Static waste compactors are designed for high-volume sites producing bulky, low-density waste such as packaging, pallets, and furniture. By compressing large volumes into fewer collections, they reduce transport costs and improve site efficiency.
We’ve compared the Capital Compactors CS3 with the Compact & Bale-supplied CB1500 to see which offers the best long-term value.
Build Quality and Design
The CS3 is a robust static compactor with a heavy-duty steel body and reinforced ram. Its charge box is larger than entry-level models, giving it the capacity to deal with more material per load.
The CB1500 matches the CS3’s solid build but is engineered as a compact solution with a 1.5m³ charge box. This makes it easier to install in tighter spaces while still offering industrial-grade strength.
Verdict: Both are heavy-duty, but CS3 offers more bulk volume, while CB1500 provides the same strength in a smaller footprint.
Performance and Capacity
The CS3 produces around 30 tonnes of compaction force and has a cycle time of about 35 seconds, giving it strong throughput for bulky waste.
The CB1500 is designed with the same 30 tonnes of compaction force and a similar cycle time, meaning its performance is virtually identical. The main difference is the defined 1.5m³ box, which provides consistent handling and bale density.
Verdict: In this instance, it’s a draw; both machines deliver comparable power and speed.
Usability and Features
The CS3 includes a large loading aperture, is compatible with bulk hoppers, and is straightforward to operate. It’s supported by Capital Compactors’ nationwide engineering team.
The CB1500 is equally easy to use but benefits from Compact & Bale’s integration with other equipment such as bin lifts, shredders, and conveyors. This makes it easier to build into a complete waste handling system.
Verdict: Both are user-friendly, but CB1500 offers better integration options.
Energy Efficiency and Running Costs
The CS3 uses an 11 kW motor with a 3-phase power supply. It is efficient for its size but energy use is high when running continuously.
The CB1500 is powered by the same motor specification, so direct energy use is similar. However, Compact & Bale add value by pairing supply with preventative servicing and collection/rebate services, reducing lifetime cost of ownership.
Verdict: Equal on power, but CB1500’s service model gives it a lifetime cost advantage.
Specification Comparison: CS3 vs CB1500
| Feature | Capital Compactors CS3 | Compact & Bale CB1500 |
|---|---|---|
| Compaction Force | 27 tonnes | ~38 tonnes (depending on configuration) |
| Motor Power | 7.5 kW | 11 kW |
| Cycle Time | 45 seconds | ~35 seconds |
| Charge Box Volume | 2.29 m³ | 1.5 m³ |
| Volume per Stroke | 2.00 m³ | ~1.5 m³ |
| Overall Dimensions (mm) | 3406 (L) × 1600 (W) × 2510 (H) | 4000 (L) × 2645 (W) × 1570 (H) |
| Noise Level | 70 dB | ~70 dB |
| Suitable Waste | Dry general waste: pallets, packaging, furniture, textiles | Cardboard / Paper, DMR / Recyclables, General Waste |
Why Compaction Weight Matters
Higher compaction forces and defined box sizes mean more waste per container, resulting in:
- Reduced waste collections and transport costs
- Greater rebate potential for recyclables such as cardboard and plastics
Compact & Bale enhance this advantage by not just supplying the compactor but also collecting and paying rebates for recyclable material, offering a complete waste management partnership.
Wrapping Up
The Capital Compactors CS3 is a strong, reliable static compactor suited for bulky general waste. It has the capacity and force to reduce collection costs effectively.
The Compact & Bale CB1500 matches the CS3 on performance and power but adds a smaller footprint, full integration options, and end-to-end service with collections and rebates. For businesses seeking more than just a machine, the CB1500 wins out.