I agree with both SMB1 and Septic1 In addition, the installation of guide rail for VNA is not only costly, but prohibits access to ground floor pallets with a hand pallet truck. The wire guiance option is again costly to install both in the warehouse and on the machine. Guidance systems, either rail or wire require ongoing maintenace costs. Choosing VNA also severely restricts machine availability in the event of breakdown or busy times. The transfer aisles for VNA machines need to be much bigger which will reduce the storage density (Defeaing the whole object) The need to lift a pallet over the guide rail at groud level reduces the overall available stacking height. The 150mm saved can mean the difference between stacking 5 pallets or 6 pallets high. 25% of storage density lost at a stroke.

Concering the comments from SMB1. I have many years experience of Bendi trucks and have to state that they are far more productive than counterbalance, Reach, swinglift and guided VNA trucks. Bendi trucks truly are the answer to one truck does it all!

Racking damage really is reduced as they have no rear end swing. Whilst guided VNA trucks are relatively secure in the racking aisle, they are very slow.

Training is very important, so do ensure your provider is experienced in driving the truck.

Dear Edward,

Why would a driver want to dismount from his truck to check the load via a laser scanner when equipped with a hand-held scanner, provided the despatching company had the sense to place all the pallets on the lorry with their barcodes facing outwards? The driver could simply scan the load while it is still on the lorry and then read the storage destination of that pallet on his RDT (radio data terminal), be it within racking or on a cross docking area.

The same applies when the reverse operation takes place, i.e. from the racking directly to the lorry.

sure enough, and in an operation where you get people used to the articulating truck, you can not get them out of the seat even for breaks, as they enjoy sitting up high, and the seats and arm rests are pretty dang comfortable. I know of a few where they have decided to use a standup-end control counterbalanced (what often is called a "dock stocker" style) for the cross-dock work and to offload trucks and the articulating truck for work in the aisles, and have eventually traded in all the reach trucks..

Hi Edward T

I understand what you are saying and can accept it.

But surely this still leaves a huge market for applications where this may not be as important.

I would say one of the biggest drawbacks is that (in US operations, anyway) there is very often a requirement to "check the load"; to get off the forklift and scan the bar-codes and log the weights and numbers, and this requires climbing off the fork truck and walking around the load then climbing back on the fork truck. while the actual driving of the articulated truck maybe/is faster in taking from a truck and putting into racks, the climbing on and off the truck can be pretty tiresome. AND a lot of logistic planners would like to see a "cross dock" capability built into their operation, when nothing goes into racks, but is sorted on the dock and put into outbound trucks as soon as it arrives inbound.

I agree with almost everything SMB1 says on articulated forklifts. I have looked at this concept for years and really consider it to be the future.

The worries put forward by the US clients appear to be from misunderstanding and/or poor support in the past.

To answer the original query I would advise All articulated trucks be seriously looked at especially as the application is UK based where support is Good.

If they are as good as is claimed a reasonable question may be "why do not more manufacturers make them.?"

The probable answers to this are.

The existing manufacturers seem to have, or claim to have all the patents tied up.

The machines look big and clumsy. and people find it hard to believe that they operate in such tight spaces.

People believe they are difficult to operate, and maybe require specialist servicing.

If some world leading manufacturer could overcome these issues, come up with a more stylish design then maybe the world would look at them differently.

Thanks for the feed back InventoryOps
When I have been in South Africa and the US I hear the same comments about guided man up machines and I believe that CE regulations here in Europe tie up the VNA machine's productivity which does not appear to be the case in the States but it certainty applies here in the EU.
The swing mast phoneme does not exist in the UK or in Europe to the same extent that it does in the states. EU and BITA (British Industrial Truck Association) make strong recommendations against intrusive stacking which limits its appeal compared to an articulated truck. Couple this with the fact that they are "handed*" has made it a harder sell in the UK. Having said that, we were instrumental in get the US Pivot Mast made by Landoll up and running before Landoll acquired the Drexel product and we're in agreement that it can be a fantastic tool especially for the military where it handles missiles on ships etc.
Something else that appears to be regional is that the articulated trucks available so far in the US are to a different spec to most of the UK built machines which can now achieve the previously illusive VNA aisles comfortably.
Just to add a twist, we have double deep articulated trucks up to 9m. The benefits are a smaller aisle (typically 2-2.4m) and without the need for bottom beams. The only limitation here with articulated double deep is the lift capacity as it limited to 500-750kg capacities at the back location to this sort of height.
*handed:- can only stack on one side of the machine

Some very good info SMB1, however I don't accept all of your statements.

For example, your comment
"an articulated truck to handle between 30-40 pallets per hour in most circumstances and I think that it is fair to say that exceeds any expectations of reach, VNA or Swing mast"

In my opinion, nothing is faster than a guided man-up turret for standard pallets in selective pallet rack. A Swing mast is also pretty **** quick.

And in your "Reach trucks are inherently more prone to damaging goods and racking compared with an articulated truck," comment, you fail to mention that a guided turret truck would be even less likely to damage goods than either a reach or an articulated.

The big advantages I see to articulated trucks (Bendi, Aisle Master) is the flexibility (both literal and figurative). Not only are they capable of loading/unloading trucks, but they are also capable of handling wider loads in narrow aisle racking (something that turrets can't do).

