Nothing in the link of the Denby lorry shows me how manoeuvreable it is?. It doesn't perform any normal maneuvre that would be encountered in a notmal days work.
Pat
|
Nothing in the link of the Denby lorry shows me how manoeuvreable it is?.
I thought that the way it passed the stationary lorry using a small length of road on the approach was impressive. At one point the Denby EcoLink was an "s" shape.
|
|
So where do we draw the line... shall we just allow them to use the Australian Road Trains and have done with it?
|
So where do we draw the line... shall we just allow them to use the Australian Road Trains and have done with it?
Stop worrying. Denby have no intention of using the EcoLink on anything other than suitably wide roads.
|
So they say...
Thin end of wedge springs to mind...
So I'll carry on worrying!
|
|
|
|
There are two separate issues here. The background issue is whether or not we should permit larger, heavier and double-articulated lorries on our roads. But the main issue at the moment is a haulier blatantly taking a vehicle on the roads in full knowledge that it doesn't comply with Construction and Use regulations. Surely the company in question was risking its operator's licence by such an action.
I do think there's a case for using larger double-articulated lorries on the motorway and trunk dual-carriageway network, but they should not be allowed on the rest of our roads, except for very short access routes (.e.g no more than 1.5 miles) to the motorway/trunk network
Edited by Sofa Spud on 23/01/2010 at 11:31
|
|
Further to my post immediately above. If these double-artics are allowed, I can foresee a sort of thin end of the wedge, or mission-creep towards an ultimate goal. That goal would be a double-artic capable of carrying two 40-foot, 30-tonne rated containers. Such a vehicle would need to have a gross weight of about 80 tonnes and a length of 30 metres.
|
|
|
But the main issue at the moment is a haulier blatantly taking a vehicle on the roads in full knowledge that it doesn't comply with Construction and Use regulations.
At the risk of being accused of repeating myself .............
Dick Denby still insists that his EcoLink lorry is road legal, claiming that VOSA's prohibition was issued under the wrong part of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
|
|
|
|
So where do we draw the line... shall we just allow them to use the Australian Road Trains and have done with it?
But that is not the intention. The Denby truck fits within current C&U regs, specefically:
(4) Every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be able to move on either lock so that, disregarding the things set out in paragraph (i)(a) to (m) in the definition of "overall width" in the Table in regulation 3(2), no part of it projects outside the area contained between concentric circles with radii of 12.5m and 5.3m.
It is unlikely that any "Roadtrain" would be able to fulfil the above requirement.
As such it is quite capable of manoeuvring safely on the majority of UK roads. In fact there are times when an artic will get into places that an 8 wheel rigid would not!!!
|
>> Australian Road Trains and have done with it? >> But that is not the intention.
Isn't it? I remain to be convinced R75, regardless what the current regs say... which could easily be changed if they want...
As I've said before I regard the lengthenning of HGVs and increasing weights as a negative step, our roads are already too crowded, we should be looking for ways to reduce the numbers on the roads, not increase their size... And please don't tell me that use of these vehciles will reduce numbers because they are bigger, that argument was used when introducing the 44 (?) ton vehicles and all we've seen is an increase in numbers.
Edited by b308 on 23/01/2010 at 13:41
|
And please don't tell me that use of these vehciles will reduce numbers because they are bigger that argument wasused when introducing the 44 (?) ton vehicles and all we've seen is an increase in numbers.
Actually, according to the office of national statistics that comment is not correct. HGV's have actually been in decline over the last few years. It declined by 6% for the period 2007-8.
tinyurl.com/yeytlo4
and
tinyurl.com/y9cvx9w
And I can testify to the above as well, being an independent transport manager I used to have client numbers into the double figures, over the last 18-24 months that has now dropped to less then 25% of what is once was, with no new business on the horizon either.
Edited by R75 on 23/01/2010 at 14:56
|
It declined by 6% for the period 2007-8.
So just to clarify R75 it's not just due to the current economic problems?
|
So just to clarify R75 it's not just due to the current economic problems?
I'll let you know and answer that one in another 18 months or so ;o)
|
|
|
|
Actually, according to the office of national statistics that comment is not correct. HGV's have actually been in decline over the last few years. It declined by 6% for the period 2007-8.
Err, yes well that's due to this recession you might've read about, not the introduction of 44 tonners. Traffic volumes as a whole, including private cars, fell 3.5% in 2008 and over 15,000 HGV drivers were put on the dole.
