Tom D

I use one of 16 Amp 110V Industrial IP44 Rated Plug - [HC-16AP115] You need heavy wire as if the trailer battery is flat it will draw its current from the main battery and thin wires can get hot... They are cheap as chips and work well, I have to replace min every 2 or 3 years as the amount of road salt they use up here takes its toll. Just mount the female end on the towing vehicle and the male end on the trailer, the terminals are guarded on both ends so it can't short out if it touches the trailer chassis when not in use.

Never seen one but I think a micro timber crane like the ones on the atv trailers mounted on a jake plate leaving the 3pl free for a winch would be a great setup. Or maybe a short king post version mounted where the rear roll bar normally goes... just need a bogey trailer then..

Great thread Reg, only just seen this, Lucky escape with the chopper! Whats the money like on these jobs?

FFS! why is it turning all my pics round now, it never did before!

A few more pics of the big limes.

Dismantled some big limes today, they were inter twined due to one having lent over to kiss the other. Genuine 100 footers, the blue rope in the pic only just made the floor, and its 50m..

Stevie knows I'm joking... I only picked him as he's a no nonsense wood cutter..

Quite right, but the same applies to rope and harness work too, how many falls have there been where the climber was doing everything by the book? tied in twice, LOLER'd kit, two handed saw use etc? Hardly any al all. The problem is that all accidents end up in the HSE stats, even if it was a complete cowboy climbing on a ratty 10 year old rope not following any of the guidelines. So the ICOP has been developed erroneously by comparing apples with oranges. I have used mewps a few times, on the right job they are fantastic and can save loads of time. My issue with the ICOP is that I don't believe that their use should be the default position as is currently the case. Use of a rope in preference to a mewp now has to be justified in the RA. I suspect that if all the tree work in the UK last year that was done with a rope and harness had been done with a mewp there would have been more not fewer accidents. The statistics used to prepare the ICOP are taken from all mewp use and compared with all tree work, I think that using a mewp to paint the side of a building or change a light bulb is no where near as dangerous as using it to reduce a large tree. Yet including the stats from 'safe' mewp jobs and comparing them with those from rope and harness tree work has led to a false positive result in favour of the mewp as the safer option. Unless we have solid stats for the number of days worked or trees climbed across the industry and compare the accident data factoring in the much lower rate of mewp use in arboriculture we will always end up in this position. Like I said at the top the thread, I'm not against mewps at all, but I think that our current ICOP is actually recommending the (slightly) less safe option.

Did you get those saws Spud?

After looking at the 'justifiable' thread I think it's worth discussing the use of MEWPs in tree work. I think the ICOP is based on data from outside the arboricultural sector. With only a tiny amount of aerial tree work taking place from a MEWP the statistics for MEWP related accidents can't be compared with those for tree work from a rope and harness. Only if we knew the number of accidents per tree worked on could we really make an objective decision on the safest option. Just using statistics gathered from the use of MEWPs in other industries isn't acceptable as there are a few significant factors which make their use in tree work significantly more dangerous. For example using MEWPs to change street light bulbs is very different to using one on a sectional dismantle. Street lights usually grow out of level firm surfaces, trees do not. This has issues for the stability of the platform. Secondly when cutting off limbs or sectioning timber there is a risk of the piece striking, or worse, snagging the basket. Again seldom an issue in construction. Let's hear your thoughts on this. I don't mean let's slag off MEWPs. I mean let's consider all options, good and bad.

10 ton I reckon..

No Stevie would have asked the client if he had got any other prices and then dismantled it for £6499 lol

I always think very carefully about recommending expensive add ons to a client, such as cranes, mewps, and tree decay detection equipment. Its nice to offer all these services but you need to be sure that the client is willing to pay for them. So when a client rings you up and asks about the condition of their oak tree you might, offer a full written survey with PICUS and then an air spade investigation of the roots, then you suggest a reduction to be done with a mewp and a crane to lift the stuff away from the crown, followed by some air spade compaction alleviation and a mulch mat, the bill for all this stuff comes to £6500.... Then Stevie Blair comes along and dismantles it for 1200! Who's to blame??

We have been 'contractor b' on many occasions, a risk assessment, or in this case a method statement can justify what ever method that the contractor deems fit. AA Techie is correct in that justifying work at height is an important part of the WAH process, however in tree work a Mewp is rarely justified. On one memorable occasion we quoted for a large job with several big dismantles and some pruning, the consultant who specced the works was also a contractor, he owned a large mewp, he specced that all the trees needed to be felled with a mewp, this was not really justified, he was just trying to win the job to take them all down, as all the other contractors who didn't own a mewp would have to pay to hire one. We justified our own working methods, and won the job, we either climbed or felled all the trees. Its down to each individual contractor to justify their own methods, if you loose out to someone who comes up with their own cheaper method, then thats just business. In 15 years of tree work I have only used a mew on a handful of occasions, and nearly always for long lines of crown lifting or removing ivy off buildings, only once for a dangerous tree, and that was for someone else job, personally I would have climbed the tree...

There's so many things that could be, and as you are susceptible to anxiety, just get it checked and find out. You will be much better knowing whats going on than worrying about it.

The ported saws are definitely thirstier, but who cares..... You don't buy a Ferrari for its mpg.

I must be as dumb as you then, I have two 362's and while they are decent saws they really aren't in the same league as a 560, in heavy wood or snedding. The dolly 6100, is about the same performance as the 362, I have one of these as well. None of them are as good as my ported 357.

200t 254 357 385 660

With the exception of the T540 576 I have used or own all of these saws. My thoughts are The 201t is no better than a good 200t, especially a ported one. The 550 is MILES better than the 261 which is an awful saw, feels soft and floppy in the hand and ours has spent most of its life broken, we fix it and then it breaks again. Its currently broken. The 550 is however no better the the 346 or my ported 254 IMO, both of our 550's have had software problems and had to go in to be re-programmed. The 560 is also way better than the 362, we have 2 362's and a 560 one of my guys also has his own 560, there is no comparison in performance, The 362's are not a bad saw, about on a par with the Dolmar 6100 although I think I prefer the dolly, they have not been particularly reliable, both are currently broken, but so is the 560, (chain brake band). The 441 is not a bad saw but I prefer the 372, not much between them though. The 395 is a nice saw but so is the 660, I had a 385 which I loved dearly, but it was stolen, it was the most reliable saw I have had. I replaced it with a 390 which is pretty good, I have a 660 also which is nice, I think the 660 is hard to beat in the 90+cc category. I have used both the 3120 and the 880, I'm not that keen on either, (too heavy) and there's not many trees in the uk that can't be dealt with with a 660. Between the two however I'd take the 880....

Be cheaper to chip it 3 times with a 3" chipper, then its exactly right.

The idea is you tie a bit of string to the wire and yank it out in an emergency if using a static implement. or you could wire it into a stop switch on a processor for example...

Under the back window matty, on the outside, right hand side I think

Probably a wiring loom fault. Are the two switches next to each other?

And whats the difference between open and closed port? cheers

So can you improve it Spud?