporter ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antar Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Width for the tractor is 2.59m, trailer is 2.89m with inriggers, 3.47m with outriggers so wider than an LGV and not conforming to C&U regs. They run under STGO cat 3 with civilian drivers. Although the older artic trailers were lower and more stable they suffered from tyre problems and often were followed by a Land Rover to spot overheated or punctured tyres. Ok I stand corrected. Should I ever be given the choice of driving either outfit fully laden I would still jump into the Scammell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.