As reported in MT last week, trials of longer, heavier vehicles (LHVs) have been rejected by the government following the publication of a DfT-commissioned study by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). The research looked at a range of eight different options: from 44-tonne, 16.5m articulated trucks, up to vehicles of 34m long, 82 tonnes in weight and with 11 axles. The 332-page report cited various reasons for rejecting LHV trials, which industry experts have discounted. Below, MT explores the four key areas that shaped the government's decision.
Rail
The study, which quotes statistics from Network Rail, which therefore need to be treated with some caution, concludes that a blanket decision to permit 60-tonne vehicles with more than one trailer for general haulage would present a "substantial risk of adverse environmental effects". It adds that this would be mainly because of the likely mode shift from rail to road, especially in the deep-sea container market.
However, James Hookham, managing director for policy and communications at the FTA, says: "The rail lobby certainly put forward its figures on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Growth expectations in transport are such that there should be room for all of this anyway it shouldn't be a case of road versus rail."
Dick Denby, boss of Denby Transport, who has been a long-standing supporter of LHVs, adds: "We will carry on our campaign for trials, but we don't think anything will happen while the current secretary of state [Ruth Kelly] is in place with her love of all things rail."
Parking
One of the reasons the government gave for rejecting LHVs was lack of adequate truck parking facilities, which is an ongoing problem for our industry anyway. The study found that trucks significantly larger than 18.75m and 44 tonnes were likely to have "serious adverse effects" unless investment was made in parking facilities to cater for statutory rest periods, and in network infrastructure to establish routes and procedures to manage diversions and enforce restrictions.
Denby says: "All it would require is that the car parks would need to be laid out differently. "It is the case that three of the heaviest vehicles at the moment would be replaced by two of the proposed LHVs, so it shouldn't be a problem." Hookham adds: "The report's conclusions on parking are most frustrating, as there should be the ability to accommodate LHVs. "We accept the concerns that LHVs should not go into towns and we are prepared to look at permits. However, let's have some 21st century thinking on this."
Safety
The government listed a number of potential areas of concern about LHVs, including issues surrounding manoeuvrability, field of view, braking, stability and collision severity.
Hookham says: "With regards to safety, we don't deny there are potential problems here. However, as an organisation, we were never given the opportunity to look at this issue with the gov-ernment or work around it."
Denby adds: "A study by the Dutch government says LHVs would save a minimum of four and a maximum of seven lives, [by reducing the number of trucks using the roads]. Given that our fleet is about twice as large, could this mean eight and 14 in the UK?"
Cost
The report says there are "potentially large and un-known investment costs" surrounding the introduction of LHVs. However, Hookham believes the government should reduce fuel duty for hauliers before lecturing the industry on cost.
He adds: "LHVs would have generated substantial cost savings and reduced carbon emissions by up to 30% on trunking operations as a consequence of replacing three of the present heaviest vehicles with two of the proposed vehicles.
"They would have been particularly efficient when used for the movement of containers, or goods of a relatively lightweight, but large capacity. These vehicles are already being successfully used elsewhere in Europe."
Industry response
Overall, the industry's reac-tion is that this is a missed opportunity.
The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) believes LHV trials could have provided real data and tangible experience in order to reach an objective conclusion.
Steve Agg, CILT chief executive, adds: "We believe it would be straightforward to identify a simple core network for trials, based around the motorway network.
"Even if LHVs were approved, it is likely that their usage would be limited and, in certain circumstances, they could actually make sense."
The RHA adds that LHV trials would only have had limited application on designated routes and at certain times of the day.
Roger King, RHA chief executive, says: "The secr-etary of state has raised environmental concerns and fears that rail would lose out, but other EU countries don't seem to have experienced this where trials have been conducted."
The report can viewed in full at www.trl.co.uk
Related used vehicles for sale
