I'd like to know how much this thing cost....... Strange that I travelled through Amsterdam airport the other week and Beelen's Cat machines were everywhere. They caught my eye because it's not usual to see customers painting their earthmoving equipment in corporate colours rather than the equipment manufacturer's standard colours these days.
Ballpark $$ based on my last inquiry which was 2011-2012 timeframe I had looked at some and they were around $200k for a couple sets of axles plus whatever deck you want which was $70-100k. That was Scheuerle. Goldhofer was usually 10-15% higher. They’re badass though.
That is some trailer. Graham
What caught my eye was the attention to detail on things like the hydraulic and electrical connections and the way they were locked in place to avoid dodgy connections. The tractor’s not half shabby either.
They do things very clean and slick compared to US made stuff. Some of the hydraulic fittings were a bit oddball but having spent all these years on Italian drill rigs I’ve seen just about all of them now!
Got any pictures of all that? Seems I spend half my time chasing down bad connections.
These are stills from the video. Best I could do.
I think they should use that lock system on all hydraulic attachments. Nothing is more annoying than having a hot day force you to bleed 1 hose to get the bugger on because you have to push it by hand with oil all over it. Like a skidsteer in specific. The block holds all the connections in alignment, including water and electrical. We have an old labor that isn't strong enough to swap out hydraulic lines for the operator on our AC demo crew. I feel that would solve a lot of effort as well as save time.
Reminds me of the float trailers the US Army uses to haul tanks. Made by Oshkosh I believe. Not sure it would fly here though. In Illinois, even with permits they don't like having double axles. It's all about length and bridge law. Here they just keep adding boggies to the tail of the trailer until they get enough axles and length to satisfy the formula. I wish we could run the double axles like they can out West. I've been in California and seen Murray mechanical neck trailers that are all of 30 feet long hauling huge machines.
Personally I think that the whole rules of the game regarding big equipment trailers changed when steerable bogies and/or steerable pendle axles became the norm rather than the exception.
Kind of scary to see all that mass rolling at highway speed!!
Dang that's a nice rig and setup. Very cool de-tatch lowboy trailer. One thing that amazes me is the use of COE trucks in the EU nations. Here in the USA, COE trucks gave way years ago to conventional trucks because of aerodynamic reasons, better fuel economy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but here in the USA, the first aero designed truck was the Kenworth T600 "ant eater". I love seeing this around the world stuff and how it differs from our lo-cal. And Steve, I'll not mention names, but I know an outfit in north Georgia that commonly transports 400 class excavators on a 50 ton lowboy doing excess of 80 mph. It's a crazy world we live in.
I don't know all the rules, but something to do with the 16 tire groups on those axles. Do they have 16 tire groups elsewhere? Also 20,000 front axle is allowed.
The reason for COE against conventionals in Europe is easy Willie - length. Most European countries have tight limits (around 16.5 metres/54ft) for the maximum overall length of an articulated truck which means that if you want to haul a 40ft trailer a conventional won't allow you to stay within the length limit. I'd also hazard a guess that the major European truck manufacturers can get similar aerodynamic numbers for COEs as for conventionals these days. Also in some of the tight corners you find in European cities that were probably designed by the Romans, a COE can manoeuvre much easier than a conventional because it doesn't have the extra length hanging out the front.
We have little trailers here in PA, too. https://mobile.twitter.com/Berkeyphoto/status/996791415114956802
That's a lot of moving parts on a trailer I will stick with a Murray simple and stout you just can't beat them
The dual lane style loading has become more popular here. They still don’t like the concentrated loads of the other style. I’ve seen some creative means to make weight over the years. They do have some awesome capabilities!
You should see some of the stuff that gets moved around here in Northern Alberta. Not uncommon to see a complete 850 Hitachi rolling down the highway at speed.
We can't run those here without permits. We can run 20K steer axles though. Most common setup I see here is a 4 axle tractor and a 4 axles lowboy. With the right permit and the right loading, that could gross 160,000lbs. To go bigger than that, they add a jeep in front and hang a bogie off the back. There's no length restrictions on class I truck routes.
Az recognizes dang near anything for axel arrangements and the permits are not complicated All the guys moving big iron stick to Murray's with a jeep it's really slick not having to drop to load most things it's also nice length wise cause you can't get a Murray in a lot of places you wont get a triple axle That said if I was doing heavy work in a place with no room I would have steerable axles on the trailer there is no better way to do it but it's way expensive
Better get a crew cab, on that tractor, you'll need it, to hold the choir of Philadelphia liars er lawyers, that it would take to get it past a MD weigh station...
Came across this today - must've been a fun job bearing in mind the width of the roads.
When that got to it's destination I would have looked at the paper work and said "Wait, that's the wrong one!"
I thought the reason they got rid of cab overs was the driver was usually the first one to the accident.
I think cabovers have moved forward a tad since those days .............. strange that outside North America by far the largest proportion of Class 8 trucks on the road are cabovers.
I thank it changed with overall length regulations. This was one of the first conventionals in fleets around here. With a 48 foot trailer and 44,000 Lbs load it was border line. If you positioned the filth wheel to axle the weight with fuel it was over length. When set for proper length ( 60 feet ) it was over weight on the steer. That was for some state roads and bridge laws are different in others. Then 53 foot trailers were allowed on Interstate but ticketed when traveling even a a half mile more to a shipper. Allowable lengths changed over the years and now most everyone wants a conventional.
