Road Trains derailed?
18
January 2008
Since
1930, government has required railways to increase bridge strength to benefit
competitors – a hidden subsidy. Even now, railways, with some local authority
help, have to rebuild bridges to cater for heavier axle loads, creating huge
delays for up to a year for other users for whom current bridge strengths are
adequate. It cannot be pleaded that this cost is covered by road tax, since
lorries do not pay their full share of road costs.[1]
In 2003,
the Freight Transport Association (FTA) urged government to authorise road
trials of ‘road trains’, which would “probably have to be
restricted to motorways and roads close to motorways”. That embraces
thousands of miles of single carriageway roads. The Minister refused
Denby’s application for an experimental permit to operate a 25.25m
prototype, and Robinson’s for his 31m/84t lorry.[2] The DfT is again
considering plans to allow Denby’s vehicle to operate. Maximum weight
would rise from 44t to 60t, and length from 18.75m to 25.25m.
The propaganda campaign
A
campaign has begun to soften up the public to accept double juggernauts - aka
‘road trains’ - and to prove that they will be beneficial in cost,
road-space and environment. They are designated Long Heavy Goods Vehicles,
(LHVs). A consultant warns that
“demand for road freight is expected to grow by 50% over 15 years,
increasing vehicle mileage, unless ‘road trains’ are
introduced”.[3] Growth should first be mopped up by utilising an
estimated 30% spare vehicle capacity.
The Road Haulage Association (RHA) said: “the lorry
would only travel on motorways between regional distribution centres. There are
428,000 trucks registered and if we could reduce that to one truck for every
two – we’re all for it”.[4] At most, it could cut a third of
103,000 artics. Because speeds would fall due to delays in attaching and
detaching and at junctions, and as many hauliers would not invest in such
vehicles, the cut would be much less. With 33.4m vehicles on the roads, the
effect on congestion would not be noticed.
I was invited to a display on a disused airfield near
“There is concern that on single
carriage-way roads, motorists might try to overtake the vehicle and then
discover they had misjudged the length”.[5] They are not likely to live
to tell the tale.
Instead
of concrete slabs to simulate roundabouts, pavements and verges, painted lines
are used. There is no road furniture – bollards, signs and lights - to
avoid. There was no simulated ‘T’ junction, which would have
highlighted serious delays. Trials with improved simulation – using a
‘roundabout’ in a clockwise direction, and oil spillages or ice -
should be conducted in the presence of police, motoring & motor-cycling
organisations and highway authorities – armed with stop watches - before
any trials on public roads.
It is
claimed that improved suspension, braking, retarders, stability and steering
will ensure vehicle safety. However, John Wardroper revealed in his book
Juggernaut that many hauliers are reluctant to spend to improve safety.[6] The
Economist also drew attention to a neglected means of cutting lorry fuel
fires.[7]
Dick
Denby, a haulier advocating changes said that “25.25m lorries can
negotiate every
Mr. Denby
said: “the prototype will cause slightly more road wear with 60t, but if
restricted to 58t, there would be no more road wear”. How would that
limit be ensured? He said we send “three lorries – occupying 170m
of road space - when two – occupying 130m - would do”. This assumes
full payloads. It is stated that the road wear index of the ‘Eco-Link’
was 11.6% worse than a six-axle 44-tonner, but could change to being 3.8%
superior with a different bogie configuration. Whether this is a desk-top
assessment or scientifically measured is not mentioned. This improvement is
conditional on further technical change and full loads. It is admitted that
“in practice, full payload capacity - in terms of weight - is frequently not obtained”. If
conclusions are based on maximum loads – as figures suggest – the
forecast of lower costs and fuel consumption is questionable on their own
figures.
“Tests
were carried out on this rig on the MIRA proving ground.”[10] The MIRA
web-site includes a video taken from a lorry cab on a test track, with no other
vehicles in sight and the lorry swinging from lane to lane through reverse
curves. On a single carriageway that would not be permitted, as there would be
a continuous white line, which the test track should have. On dual carriageways
it would seriously delay and endanger following traffic.
It is
said that fuel consumed per tonne moved gave a 3%-8% improvement compared to a conventional artic operating at 44t.
These are small margins when account is taken of the probability of less-than
full loads, road congestion, accidents and waits for varying periods at
junctions, which would waste fuel.
