News

The wording of the RHA motion provoked a lively debate. The original motion suggested the government review 25.25m trucks. But Stan Robinson observed: "25.25m counts out my option straightaway. There are lots of members who would like to see two trailers run on restricted routes and at restricted times."

In response, the wording was changed to "larger, heavier trucks", which became "longer/heavier trucks". Then logistics expert Alan McKinnon pointed out: "The government won't countenance  heavier trucks per se. You won't succeed in getting more weight unless they are also longer. Therefore you need to say 'longer and heavier'."

Annie Preston believed the term 'heavier' should be taken out entirely after all, many of the operators who would benefit from this would do so from cube not weight. A recent TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) survey, according to Brian Smith of Volvo, suggested the average payload in a 44-tonner was just 17 tonnes.

LHV advantages

George Inch, MD of DHL Container Logistics, listed several advantages of LHVs. They included:

• l 32% fewer trips
• l 15% less fuel
• l 15% less CO2 emissions
• l 20% fewer heavy vehicles
• l 20% less road wear
• l 32% overall cost savings.

The session was headed 'Challenging congestion'. However, as McKinnon pointed out, trucks contribute very little to congestion and therefore taking trucks off the road has a limited effect  on congestion. Road Haulage Association (RHA) delegates passed a motion last week recommending a government review into the operational uses of longer, heavier vehicles (LHVs) to see "if the concept can be embraced for permanent adoption". The conference heard from Brian Smith, truck product manager of Volvo, and George Inch, MD of DHL container logistics, who suggested he had "more questions than answers" on the subject but felt LHVs offered substantial benefits.

Smith said operators could take numerous options, including a rigid with a semi-trailer or another 20ft container on the back this has the advantage of meeting the 25.25m standard already accepted in Sweden and currently being trialled in the Netherlands. However, the alternative is to hold out for the 34m B-double combinations proposed by Stan Robinson. Inch suggested the industry should not be too swift to compromise on length. Although the motion was carried by a substantial majority and RHA president Roger King promised to pass it to the board that creates RHA policy, members' reactions to the issue of LHVs were mixed.

"I don't want to go for a half-way house on this. I'd like to try one but I don't run 6x2 rigids or 610hp vehicles [as in Volvo's presentation]. I think I'd rather go for Stan Robinson's rig because we all run tractor units."

• Jonathan Bulmer, MD, Bulmer Logistics

"We have some members who would use these even on short runs, say of 30 miles, and say they could save money with them."

• Jack Semple, Director of policy, RHA

"For me there wouldn't currently be much of a place for these. For those who could use them I have no problems whatsoever. As someone who runs double decks, I think there will be a public perception problem. This is another excuse for rate cuts - that will always be a problem for the industry.

• Andy Boyle, ABE Ledbury

"I wouldn't support LHVs. We have a bad enough image already. I don't think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages."

• Bob Russett, Palletline Logistics

[When asked whether Swedish experiences really applied to the different terrain in the UK] "The Netherlands is the country we want to watch - their motorways are just as congested as ours."

• Brian Smith, Volvo truck product manager

"Trucks don't contribute very much to congestion, so it's difficult to argue that they can relieve congestion significantly."

• Alan McKinnon, Professor of logistics , Heriot-Watt University

"I'm not particularly in favour of LHVs - I think rates will simply go down again. [In the existing schemes] you're talking about lots of European countries where the terrain is very different."

• Annie Preston, Prestons of Potto