logging truck length

[Brighid]

Good morning. I am looking for the trailer length for a 1916 Pierce Arrow logging truck. The trailer seems extra long on the model I am working on. I would post pictures, but I am not allowed to yet.  Tractor is 17 scale ft. long, and the trailer is 21 1/2 ft. long
Thanks

[nkalanaga]

Welcome!

If the picture is online, you can post a link to it, even if you can't yet post pictures directly.

If it's similar to western log trucks of today, the length can vary - from load to load!

Many of the tractors have a "stinger", which can be retracted into the frame, or extended several feet, to lengthen the distance from the log buck to the pintle hook.

The trailer, in turn, has a moveable "reach", which holds the wheels, rear bunk, and, at the front, the pintle.  The wheels etc can slide on the reach, again to vary the distance between the bunk and the tractor.

Between these two, the distance from one bunk to the other can vary a lot, allowing the same truck to haul short or long logs.  I suspect the idea has been around for a long time, as Northwest loggers were hauling long logs in the 1800s.

Railroad disconnect logging trucks used the same idea - change the spacing between the trucks to match the logs, so only two bunks were needed regardless of the length.

[Brighid]

Try looking here.     https://www.trainboard.com/highball/index.php?threads/logging-trucks.133562/
and thanks for the info

[nkalanaga]

OK, a model photo.  It looks about right for the era, and the proportions seem reasonable.  Log lengths varied, depending on the size of the trees in the area, and the size of the mill sawing them.  If you want to design your mill, or log loading area, around the truck, that's fine.  If you have a particular prototype, changing the length of the "reach" would also be acceptable.

Back then, companies cutting big logs would probably have shipped them by rail, so your truck would probably have hauled shorter stuff.  The biggest issue is the short distance between the cab and the tractor bunk.  If the logs extended very far forward of the bunk, they could hit the cab on curves.  If they don't extend far enough, they could work their way back, and off the bunk, causing a wreck.  Careful loading is in order!

[wazzou]

Yeah, John's response on the linked thread isn't really accurate.
Almost since the beginning of Western logging, logs have been 36' in the Inland Regions, (Eastern Washington, Idaho and Montana) or 40' for nearly all of the Coastal mills.
It is true though, when large Spruce or Doug-Fir logs were 8' at the butts, they did need to buck them shorter, for the weight.

[randgust]

I googled images for '1916 log truck' and got so many fascinating photos I was just floored.   Some of the loads are just plain scary.

In the east - bigger logging railroads held on right up until the depression, most decent stuff had been clear-cut out, and pre-1928 log trucks were darn rare.   I can't say as I've ever seen a photo but they must be out there.

My father's mill started back up in 1941 with one working Peterbuilt log truck, carried them through the start of WWII.  Lots of photos of that one in the family albums.   

In the east it would be totally different; smaller logs, much shorter, and usually in 8' increments with 24' being normal that were on the short log buggies.  They'd be carriage-cut full length and then cut to grade length on the deck edger and crosscuts rather than on the carriage.   My own family tree's operation of Wheeler & Dusenbury was notorious for being designed to handle 120' logs and square them; they held on to virgin timber to the very end for sailing ship masts.   Mill had triple carriages, temporary trestle over the pond, and shot right out the back of the mill on to a loading deck where 3 40' flatcars handled the outbound rough-cut timbers.   But they were the only operation in PA that could do that.

So just be aware that like log cars, there's a world of difference from one side to the other.  I always get a chuckle of model 'eastern' logging scenes with disconnects and 40' logs.   There's always exceptions but practices were generally completely different.

[Brighid]

Probably the same images I looked at.

[nkalanaga]

There was at least one mill on Puget Sound that could handle logs that long, and for the same reason.  Ship masts.