I guess no one should be surprised by yesterday's annoucement that we're not going to get LHV trials in the UK...only the excuses used to deny them. For example, the long-awaited report on LHVs (which would have triggered on-road trials) delared that LHVs would increase CO2 emissions because loads would be shifted from road to rail. It also raised concerns about infrastructure, as LHVs would not be suitable for many roads (I think we could have worked that one out ourselves but then they were only going to be used on those trunk routes capable of handling them). To a man (and woman) the trade associations have all described it as a "wasted opportunity/missed opportunity" etc, etc. (tick one from column A and one from column B). What do BLB readers think?
But then isn't that what the Department of Transport is all about? When it comes to taking bold decisions like LHVs and Lorry Road User Charging it's never missed an opportunity...to miss an opportunity. Or am I being unkind? In truth the architect of the decision is of course Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly---and she'd already let her views on LHVs be known at the recent Parliamentary questions.
Does Biglorryblog also detect the dead-hand of the rail lobby in this too? Being unable to negotiate their own track costs (which would make them more competitive against road freight) the rail lobby continues to grumble about the low costs of road transport. Well take it up with the Great British Consumer guys because truck operators clearly aren't making any decent money out of cheap road transport either.... and has anyone worked out that you still need a truck at the start and finish of every rail journey?
Or maybe it's simply a case of this deeply unpopular Government being terrified of any more bad press and back-bench revolts? Perhaps I'm being simple-minded..but isn't the best way to test a theory (i.e. that LHVs would reduce emissions, increase productivity and help cut the number of trucks on the road) to try it out... ?
Now click through here for at least a small crumb of comfort...
The one interesting bit in the LHV report is that the DfT says it will consider the case for longer artic artics---i.e. like those running with the 14.9m long Kogel Big-MAXX type trailer pictured above--and some 300 of them are already being trialled in Germany. If you search BLB for Big-MAXX you'll find plenty of entries on it so I won't go on about it in detail.
So will the one piece of good news from the great LHV debacle be that we might end up with longer artics? I'd be optimistic if it wasn't for the fact that the DfT has to make the final decision....but my advice is allow artics up to 18.75m, restrict the length of the semi-trailer to 14.9 and allow bigger-cab tractors (like the Scania Longline) to provide a decent living environment for long-haul drivers. But hey, what the hell do I know about things..?
Last but not least BLBs commiserations muct go to LHV advocate Dick Denby who showed us all what can be done with his Eco-Link B-Double. Sorry Dick---there's none so blind as them that shall not see....
Comments (5)
Hi BlB,
cant realy say I'm surprised at this decission, can you?
I honestly don't think it would have been a great success though for several reasons.
1, Its difficult enough to get into some service stations now in a normal artic. Try it with a wide heavy load.
2, We have steered away from the Scandinavian concept of a rigid and trailer, to my mind the best option.
3, Trailer change over areas would have to be privatley owned to keep them free from others using them.
4, Purely as a driver, how much extra would we be paid for the extra respsonsibility for driving them.
5, Can you imagine the idiot LGV drivers taking half an hour or more overtaking them on roads like the A14/M11? Infuriating other road users.
6, Overnight pallet companies would want double deck trls that would be likely to roll over on a regular bassis.
Sorry not in this country. There are far more simpler ways to be more efficient.
Sick to death of hearing about hauliers slashing rates to get work, instead of working with each other.
Posted by Nick Garlick | June 5, 2008 10:31 AM
Posted on June 5, 2008 10:31
Brian,
No surprise really, though the reasons suck, I think.
As Nick says there are plenty of other reasons why LHVs won't work in this country.
The cost of the land needed for depots large enough would nullify any reduced running costs, especially in the South East. Finding somewhere for a break is almost impossible now at night let alone with an extra trailer.
Any reduction in running costs would simply be seen as a way to cut somebody else's throat. Are lower costs to the customer really a benefit to an industry that's struggling to make 1 or 2% profit, when the customer is making maybe 10 times that margin? And, just how many hauliers would have the facilities to run LHVs? Wouldn't a reduced 'price per pallet' cost for LHVs simply put extra pressure on those not running or able to run LHVs? How many customers would want to pay more to a haulier without LHVs?
I can't help wondering if the likes of Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda, Morrisons saw any merit in running LHVs and had been lobbying the government for them that the result might have been different.
Best wishes,
Roy.
Posted by Roy Larkin | June 5, 2008 1:39 PM
Posted on June 5, 2008 13:39
full marks to denby and stan robinson for all their efforts.i think we all knew that from a legislation viewpoint this was always going to be a non-starter.roy larkin hit the nail on the head with his opinion of the supermarkets.that could have changed everything.
Posted by andrew cooper | June 5, 2008 10:29 PM
Posted on June 5, 2008 22:29
I agree with Roy, the big customers would benefit from lower costs but nothing in it at the end of the day for drivers or operators. In the UK there would be a lot of transport yards, service areas or customer premises that would be off limits to LHVs. Some tasks such as fridge work are a pain with B Doubles.
If you eventually get them approved, I think B Doubles are the way to go, rather than truck and trailer setups. With a B- Double you can always drop one trailer and deliver the single one.
Posted by Peter Lynch | June 6, 2008 11:05 AM
Posted on June 6, 2008 11:05
Thinking further of reasons why LHV wouldnt work here in the UK. The concept is brilliant in sparsley populated countries/continents where land is cheap and there is no alternative.
As was pointed out to me imagine other road users as well as LGV drivers struggling to overtake a vehicle that long. Can you imagine what speed the East Anglian tin box hauliers would restrict their LHV's to, if they had been allowed to operate them? Disaster.
What happens when the qualified driver goes sick and an agencey is used?
Not as simple as it first seems unless you run a large fleet and have your own network of depots.
Posted by Nick Garlick | June 6, 2008 4:04 PM
Posted on June 6, 2008 16:04