extracting 150 cube plus hardwoods

[openspaceman]

39 minutes ago, ESS said:

What models ?

68 1124, 74&75 1164

[ESS]

8 hours ago, openspaceman said:

68 1124, 74&75 1164

 

 

8 hours ago, openspaceman said:

68 1124, 74&75 1164

Its easy to forget how far back they went,particularly when they are still used. Always liked the shape of the 1164, and they sounded sweet. They always seem to find a home when they come up for sale, whatever condition. Some seem to find their way to the vintage sales at Cambridge. Thanks for that, brings back memories.

[jmac]

8 hours ago, openspaceman said:

68 1124, 74&75 1164

Nice wee retirement fund that!

[steve collins]

11 hours ago, ESS said:

That particular machine would be skidding 150 + but not in one lump. A county with mounted igland 8000s would, then crane trailer to go on butt plate.I have run several, and they will handle 150 comfortably. Finding one would be a different matter.

We ran cat 955 with fork on , had a big crane trailer built for that that would carry 300 cube., with 4 sets of bolsters on. Hyster winch on cat.

The HSM was sold to Essex and replaced with new. They would let you have a look at it. That one had a head to go with it too.

Grapple skidder with trailer was a shit suggestion, grapple would snag headboard etc.

so your saying a hsm 805 wouldnt have the guts to pull 150 + cube timber? however i look at it its always a 2 machine operation but many wanting the timber carried out these days rather than skidding due to the mess made

[ESS]

27 minutes ago, steve collins said:

so your saying a hsm 805 wouldnt have the guts to pull 150 + cube timber? however i look at it its always a 2 machine operation but many wanting the timber carried out these days rather than skidding due to the mess made

Sorry , no what I was trying to say was the machine will pull 150 comfortably as a skidder, but I couldn't comment on how efficient the crane would be with that weight.There were only trees up to 70 on this site.

Lifting 150 tip first on longer trees would probably be ok, but butt first not so sure.

I know exactly where you are coming from with the 2 machine operation,we used to fell a lot of Oak,and looked at all the options, in the end we just used a skidder and subbied the crown wood forwarding out, it worked for us and we weren't paying finance on a crane trailer or forwarder that was stood watching us whilst we felled/extracted butts.

If I was to go down that route again I would probably use grapple/cable skidder and still subby the forwarding out. £6- 8 /t gets a lot of forwarding done. To buy a forwarder that you could afford to sit for these sites would be buying someone elses scrap and it just wouldn't stack up financially.

[steve collins]

21 minutes ago, ESS said:

Sorry , no what I was trying to say was the machine will pull 150 comfortably as a skidder, but I couldn't comment on how efficient the crane would be with that weight.There were only trees up to 70 on this site.

Lifting 150 tip first on longer trees would probably be ok, but butt first not so sure.

I know exactly where you are coming from with the 2 machine operation,we used to fell a lot of Oak,and looked at all the options, in the end we just used a skidder and subbied the crown wood forwarding out, it worked for us and we weren't paying finance on a crane trailer or forwarder that was stood watching us whilst we felled/extracted butts.

If I was to go down that route again I would probably use grapple/cable skidder and still subby the forwarding out. £6- 8 /t gets a lot of forwarding done. To buy a forwarder that you could afford to sit for these sites would be buying someone elses scrap and it just wouldn't stack up financially.

the crane has always been the limiting factor, ive seen many a purpose built skidder haul wood out they just get the cable on, winch it tight then lift the butt plate and drive out which keeps one end out of the mess the same with a grapple skidder. The plus side being there is a winch on site to manipulate trees and pull yourself out the mess when the weather turns, cheers for the input

[ESS]

1 minute ago, steve collins said:

the crane has always been the limiting factor, ive seen many a purpose built skidder haul wood out they just get the cable on, winch it tight then lift the butt plate and drive out which keeps one end out of the mess the same with a grapple skidder. The plus side being there is a winch on site to manipulate trees and pull yourself out the mess when the weather turns, cheers for the input

For sure. Tbh a lot of lorry cranes would struggle to lift butt end of a 150 lump, its a big ask of a crane on the back of a machine.

[openspaceman]

39 minutes ago, ESS said:

For sure. Tbh a lot of lorry cranes would struggle to lift butt end of a 150 lump, its a big ask of a crane on the back of a machine.

150Hft of oak is just over 6 tonnes, so allowing for taper that's  just over 3 tonnes behind the back wheels, many modern tractors should be able to lift that on the 3pl.

[Svts]

Interesting thread. I have recently been toying with the idea of building an American style trailed arch to put behind the winch tractor for these sort of jobs. As the main issue i find is not picking up the butt plate but keeping the tractors front end on the ground. My hope was that suspending the butt this way would take the strain of the rear axle. And allow for four driving wheels planted on the floor ? Does this sound feasible to you chaps ?

[openspaceman]

35 minutes ago, Svts said:

Interesting thread. I have recently been toying with the idea of building an American style trailed arch to put behind the winch tractor for these sort of jobs. As the main issue i find is not picking up the butt plate but keeping the tractors front end on the ground. My hope was that suspending the butt this way would take the strain of the rear axle. And allow for four driving wheels planted on the floor ? Does this sound feasible to you chaps ?

Bearing in mind my experience is with older kit: I never tried a log arch but often took all the bolsters off the trailer and  lifted the tip onto the trailer, winched in and travelled if it was a long skid.

 

Yes keeping the front wheels down and contributing was always a problem, I had a heavy dozer blade which I could strap 1/2tonne log to. I would also carry a hefty piece in the grapple at full extension.[1]

 

You need to be a bit wary though as a chap near Oxford did this with an 1174 without the tension bars from the front guard to the roof mounting, the stress bust the tractor in half at the bell housing.

 

[1] I always wanted to mount the winches at the front and carry the cables back in tubes to a lightweight buttplate, it would have reduced overall weight by 600kg and increased payload  but it was too much for me.

 

With the MF 1200 this was less of a problem as there was far more weight forward, driving through two diffs also meant far more tractive effort was available.