Legislation to allow 44 tonners came into effect in 2001, in 2000 there were 409,000 goods vehicles on the UK register, by 2002 that number had increased to 431,000. Even in 2008 it was still around 420,000 so the introduction of heavier load limits did not reduce the number of HGVs on the roads; quite the opposite.
As far as maneuverability is concerned countries that are or have carried out trials with superlorries (Denmark, Holland, Germany) have had to spend large amounts on roadworks, widening roundabouts etc, to accept them. Germany rejected the case for them after a two year trail as has the EU's transport minister.
Don't be misled by the "Eco" greenwash, the only motivation the hauliers have is taking freight away from the railways. It's estimated that they could attract 10% of the goods currently moved by rail if 60 tonners are allowed. In the UK that would be an extra 6 million tonnes on the road every year (excluding coal) and how many extra lorries will that need?
If you want more HGVs and decades of roadworks support the case for superlorries. The hauliers will thank you even if nobody else does.
|
Legislation to allow 44 tonners came into effect in 2001 in 2000 there were 409 000 goods vehicles on the UK register by 2002 that number had increased to 431 000. Even in 2008 it was still around 420 000 so the introduction of heavier load limits did not reduce the number of HGVs on the roads; quite the opposite.
>
But how many extra would there have been if the MGW had stayed at 38t? so in effect by increasing it did limit the numbers if extra trucks on the road.
Rail will never be a viable alternative to road. Because you still need road transport to make the "final mile", so why not use road to take it all the way. Couple that with the fact that it is quicker to get goods from London/the South to Scotland by road then it is by rail with the same amount or even less manpower then it takes by rail. There is no competition really. Rail is an outdated mode of fast efficient freight transport.
|
Because you still need road transport to make the "final mile" so why not use road to take it all the way.
Why not? It makes far more sense to take goods by rail for the majority of their journey and then do local delivery by road, on congestion, waer and tear to the roads and emmissions points of view.
Couple that with the fact that it is quicker to get goods from London/the South to Scotland by road then it is by rail with the same amount
Probably quicker, but how many goods need to be there by yesterday, and overnight delivery times would be pretty similar, ceratinly not enough difference to worry about.
even less manpower then it takes by rail.
And your proof is? The days of lots of staff, two drivers and a guard have long gone... just one driver now for a train of 22 freightliner wagons able to carry 50+ containers, plus signalling staff.... now 50 lorries doing the same journey is 50 staff, is it not... Repair staff (PW on railways and maintenace staff on roads are common to both)
Rail is an outdated mode of fast efficient freight transport.
I assume you have a vested interest in the raod haulage business or a pathalogical hatred of trains to make that comment, R75, which is it?!
|
I was going to add, but ran out of time:
I feel that rail is a better form of taking containerised goods long distances than road, from the views of congestion, safety and emmissions...
But I don't think that its likely to happen in any big way simply because of the strength in this country of the Road Haulage Lobby, who, tbh, do a good job of self protection, even if its misguided!
Anyhow we've gone off topic, lets see how Mr Denby gets on with his latest spat with the powers that be!
|
B308, your argument is all well and good, but functions on a very large scale.
My argument is based on local level and small companies. A train may well take 50 containers, but will still need 50 drivers each end to move those containers, plus the train staff.
As for the "just in time" argument, then that is down to consumer pressure and driven by them. Couple that with the likes of Tesco etc who do not want to pay for warehousing and you end up with situation we have now. Warehouses are just transfer points, stock is very rarely stored in them for any length of time. In the case of most fresh food sites then it goes in one side and exits the other side in a matter of hours normally.
Add the above the fact that the rail network cant really cope with what it has now, let alone adding to it!!! Case in point is the fact that Southampton is having to have disruptions to its rail service at the moment whilst they lower a section of track under a bridge so that containers can pass under it. How long has Soto'n been a container port? And only now are they doing the work!!! Keeping up with the times I see!!!
Roads are paid for (and more besides) by the RFL, trucks pay for this (as do cars) the roads may well wear out, but they are paid for. Maybe there should be a tax similar to the RFL on all train journeys, that would then pay for the upgrades of the line. Oh wait, then that would make them even more expensive then they are now wouldn't it!!
Trains are a viable way to transport goods, but over much longer distances then we have in this country, hence why they work in Europe and the USA etc.
And you are correct I do have a vested interest in the road haulage business, but there is progress to be made still, and I think the Eco link is progress. Add to the fact that I have seen a couple of companies I have worked for trial using trains and it has been a disaster on each occasion, and that was with goods that were not time critical (one container was lost in a siding for over 3 months until it was finally found!)