Alternatives to Road Trains
Other
measures to improve the capacity of roads should be exploited:-
Fewer
accidents would increase road capacity and vehicle productivity. Accidents
caused by tired haulage drivers, vehicles shedding loads and overturning,
jack-knifing, disintegrating tyres, tailgating, pulling out to overtake with
little warning, cause delays which could be cut by pro-active action.
Inadequate HGV maintenance has been exposed as a cause of serious accidents on
TV and elsewhere. Dangerous practices exposed by a truck driver,[11] include
tampering with tachographs, ignoring working hours regulations, etc. In a TV
re-construction of the Selby road/rail crash, haulage drivers openly admitted
driving excessive hours when tired. Problems caused by ‘cowboys’
and untaxed cars, whose maintenance is sure to be poor, should be vigorously
tackled.
Unproductive
vehicles: Transport 2000 reported that “30% of lorries run
empty”.[12] There is no evidence of action to improve productivity, which
is worsened by products moved around the world, ostensibly to benefit
consumers. This mileage increases oil demand which increases consumers’
petrol prices. Retail industries have much to answer and should show evidence
that they are taking significant corrective action. Waxing English apples in
Mergers:
An option of merging smaller haulage businesses, 90% of which have less than 10
vehicles, into larger units to cut empty mileage is not aired. Some 84 years ago,
government forcibly merged 123 privately owned railway companies into The Big
Four. None - before or after merger - were subsidised by the State –
overtly or covertly. On the contrary, in addition to corporate taxes, privately
owned railways were subject to a unique tax - Railway Passenger Duty - not
imposed on any other transport.[13] In contrast, road haulage is subsidised by
government funded driver training to cut hauliers’ costs, and by
motorists and taxpayers subsidising hauliers’ use of roads and the cost
of accidents.
Dedicated
lorry roads: Motorways and major roads are constructed to HGV standards, but
most users are motorists who pay a disproportionate share of taxes. Lorry motorways,
funded by tolls, with reduced road tax to reflect reduced use of other roads
would cut accident costs. Car-only motorways would cost less to build and
maintain. Four car-width lanes in the space of three on existing motorways
would increase capacity.
Transfer
to rail: The powerful road haulage lobby argues that this is not practical.
Transport 2000 stated that “heavy lorry mileage on journeys over 150 km
represents 50% of all mileage and 20% of all goods. Transferring this to rail
would cut total lorry mileage by a half.”[14] Transfer to rail would reduce cross
empty mileage through unified control. Some transfers have been implemented,
including recently, by haulier Eddie Stobart, with huge savings, including
fuel, vehicle mileage, emissions. Road freight costs are kept artificially low
by low wages, long driving hours and other bad practices. This enables hauliers
to compete unfairly with rail, whose staff hours and safety standards are
closely monitored and controlled. Should a situation ever arise where rail
ceases to provide freight services, road wages and costs will soar and working
hours will plummet.
Forming up road trains
Joining
together, involves one trailer being reversed towards another. Cab located
cameras are provided, but may break down. Someone to help with reversing seems
prudent. Advocates of road trains discreetly avoid reference as to where
detaching and attaching second trailers would take place. There are three
options.
Motorway
service areas are the safest option. Service area franchisees may oppose longer
vehicles which may cause disruption in parking areas and at fuel pumps. In this
scenario, a second tractor would travel on a motorway, to a junction in rear of
the service area, and back on the other carriageway to the service area to
attach a detached trailer. Likewise, a second tractor hauling a trailer to form
part of an LHV would have to continue on a motorway, cross and return to base.
Such journeys were not included in calculations that claim to show reduced road
occupation.[15] Occupation of some sections of road would increase. Each LHV
journey would involve another tractor passing on both sides of a motorway. That means two LHVs would incur six
vehicle journeys on a given section of motorway, where now there are three by
artics.
Wide
lay-bys on motorways in advance of and beyond each junction to detach or attach
a trailer - funded by hauliers - would be the next option. Construction would
cause traffic delays for months.
The
third option would be off-motorway lay-bys. As hauliers use lay-bys as a
rent-free premises, they may envisage doing so for these operations. This would
inconvenience others. Should an LHV arrive at a lay-by to attach an extra
trailer before going on to the motorway or to detach one after leaving the
motorway, and find insufficient space, what would be Plan B? Many lay-bys are
not straight, as they correspond to the curves of roads that are rarely
straight, which may pose difficulties. The task of backing onto a second
trailer at
Risk areas
Wherever
detachment takes place, an unattended trailer will be a target for professional
thieves, to whom electronic locks are merely a minor hindrance.
