Take the blinkers off!
January 1st 2012 The Department for Transport has started a ten year trial of longer trailers. But some less than partial critics suggest the plan is flawed. Geoff Dossetter defends the cause of efficient logistics.
As a long term student of the UK transport scene, particularly, the freight transport and logistics side of things, it has always struck me as common sense that we should look at ways and means of enhancing the efficient performance of every available mode.
In short, I think that if we can see any way to improve any of our logistics operations then we should take it.
Unfortunately, this to me obvious philosophy, is not shared by all. The Transport Minister Mike Penning announced that, following a consultation process involving independent research and evidence from the industry and elsewhere, the Government had decided on a ten year trial on the use of longer lorries. There are permits available for the operation of 900 vehicles of one metre longer than the present maximum, and another 900 of 2.5 metres longer.
However, there will be no adjustment in maximum weight levels with the current limit of 44 tonnes remaining unaltered.
Clearly, the longer vehicles, and their increased load capacity, will not interest every type of operator, notably those who run out of weight before the vehicle is full. But for those specialising in high volume, low weight traffics – furniture, tissue paper, potato crisps etc – then the attractions will be obvious. Carrying more goods on the same number or fewer vehicles will cut costs, lorry miles, accidents, fuel, emissions, labour and generate other benefits.
Why send two trucks when you can send one?
Indeed, on making the announcement the Minister said: “The road haulage industry is vital to the growth of our economy. By allowing companies to use one truck where they may have previously needed to send two, we can help the sector to improve efficiency and save money – which should turn out to benefit consumers.” Quite right too – common sense.
However, not all of the transport sector seem to share this view. The dubiously named ‘Campaign for Better Transport’, a long time promoter of all things rail and, equally, a hard critic of most things road, said: “The reality is that these longer HGVs are more dangerous than existing ones and will result in increased congestion and more injuries and even deaths for pedestrians and cyclists.” The group’s statement went on to say that the research underlying the decision was flawed and the economic benefits were exaggerated. Tellingly, it said “the impacts on rail freight and on other road users are underestimated.”
Ah! Now we have it. A potential advance in road freight efficiency could impact on rail freight?
Meanwhile, the Freight on Rail group said: “Local communities could find themselves overrun with these bigger lorries on roads not designed to handle 60ft vehicles which will make turning very dangerous.” Their statement went on to say that “previous increases in length…. show that longer lengths don’t lead to a reduction in the number of lorries on the road, merely the same number of lorries just with lower loads.”
What? But there you have it. According to these groups hard pressed and financially vulnerable lorry operators would be happy to invest in longer vehicles to carry less freight at increased costs. And the vehicles would increase congestion and cause more accidents! What absolute nonsense.
Daft allegations regarding the operation of road freight
It is a great shame that groups with a clear interest in promoting one particular mode of transport, in this case rail, should choose to do so by making daft allegations regarding the operation of road freight.
Do they really think that longer length lorries, pieces of industrial plant costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, are not the subject of investment decisions that look for a worthwhile return on outlay while doing the job they have been procured for as efficiently and economically as possible? Within the logistics sector there really is no inbuilt bias in favour of any mode of transport or against any other. I have yet to meet a transport manager who, if faced with cost and efficiency advantages offered by rail, road, sea or air, will not opt for the mode which does the job for his company and his customer in the best possible way. That could be rail, road or, better still, Scotty’s beam-it-up machine if it could be obtained.
Take the blinkers off chaps – logic says that loading more goods on fewer vehicles produces nothing but benefits. And that is what the Government’s research and consultation has concluded, hence the trial. Indeed, it will be very strange if, after ten years of operating these vehicles, a decision is then made to scrap the idea and go back to the previous dimensions.
Meanwhile, another debate is going on at the European Commission where there is a move to restrict the future height level of trailers, a move with a potential impact on the UK. The EC is happy to accept a height of 4.5 metres for rigid vehicles, but restrict it to 4 metres for trailers! The UK norm is around 4.2 to 4.3m.
Maybe the EC should get together with the Campaign for Better Transport and Freight on Rail. On second thoughts no, please, no! More articles from Handling & Storage Solutions: | 