So I do not have a hatred of rail, I just think that in this country, at this time, it is not a viable alternative to road.
|
Probably quicker but how many goods need to be there by yesterday and overnight delivery times would be pretty similar ceratinly not enough difference to worry about.
Sorry missed that point, but to answer it, ParcelForce trialled using trains from London to Glasgow for the Scottish traffic, most was next day items. It was found to be quicker to send one driver from London and one from Glasgow and they met half way and swapped trailers and drove back to their respective depots.
This was much more efficient then having to drive a trailer to the rail head, drive back empty to depot, then after 8 or so hours have to drive back to rail head to collect trailer from other depot and take back to your own depot. The cost was less as well.
So even on a relatively long UK journey which is conducted overnight the train could still not compete with road.
|
So why are trains still carrying container traffic, according to you they are far too inefficient therefore companies shouldn't be using them at all. Perhaps your statement is not quite as accurate as you think. The many containers I see transported on trains would seem to indicate that your sums might be a little out!
The main problem we have in this country is a Victorian Rail system which needs updating and a Road Lobby who have too much power... I would seriously question whether HGV's RFL actually covers the damage HGVs do to the roads... I strongly suspect that car users subsidise them.
Finally, just to clarify, the tunnels in Southampton are being lowered to cope with the bigger containers, its taken them a long time to get the money to do this, granted, and was long overdue... but the container depots have been there for donkeys years coping very nicely with the standard ones... better on Rail than clogging up the road network?!
I suspect, R75 that you and I will never agree with each other on this, argument and counter argument being the order of the day... But there are always ways of doing things better, even if better doesn't always mean the cheapest way... One day the Gov may realise that and invest accordingly in non-road forms of land transport...
|
I suspect R75 that you and I will never agree with each other on this argument and counter argument being the order of the day...
Oh I don't know, I fully agree with you on the above ;o)
|
"But how many extra would there have been if the MGW had stayed at 38t? so in effect by increasing it did limit the numbers if extra trucks on the road."
We were promised by the road transport lobby that increasing the limit would mean fewer lorries. Instead we got more, and more travelling around part empty at that.
"Rail will never be a viable alternative to road. Because you still need road transport to make the "final mile", so why not use road to take it all the way."
Odd then that the amount of freight carried by rail has increased by 60% since privatisation.
www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/manifesto/docs/2understa...f
|
We were promised by the road transport lobby that increasing the limit would mean fewer lorries. Instead we got more and more travelling around part empty at that.
We got more because the population has increased and the need for goods has also increased, I would like to see what the per capita figures work out as!! I would hazard a guess it will be pretty static or declining.
Odd then that the amount of freight carried by rail has increased by 60% since privatisation. www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/manifesto/docs/2understa...f
See answer above, and also a nice bit of propaganda in that link ;o) No bias in that whatsoever ;o)
|
See answer above and also a nice bit of propaganda in that link ;o) No bias in that whatsoever ;o)
Rather like yours for the Road Haulage Lobby, then R75! ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lairKr1Nf0Q this link is probably better at showing off its capabilities.
|
|
Well, that's me convinced how good they are. Those against the EcoLink are just Luddites.
|
QUOTE:..."Dick Denby still insists that his EcoLink lorry is road legal, claiming that VOSA's prohibition was issued under the wrong part of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986."" So he's claiming a technicality, and the result of this is that the technicality is likely to be closed.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 23/01/2010 at 21:15
|
|
|
|
I can see how this truck works with high volume, low weight loads like aluminium cans, plastic bottles etc.
One thing which I have not seen in the links, I may have missed, is how the unladen weight compares with a standard artic.
I'm thinking of an OEM who makes sub-assemblies for a manufacturers production line.
They will calculate the minimum number of trucks they can use to move the maximum load between plants, trucks running at or as close as possible to maximum weight.
If these new trucks are heavier unladen than the existing artics, more vehicles will be required to move the same load. That wouldn't be very Eco.
|
|
|
What worries (scares?) me is the way the trailer(s) move in a quite unexpected way.
I know of at least one local death where a pedestrian got crushed by an artic that trapped them against a building...I believe its not uncommon for accidents to happen on roundabouts where the trailer catch out the unwary.
having seen the way the trailer wheels go on a massive lock, it makes me wonder how the average road user will cope when they come across these beasts...
|
The answer to that is, just as badly as they do around conventional artics sadly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