When an
LHV turns onto a motorway from a service area, its initial speed and length
would be a hazard to traffic. It would delay traffic behind it, as it waited
for a safe gap. If LHVs were formed-up off-motorway, their extra length would
pose a new hazard as they joined the motorway.
A serious
problem would arise when a motorway accident occurs. If there is no service
area in advance of the next exit, at which traffic is diverted (frequently via
roads unsuited to existing large vehicles), LHVs would have to wait on the hard
shoulder until the motorway was cleared. Alternatively, lay-bys, funded by
hauliers, would be needed in advance of every motorway junction to detach a
trailer in an emergency. Trailers detached at unplanned locations would stand
for hours to await a second tractive unit, which was waiting many miles away.
If LHVs were allowed to split after leaving a motorway,
following traffic will suffer longer delays at the slip road exit, whilst the
LHV driver waits for a longer gap in traffic to exit safely. Very severe delays
will occur at motorway exits to ‘'T’ junctions on single as it
moves at walking pace! Trying to negotiate roundabouts alongside one would not
be safe. As the LHV tractor turns right, the rear trailer unexpectedly swings
left. “Set out” – the distance by which a trailer’s
rear end juts out of line when turning - is said to be about 1.6m, whereas the
distance that the leading trailer of the Denby unit juts out is about 1m. It
would be an alarming sight to an overtaking driver. Spray may be seriously
worse.
When the two trailers were separated in the demonstration at
It would
be madness to introduce new designs such as these LHVs, given the evidence by
David Strahan in ‘The last oil shock’,[16] that there will be
insufficient oil to meet growing demand within our lifetime. He also mentions
that the DoT and RHA called for non-transport businesses to cut oil use to
prolong the life of the haulage industry! Expansion of electrified railways
offers the best prospect to ease the impending oil shortage, which will
precipitate unimaginable rises in fuel costs. Current prices are the tip of an
iceberg.
Dissenting voices
On a
phone-in [17], a lady said “her son drives one in
Richard
Turner, Chief Executive, FTA said: "there is plenty of road capacity if we
better organise the way we live, work and distribute goods to maximise its use.
An example from my industry would be to change the law so that more lorries
deliver at night, rather than being forced into peak-hour traffic".[18]
Road space is also wasted during the daytime. Road transport has 22 times as
much route mileage - and even more lane-mileage - as railways for a claimed
8-10 times as much traffic.[19]
In 1979,
Peter Thompson, Chief Executive of UK haulier NFC said that a proposed increase
in axle loads would not produce forecast benefits, as only 20% of their
customers would benefit, and that it is “less easy to match larger
vehicles to loads available”.[20] The Road Research Laboratory
agreed.[21] The same problems remain.
An Early
Day Motion was tabled in Parliament [22] opposing the introduction of longer
and heavier lorries, and supporting the transfer of freight from road to rail.
A
National Opinion Poll shows that 75% of the general public opposes the
introduction of ‘road trains’ onto
[1] Railway Conversion – the
impractical dream by E.A. Gibbins, pages 79, 84, 93-94, 170, 182, 200.
[2] Viewpoint by Dick Denby, Local Transport Today, 12th
January 2006
[3] David Basey, “Will
[4] BBC News 24, 11th
September 2005
[5] Editorial, Local Transport Today, 7th July
2003
[6] Wardroper, John,
Juggernaut,
[7] “Safety Lessons from the Track”,
Economist 21st July 1973
[8] David Basey, “Will
[9] David Basey, “Will
[10] David Basey,
“Will
[11] Rachael Webb, Transport-International, January-March
2007
[12] Goods without the Bads, Transport 2000
[13] Britain’s
Railways – the Reality, E.A.Gibbins, pages 6,11,166
[14] Goods without the Bads, Transport 2000
[15] David Basey, “Will
[16] Strahan, David, The Last Oil Shock
[17] Viewpoint by Dick Denby, Local Transport Today, 12th
January 2006
[18] Reader’s letter, Daily Telegraph 14th
February 2007
[19] Britain’s
Railways – the Reality, E.A. Gibbins, pages 88,153, 173-174
[20] Peter Thompson, quoted by John Wardroper, Juggernaut
[21] Wardroper, John, Juggernaut
[22] EDM 730, 24th January 2007
[23] News report Daily Telegraph 23rd September
2007