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
(see photo) 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