Overall, comparing reaches to swing masts to articulated trucks to turrets is tricky because they each do certain things better than the others and there are numerous variables that have to be considered.
Turrets are great if you have standard pallets and enough transaction volume to justify the much higher costs associated with a guided turret system. With a turret system you get the narrowest aisles and the fastest throughput.
Articulated lifts are more flexible (as previously stated) and offer narrow aisle capabilities (though not as narrow as a turret) at a lower cost. This makes them more attractive to smaller warehouse (typical warehouses) and operations with more diverse needs.
Swingmasts operate somewhere in between a turret and an articulated lift. Great for standardized pallets in warehouses where a turret would be cost-prohibitive and racking heights are reasonable.
Reach trucks? Well I've never really been a fan of reach trucks. Unless you have double-deep application, I just don't see much advantage to reach trucks.

That is a very well thought out reply SMB1. I really enjoyed it. Perhaps we could start a separate forum "The thinking man's guide to Storage and Material Handling". I have sold and operated in the UK and USA and over here emotion and relationships drive decisions a lot more than logic. Result is a lot of installations that should never have been put in and will never work. However because Mr. Big chose it, he will never admit it is a failure. The warehouse people struggle on until replacement time.

(Articulated versus reach trucks)

I am an interested party as an owner of one of the articulated lift truck companies and read with interest some of the comments in this forum and feel the need to add my thoughts.

The articulated truck was designed to replace the reach truck and counterbalance truck where they were used together as a necessity to get goods from the racks to the outside world. What has happened to the design of the trucks over the last 27 years has been customer driven: smaller aisles down to 1.6m with UK pallets and lifts of 12m +. What this has meant over time is that the trucks has become more of a replacement for the reach truck or VNA and has seen off the man-down machine in the UK.

Owing to the type of warehouse environments they are chosen for, some of the higher lift articulated trucks have become captive within the warehouse. It's not that they cannot go outside, it's just that they don't.
However, there is still a vast range of articulated models that are produced for inside and outside use with large wheels capable of most surfaces.

In Europe we have many curtain-sided vehicles where it is required. Having said that, the articulated truck is often used to replace reach trucks where the floor is poor inside as its big diameter rubber wheels absorb more of the lumps and bumps. As far as speed goes, we would expect an articulated truck to handle between 30-40 pallets per hour in most circumstances and I think that it is fair to say that exceeds any expectations of reach, VNA or Swing mast.

Driving the truck is easy but needs tuition from someone who can also drive a truck - not just qualified to train on trucks-- something we see on a daily basis which is a whole new discussion forum!. Once shown the ropes, a driver can quickly reach the speed of throughput for a reach truck and then over a few days get to the expected productivity levels.

Often we get asked about the relationship between increased aisle widths and productivity but there is a lot more to it than that. Anybody could jump on an articulated truck and drive it in a 2.4-5m aisle but only a trained driver could operate in sub 2m aisles effectively. It is also relative to the amount of use: ironically we would recommend a bigger aisle for an archive store and the minimum for a fast-moving warehouse as the drivers become more able with the truck in a quicker time. If we recommend a minimum of 1800mm, for example, then its is fair to say that an increase of 50-100mm may improve productivity as it would, say, with a reach truck, for example. However, that is where it ends as any further increases allows the truck to be driven in a less efficient way which actually takes up more room slowing the operation down.

As pointed out by another commentator on this issue, it is important to take a holistic view when assessing the pros and cons for articulated trucks. If, for example, the operation is eratic then using two types of trucks (any combination of trucks) in peak times could be justified. Most operations, however, are not like that. An articulated truck can go straight from lorry unloading to racking of goods and vice versa, thus cutting out all double handling and so dramatically save time and raise productivity.

The damage levels should also be considered. Reach trucks are inherently more prone to damaging goods and racking compared with an articulated truck, while the latter also makes for a safer truck because of its better operator's vision.

Then there are the extra costs to consider if thinking of taking the VNA route. These include the high cost of VNA truck guidance like guidance rails and buried wires and the need for more end-of-aisle space when moving from aisle to aisle not to mention the flatness of the floor that is required.

Finally, what is probably not yet generally realized, articulated trucks have far higher residual values when the five-year rental period expires and, unlike VNA, as they can easily be taken to a new location/application without any modification. Articulated trucks get resold and can do three or four life cycles in three or four different companies over a 15-20 year period.

Consider maintenance in your equations as well. Sometimes up to 90% of the. overall cost of the truck is maintenance.
I think you need to look at your flow and volume. How many over the road trucks are you offloading a day and how much time are you putting away and picking? Can you justify two different trucks for these activities? Ideal would be to have one type of truck for each activity.If you can't then again think of what happens if your single truck breaks down? Talk to other owners of the model you are considering and ask them for their experiences. A very sophisticated truck with special components that have to be flown in from ? would be my nightmare.
I'm a fan of the Irish truck Aisle Master because it works in a narrow aisle and in outside yard conditions.It appears to be made from standard engines and components and looks like it is built like a brick shithouse. No I don't work for them or have anything to do with them.
Look around but first think form function flow and future. Any system you are thinking about will need some discipline in space dimensions etc that will somewhat lock you in. Will you be doing the same pallets and loads in 2/3/5 years? Can you easily add on to it.? Don't jam, it in to the racks to the last inch, add some inches to the beams to allow for overhang or for larger pallets.
I can help if you E mail.
Thanks

and Jon_b, why not let everyone in on the advantages and disadvantages of an "ETVC", and what those letters stand for in your usage?

beat411,

please translate your comments - I assume you meant to say reach trucks are less expensive to operate but that is an assumption on my part adn assumption many times ain't no good.

Jonathan

There is an alternative!

Its called an ETVC, if you drop me a line to jonbuckley at fsmail dot net I'll fill you in on its benefits.

Regards
Jon