(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.