In a word, tidy......... As per the old saying "Never late with a V8"
I couldn't for the life of me figure out how he got that rig in & out of the woods without neatly removing the light bar under the front bumper with the first rock until I saw this video and found out it was a flip-up (see the video @ 3:07) and it all makes sense. AFAIK Scania must be the only truck manufacturer left in the world producing a V8 engine for their basic product line.
I had wondered the same thing but didn't imagine the 'neat' part !
Still can't beat a good ol' C-16 powered C500 tridrive for logging.
The Scandinavians would most likely disagree...and the noise of the V8 beats the C15 hands down.
Its interesting the difference you get in Europe and north America for the exact same job
Cool video! Of course, there's always a lot to be said for driver skills, too!
Is that a steerable trailer? The wheels looked offset from the bunk in the video at about 3:22 when he was backing in. Never seen a steerable pole trailer before. Probable easily done with a hydraulic cylinder turning the back bunk if mounted on a swivel.
It certainly appears to be. Seen from above with the drone some of the turns he was making, especially when reversing, would have been impossible if the bogie wasn’t steerable. Also I think I caught sight of the bogie steering control panel (under the steering wheel?) somewhere in the second video.
It is steerable. According to the catalogue it looks like a Faymonville Flexmax Z2. See Page 9. https://www.maxtrailer.eu/files/88686.pdf Despite the French-sounding name Faymonville are actually a German company.
I really hope the Scania V-8 has improved since the days of the infamous Case 4994 4wd farm tractor in the early 90s. Those were nothing to write home about.
Greatest on-highway truck engine ever invented - IMHO. Damn near unburstable. No idea how they would perform in a piece of farm machinery.
Well this E-9 Mack power was a pretty tough engine as far as on/off highway and the Series 60 is right in there too.
Most reasons why you don't see cab overs in the U.S., Drivers are living in their rigs and need the room plus it gets old climbing up and down a COE. It gets really difficult climbing up a COE when your hands are full with fried chicken and four German dogs with all the fix'ins and juggling a 48 oz wash tub full of pop.
That's my neck of the woods.
The issues the tractor engines had were mostly from shaking themselves to bits, especially the pump drive coupling that kept things timed. The best fix was Loctite and set the engine idle at 1000-1100 rpm. Not sure if it was the harmonics of the machine or the engine. I know the smoothest ones I saw had the Scania replaced with an 8V-92 Detroit. Saw another with a 400 Cummins that wasn't quite as successful.
The weirdest thing I've seen/heard recently is that we have Scania engines in a bunch of Terex RT cranes on site. When they go by you with the loud pedal pressed all the way down they sound for all the world like a Detroit 92 series. Maybe I need to get my hearing checked..!!
Flash back time! Our company had two Superliners with those engines! Actually only wanted one but the first one was going down the highway hauling a lowboy, fortunately empty of or driver, not so good for the pickup truck hauling a trailer headed the other way. Pickup crossed the center line and hit the Superliner just a bit off center. Our driver was not really hurt but the first on the scene people made sure our driver did not have to see the other driver. The impact broke motor mounts and bent all the crossmembers of the Mack. That truck was replaced with a brand new 1993 Superliner and the same driver was still driving it when he retired about a year ago.
Weird thing about those R series and Superliners, This one below belonged to the previous company I worked for, and it too was involved in a head-on collision/fatality.
Article I read said 240 tons. I think that's metric tons, so a little over 500,000lbs. Its kinda sad when it rolls off the trailer and you can hear it bounce. I'm guessing the tilt/ bank of the corner, and the auto suspension got them, kinda like a air suspension dump truck.
I agree. The hollow clang that thing made when it rolled off the trailer didn't give me the impression that it was particularly heavy but then again it's a fair size so maybe it's heavier than it looks. I would've thought that the reason the tank sits on only two supports, one on each bogie, so that the bogies can be steered round corners. each support has to be dead centre on the front and rear bogies. Check out the video at 1:34 From the video text 430 metric tonnes (950k pounds) is stated as the total train weight.
If it indeed weighs 240 metric tons. I want to see the crane matt setup on that wet ground for the crane or cranes that sets it back on a trailer. That should be another photo op.
I see the other tank in the background.Looks like good planning to send two tanks 1 to test the road one to make it to the site . Built in redundancy.
Shoulda filled it with helium, afore transport! (whoops, wrong thread! )
How reliable are they with emissions equipment on them? I’m pretty sure I once read an add that claimed they met particulate standards without an exhaust particulate filter.
I think at least one of modules had a suspension failure. Even after the tank fell off, a big chunk of the trailer is leaned hard toward the inside of the corner. The back of trailer looked level-ish even before the tank went for a roll.
Couple things come to mind.....I bet one end of the trailer was setup for one style of leveling and the other end a different. They can be configured several different ways, basically four corners or three in a triangle shape facing either way. Plus if you run too fast it can’t level quick enough....he was moving along at a pretty quick pace. Also, my method of calculating the stability triangle says a standard width trailer isn’t sufficient for that load and it’s COG. There could have been route restrictions that made it difficult to run wider but to me if it’s sketchy why even do it. You can configure them to run double wide or 1-1/2 wide. They had plenty of lines for the tonnage. I want to see their computer simulations. All the platform trailer companies have software for that. It’s like a crane though, it’s only going to help if the inputs are correct!!!
Looks like they had it strapped to the back trailer tight enough but were short a few bungies for the front one. Wonder if they had to bring in a different trailer or if that one survived. Looks like it was windy out...that can't have helped.