monkeybusiness

The GH is all welded construction, and is arguably a stronger/better trailer. I bought a Brian James Diggerplant to move 2 tonne chippers (it is a 3.5 tonne trailer, so running well within capacity) and it keeps cracking across the bed (which 4 Ifor GH 2.7 tonne trailers have never done carrying the same weight). The Brian James aren’t as strong as the Ifor trailers in my experience, and you’ll be running at capacity with that digger. Get the 185 heavy duty tyres too (they have a type of all-terrain tread pattern) - they are much much harder wearing than the low profile tyres fitted to a lot of plant trailers.

No probs, I’ll wind my neck in. It would appear climbing must have been the only option.

Apologies. From the pic it looks like 3 easy fells - might be a bit overwhelming if you’ve not felled bigger sticks before I suppose.

From the pic that’s a poor example - there doesn’t appear to be any reason to climb at that stage when the working at height hierarchy is considered.

This - in spades!

I can’t help but think that the prevalence of utility lads on certain contracts falling out of trees (National Grid contract has a spate of incidents at one point from memory) and the subsequent early insistence of 2 line working within sectors of that industry, which sadly now appears to be being forced upon the wider industry by those with our apparent best interests at heart, stems from a few factors - Possible unskilled workers (I think it is more likely to be complacency/rushing/trying to hit targets/cutting corners from skilled workers but that will usually register as lack of skill) not adhering to current best practice/not clipping in properly etc (maybe free-climbing and covering up the reality after the event...). The aforementioned targets driven by price in the rush-to-the-bottom industry structure forcing unattainable productivity demands leading to corners being cut by some subbies (actual tree cutting firms/lads as opposed to the management-firm contract holders in the middle who constantly drive rates down). Repeated ‘tickling’ of trees instead of removal/replanting, which leads to regular epicormic anchor-points and their associated issues. Trees aren’t removed as there is no incentive (for the incumbent contractor) to provide a long-term clearance as the nature of the DNO contracts is very short term, price driven and liable to change (firms win the work as cheaply as possible, appear to do as little as possible, and the unaddressed issues get passed on to the cheapest firm next time around who carry on doing as little as they can get away with etc). This unfortunately leads to the actual tree-climbing lads having to climb dodgy trees as fast as possible... Within utilities there are often stipulations with regards ppe which can make simple tasks harder, and can subsequently lead to increased task-loading issues for climbers (re-sheathing a climbing saw between cuts, wearing cut-proof gloves whilst using a silky etc). I don’t personally believe these HSEQ statistic-driven ‘solutions’ always benefit overall site safety (from both a practical view and importantly also from an alienation-of-the-workforce, those-desk-pushers-don’t-know-what-they-are-talking-about-so-we-might-as-well-ignore-them angle). These issues are unlikely to be addressed as accountants hold the purse strings at the end of the day - it is much easier for those in charge to say ‘You need more anchor points’ and then (unfortunately rightly from a legal point of view) be able to point the blame at the individual climber who doesn’t adhere to this as being at fault when corners are cut and accidents happen. I’m not sure what the answer is - one is obviously less likely to fall to the ground if tied in with double/triple/quadruple the number of ropes and anchor points but the limited statistics available don’t give the full picture. The HSE are essentially God in this scenario (certainly from a legal point of view) - I guess it will basically become an on-site paperwork exercise risk assessing two ropes out where their use makes the job more hazardous than it needs to be.

Terrible photo I’m afraid but this included fork at 6 foot AGL on a sycamore was riddled with what I’m sure was K.deusta, yet no evidence lower down on the stem.

Yes

I’ve got a brand new Femac at Approved to collect next week - hopefully they aren’t a load of shit!!!

You can plumb case drains into the return line if they run freely enough (in simple terms) - if the valve block essentially does this then it’s probably fine. I’d try and contact the manufacturer to see how it is supposed to be plumbed in case it has been modified and is causing issues.

Just check your case drain is plumbed correctly and it hasn’t blown because of back-pressure. And that your return line is open to tank.

I’d price a complete motor off Flowfit before chucking time/money at a repair too - they can be surprisingly cheap brand new!

Where did you buy it? Any comeback?

I admire you BigJ and reckon we’d probably get along in person, but that is a terrible position to take IMO. I might as well move to Chelsea, rent a room, bung my sprogs in school, flog a few copies of the Big Issue and claim the same! Surely I should be able to build a warehouse to store my magazines in and build a house on the same piece of land bought at agricultural rates (crap ground for growing anything on along the banks of the Thames so 3-4k an acre seems fair - it can’t be worth any more than that otherwise people would have unfairly benefited from planning legislation?). I really don’t think you’re argument stacks up I’m afraid.

You don’t NEED to live there though as far as I can see? You just want to. There are plenty of other options within budget surely.

Did they get broken bringing them home from the nursery? They’ll straighten up no worries IME

I understand that, but how is it ‘policed’? I doubt it is ever investigated in reality, these grants are dished out to meet targets, it is in nobody’s interest to start the massive paperwork exercise undoubtedly involved in clawing the money back. The whole thing is bullshit - let market forces dictate prices and business can follow.

There was a really lovely Valtra/roofmount/trailer setup at the APF that was 12 months old and had done no work (was essentially brand new). It was being sold by the dealer on behalf of the owner for many many pounds, and was undoubtedly worth its asking price. I can only assume it was bought with a grant and someone was cashing out (obviously this is pure conjecture!) as I can think of no other worldly reason for such a setup to be commissioned and not used/flogged so quickly. Nice little 20-30-40% profit for someone with the available funds and forethought...

Not by network operator authorised cutters - they can fell where possible.

I’d think a decent land agent would be able to negotiate a good financial return to the land owner from the electricity company for this type of work, over and above the works being undertaken to whatever spec the land owner insists upon.

As demand increases (through humans breeding more than anything else) the price of property will increase, as there is a finite amount of it (basic rules of supply/demand). Whether it is a house, a building plot, or an acre of land that grows barley particularly well - it is going to get more expensive over time if population continues to grow. Artificially deflating the values to help a current generation get what they want ‘NOW’ will change nothing long term, but may damage the availability of land capable of sustaining life in the future.

That’s simply a business issue though. If those are the market rates and they aren’t affordable then you need to look at your business model as it may not be sustainable. You have machinery that can in reality be parked anywhere when not being used on site. That is where your argument falls down unfortunately. An extension of your reasoning would mean that any firms could throw up new factories/warehouses etc wherever they fancy (there are loads of relatively cheap, empty (aside from the inconsequential crap farmers are growing in them...) fields alongside the M6 for example - stick a few industrial units along there for decent motorway access) because it’s a lot cheaper than buying/renting on an actual industrial estate. Why should your business benefit from relaxed planning rules when everyone else’s (other than the anomaly that is farming, but let’s not keep poking that particular nest) is bound by them? It’s a tightening of the rules around farming that is probably more called for, not an across-the-board relaxation elsewhere imo.

And I reckon some of those South Wales boys would love to be ridden by you/your Suffolk’s/anything with a cock and balls really, they aren’t at all fussy!!!

‘Like I know you’re going to’ - the way he says that is one of my favourite lines in a film ever!!!

On an industrial estate I’d have thought?