Bruunett 578F - 8 wheel forwarder
The image is from a photograph collection that was originally stored at Kincardine Forest District office at Durris and may have been taken by Sandy Sandilands.
This image may have been taken in Kielder Forest on a visit to see some harvesting machinery demonstrations. The year is an estimate.
The Bruunett lightweight or low ground pressure machines were a major step forward in creating harvesting machines that significantly reduced ground damage on forestry sites. This machine may have the registration number GFS 52T?
Any information welcome.
Download Large Version (592kB)
Groups: Timber harvesters, processors, forwarders and cable cranes
6 Comments
Watched one of these machines working on first thinning's at Panmure Estate in the late 1970's. The Highland bear forwarder was no match for it the Bruunett's capability of pushing the trailer in front whilst loading down the rack roads was a big advantage, ditches were also no problem with the 8 wheel drive. If I remember correct the steering of this machine was levers instead of a wheel?
Comment left on 09 December 2021 at 15:04 by leslie phillip
I wonder do these machines ever travel on the public roads, the need for a registration plate number surprises me?
Comment left on 11 December 2021 at 11:47 by leslie phillip
Leslie, when we took delivery of one of these Bruunett forwarders at FC Torrachilty (Contin) in 1983 (?) and went onto short wood working it was a game changer. The Falstone skidders were still used for windblow and bigger timber, but as the majority of our programme at the time was 1st and 2nd thinnings, the Bruunett produced clean timber, neatly stacked and with minimal ground damage. It was also driven between work sites, thereby avoiding the need for a Brymac or lowloader from the Longman workshop to be booked etc. Running from Contin to Longart, out on the Ullapool road required stops to allow traffic to pass and also for the transmission oil to cool, but it was still more economical and convenient.
Whilst in Longart, which apart from the small floodplain alongside the Blackwater River, is very rocky and steep, the Bruunett was able to pick its path through the boulders, lifting some aside where necessary and carrying 4.8m butt lengths of SS to roadside. Part way through the job, Inverness deemed that the Bruunett was too small for the job and we were allocated a Kockums of similar design to the Lokomo 919. The Kokums was designed to carry larger payloads of 4.8m logs, over greater distances, thereby potentially lowering roading intensity and costs. With a higher centre of gravity, it was not possible to carry a full payload in the rocky conditions of the site and it rolled over on more than one occasion. Also, the large wheels tended to cut through any brash mat, in the SP areas there was little brash and consequently it bogged! Unlike the Bruunett that with minimal brash mats could 'float' over soft ground even with a full payload.
The main driver at Torrachilty at the time was Donsie Maclean, who's conscientious and thoughtful approach made such a success of the Bruunett. Jimmy Stewart, as second operator, was also able to produce good results with the machine.
Colin Croy, across in Farigaig and later Culloden and other sites down the Great Glen was able to make a Bruunett "walk on water" or ascend and descend very steep slopes.
All in all a thoroughly well thought out machine for 1st and 2nd thinnings and capable of tackling clearfells with a sympathetic operator.
Good health, BillR
Further information: Forestry and British Timber 1980 Vol.9 No.8 p21 indicates that this forwarder can operate successfully on various terrains (up to 43% slope on dry ground, up to 31% on wet ground).
Comment left on 11 December 2021 at 19:30 by Bill Rayner
Whilst in Longart, which apart from the small floodplain alongside the Blackwater River, is very rocky and steep, the Bruunett was able to pick its path through the boulders, lifting some aside where necessary and carrying 4.8m butt lengths of SS to roadside. Part way through the job, Inverness deemed that the Bruunett was too small for the job and we were allocated a Kockums of similar design to the Lokomo 919. The Kokums was designed to carry larger payloads of 4.8m logs, over greater distances, thereby potentially lowering roading intensity and costs. With a higher centre of gravity, it was not possible to carry a full payload in the rocky conditions of the site and it rolled over on more than one occasion. Also, the large wheels tended to cut through any brash mat, in the SP areas there was little brash and consequently it bogged! Unlike the Bruunett that with minimal brash mats could 'float' over soft ground even with a full payload.
The main driver at Torrachilty at the time was Donsie Maclean, who's conscientious and thoughtful approach made such a success of the Bruunett. Jimmy Stewart, as second operator, was also able to produce good results with the machine.
Colin Croy, across in Farigaig and later Culloden and other sites down the Great Glen was able to make a Bruunett "walk on water" or ascend and descend very steep slopes.
All in all a thoroughly well thought out machine for 1st and 2nd thinnings and capable of tackling clearfells with a sympathetic operator.
Good health, BillR
Further information: Forestry and British Timber 1980 Vol.9 No.8 p21 indicates that this forwarder can operate successfully on various terrains (up to 43% slope on dry ground, up to 31% on wet ground).
Comment left on 11 December 2021 at 19:30 by Bill Rayner
Am I correct in saying that the FC always road register all their machines, as being a public body, all FC roads are classed as being open to public access (timber contractors, timber lorries etc). Therefore any vehicle being driven on an FC road has to be 'Road legal', taxed, MOT, Registered and insured.
Maybe someone can clarify if this is correct?
I can recall having to sit a DVLA tracked vehicle test in a CAT D4 dozer on a forest road in Galloway, just so it was legal to drive in the forest with a digger or dozer!! Comment left on 11 December 2021 at 22:07 by Iain Gale
Maybe someone can clarify if this is correct?
I can recall having to sit a DVLA tracked vehicle test in a CAT D4 dozer on a forest road in Galloway, just so it was legal to drive in the forest with a digger or dozer!! Comment left on 11 December 2021 at 22:07 by Iain Gale
Iain, I think that you are correct, but I am not 100% sure about that.
The irony of that was that the FC didn't carry any insurance, as the organisation was a Crown Agency and had Crown Immunity/Indemnity. "The legal doctrine of Crown immunity holds that unless Parliament intends otherwise, onerous legislation does not apply to the Crown. [242] The Crown for this purpose is not limited to the monarch personally, but extends to all bodies and persons acting as servants or agents of the Crown, whether in its private or public capacity, including all elements of the Government, from Ministers of the Crown downwards. Government departments, civil servants, members of the armed forces and other public bodies or persons are, therefore, included within the scope of the immunity." Parliamentary Report 12th December 2005.
However, what the current situation is, I do not know, especially after devolution and the splitting of the Forestry Commission into the Country Agencies and Forest Research.
Good health, BillR Comment left on 12 December 2021 at 12:10 by Bill Rayner
The irony of that was that the FC didn't carry any insurance, as the organisation was a Crown Agency and had Crown Immunity/Indemnity. "The legal doctrine of Crown immunity holds that unless Parliament intends otherwise, onerous legislation does not apply to the Crown. [242] The Crown for this purpose is not limited to the monarch personally, but extends to all bodies and persons acting as servants or agents of the Crown, whether in its private or public capacity, including all elements of the Government, from Ministers of the Crown downwards. Government departments, civil servants, members of the armed forces and other public bodies or persons are, therefore, included within the scope of the immunity." Parliamentary Report 12th December 2005.
However, what the current situation is, I do not know, especially after devolution and the splitting of the Forestry Commission into the Country Agencies and Forest Research.
Good health, BillR Comment left on 12 December 2021 at 12:10 by Bill Rayner
Thanks Bill, that probably clears up the question. But as you say, not sure of the current situation with FLS roads....not even sure if FLS road register the (few) machines they have now?
Comment left on 13 December 2021 at 19:49 by Iain Gale
Form Goes Here