The Freight on Rail Group seems determined to stop the introduction of longer, heavier trucks. A few weeks ago, it issued a press statement criticising the idea. Today it has had a letter published in the The Times strongly arguing against it.

What is odd is that the letter starts by saying that later this month the Transport Secretary will receive a report on these vehicles. That is true, there is a full investigation being undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory and Heriott-Watt University.

So why criticise the idea now, before the Freight on Rail Group has head the facts from this report? Can it be that they are so prejudiced against the idea that they don’t want to hear the considered report by the experts?

By making such comments before they have read the report, puts their whole credibility into serious doubt and leaves them open to the accusation that they are just prejudiced against anything to do with road transport.

You can see the letter on line and I have sent a letter in reply to The Times.

Letter in reply

Sir,
Why doesn’t Philippa Edmunds of the Freight on Rail wait until the review of longer heavier trucks is published before criticising the idea? (Letters October 8). Extensive work has been carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory and Heriot-Watt University on these vehicles. Across Europe, Governments are looking at these vehicles as a way to reduce the number of trucks on the road. The Freight on Rail Group should wait until they have read the report coming to a conclusion. Criticising the idea now, just makes them sound prejudiced.

Andrew Brown

The Times had a major article today on the topic of longer, heavier trucks (LHVs). Even better published a leading article broadly supporting the idea. It said “If using LHVs can, in some cases mean one truck instead of two, it might be worthwhile”, adding that new technology means that they could be safer than the vehicles they replace.
The Times added “The courage to think big must be part of this approach (accepting trucks but reducing their environental impace) starting with an HFV trial that that enforces a strict low speed limit and a ban on overtaking and minor roads.”
This is excellent news at a time when a major report on the vehicles is being considered and the rail freight lobby is aggressively fighting against them.
The article in The Times is clear and considered. The Government must take notice and have the courage to announce a trial.

Article in The Times
The Times Leader

An article in The Times on Monday has sparked off a huge amount of press coverage and reaction to longer heavier trucks and most of it is bad, even though The Times supported the idea.

The Daily Mail was particularly harsh, which is surprising as they normally support industry. But it’s comment was “They are the supertankers of the highway. Huge lorries called LHVs - longer, heavier vehicles - could soon be thundering along Britain's roads if the haulage industry gets its way. But do we want them?”

The Sun is believed to have opposed them but changed its mind after a journalist drove one. Sun writer Ken Gibson wrote: “But I reckon the super truck is well worth a spin. If I can drive one with relative ease, professional truckers would have no problem and the public have nothing to fear.” And there is a video of the Denby vehicle on the web site as well.

The Guardian is predictable opposed saying “Let's have no truck with them
The government is considering trials of a new 'super-lorry'. But nothing could be more disastrous.”

The Daily Telegraph is netural but does us the word juggernaut

See our full coverage on longer heavier super trucks

The chaos on rail after Christmas did not just affect passengers, but also the distribution industry. Tony Berkeley, chairman of the Rail Freight Group spoke on the BBC Today Programme this week. He said that the key Daventry depot was cut off from the rest of the rail network and added that some supermarkets were very angry, particularly as they had to use many trucks at short notice to move the goods.

According to the Rail Freight Group’s web site: “It was particularly bad for the supermarket industry that has to provide 24/7 service to their customers to be told that supplies from the depots at the Daventry Terminal are effectively isolated by the WCML closure overrun. It is very disappointing for the rail freight industry, who have been working hard in the last year to encourage supermarkets to use more rail freight customers to be told – ‘sorry – no trains today with your supermarket goods. We apologise for any inconvenience caused by your shelves being empty!’

This highlights are vulnerable rail freight can be and underlines the advantages of road transport. What we need is an efficient rail service to move passengers, and freight to move by road.

It is worth noting that goods had to be carried by road. Maybe the longer heavier trucks (LHV’s) that the Rail Freight Group has so strongly opposed, would have helped when the rail was closed.

Of course the disuption on the rail is set to continue with more work to be done on the west coast main line. Incidentally railways receive about £5 billion a year.

OK, clearly unrelated to Ferrari, but something that came out of yesterday's visit to Iveco.