RE: UK to see US-style road trains?
Monday 10th October 2005
Is double-sizing the way to go?Lorry sizes could almost double to become US-style trains, if current Government proposals come to fruition.
UK to see US-style road trains?
Government wants double-sized trucks
Is double-sizing the way to go?
Today, HGVs can be no heavier than 44 tons and no longer than 62 feet. Under the new proposals, the length of the juggernauts could almost double to 110 feet.
Arguments for and against rage. On the one hand, many argue that accidents involving one of the behemoths could result in more fatalities. Being heavier, they are also more likely to damage roads that are already showing signs of under-maintenance. Concerns have also been raised about their being driven on unsuitable roads, such as country lanes and in villages.
On the plus side, many believe they could reduce pollution and the overall number of vehicles, as consignments become consolidated into fewer journeys.
A survey by an insurance portal (www.motorinsurance.co.uk) found however that overall reaction was negative.
The main problem for most of us is that they'll take a lot more space to get past on single carriageways.
So maybe instead of road trains, they should make them railway trains...
Discussion
"The main problem for most of us is that they'll take a lot more space to get past on single carriageways."
On the stretches of NSL A-roads that I regularly drive on, they already have this problem.
It's caused by the wagon drivers, driving far too close to one another (usually leaving insufficient distance for reaction & braking time).
This then means that you have to overtake two or three in one go, which limits the points that you can overtake safely.
In fact last week I had one wagon "pull out" on me to try and prevent me from overtaking, despite the fact that there was plenty of room to do so.
Mark Walton makes a similar point in his column in this month's CAR magazine. A valid & interseting read!
On the stretches of NSL A-roads that I regularly drive on, they already have this problem.
It's caused by the wagon drivers, driving far too close to one another (usually leaving insufficient distance for reaction & braking time).
This then means that you have to overtake two or three in one go, which limits the points that you can overtake safely.
In fact last week I had one wagon "pull out" on me to try and prevent me from overtaking, despite the fact that there was plenty of room to do so.
Mark Walton makes a similar point in his column in this month's CAR magazine. A valid & interseting read!
In the US and the Aussie the long train trukcs can make sence because of the long open fields and distance almost to everywhere...but in the UK like countries(small?) the roads and surroundings are twisty and more crowded, so its more dangerous?!
In those countries it will mae more sence to transport by train! or ship!
And if they have to go by trucks, make more trucks drive with batteries(elektrick) because most trucks are dirty! especialy the older ones...
In those countries it will mae more sence to transport by train! or ship!
And if they have to go by trucks, make more trucks drive with batteries(elektrick) because most trucks are dirty! especialy the older ones...
GTRene said:
In the US and the Aussie the long train trukcs can make sence because of the long open fields and distance almost to everywhere...but in the UK like countries(small?) the roads and surroundings are twisty and more crowded, so its more dangerous?!
In those countries it will mae more sence to transport by train! or ship!
And if they have to go by trucks, make more trucks drive with batteries(elektrick) because most trucks are dirty! especialy the older ones...
I agree they should probably utilize the rail system and more hybrid trucks. Trucks would benefit from the instant lowend torque of electric motors and all that momenteum that needs to be slowed down could be redirected back from the brakes*. Trucks will still be needed to move stuff in between rail and ports and depots, boats and trains are limited in where they can go, however, so trucks are still needed, like it or not.
*(my idea for hybrid trucks could be completely wrong so a more intelligent person can feel free to correct me on that)
Road trains? In the US? Nah. those are just tandems. No big deal. These are road trains:
http://members.tripod.com/kingsley-foreman/Towtruckphotos/id11.html
I'm a spastic when it comes to posting photographs here!
>> Edited by hammerwerfer on Monday 10th October 12:36
>> Edited by hammerwerfer on Monday 10th October 12:39
http://members.tripod.com/kingsley-foreman/Towtruckphotos/id11.html
I'm a spastic when it comes to posting photographs here!
>> Edited by hammerwerfer on Monday 10th October 12:36
>> Edited by hammerwerfer on Monday 10th October 12:39
The idea of putting it on the Railways and Ships is purely pie in the sky, its good in theory. This country has been built around the road in recent years and there is no going back. The US for instance has always been built around freight movement by rail, factories have their own rail tracks so road movements are rarely used. Rail in this country is geared towards passengers and always will be.
Rivers and canals are sometimes used for transporting goods but very small amounts and usually only locally, the river/canal system isnt made for transport and more than likely never will be. You cant get 40 tons of goods on a barge and still fit it down a canal and under tiny bridges.
The bit about Road-Trains isnt entirely correct in the way it was reported, Stan Robinson Transports Man TGA clocked 7.55mpg running with a single trailer but used only 54% more fuel when coupled to a second trailer and running at twice the weight (82tons)The trailers will be fitted with advanced rear steering devices to enable easy manouvering. They also wont be allowed on most single carraigeways and will be limited to 50mph on Motorways.
As for the damage to roads, is there a problem in Australis where Roadtrains exceed 120 tons or in the Us where they run at 80+ tons? Nope, its our road designs. We run relatively low axle weights compared to a lot of Europe and they dont have problems like we do
Rivers and canals are sometimes used for transporting goods but very small amounts and usually only locally, the river/canal system isnt made for transport and more than likely never will be. You cant get 40 tons of goods on a barge and still fit it down a canal and under tiny bridges.
The bit about Road-Trains isnt entirely correct in the way it was reported, Stan Robinson Transports Man TGA clocked 7.55mpg running with a single trailer but used only 54% more fuel when coupled to a second trailer and running at twice the weight (82tons)The trailers will be fitted with advanced rear steering devices to enable easy manouvering. They also wont be allowed on most single carraigeways and will be limited to 50mph on Motorways.
As for the damage to roads, is there a problem in Australis where Roadtrains exceed 120 tons or in the Us where they run at 80+ tons? Nope, its our road designs. We run relatively low axle weights compared to a lot of Europe and they dont have problems like we do
There's one born every minute.Bigger trucks? Noooooo!!!
There's too many as it is, going around wrecking the roads and causing congestion. Did you know that when road surfaces are designed for trunk routes where HGV's are expected, the number of cars using the road is barely even considered, such is the disproportionate damage HGV's do to the surface!
Rail is the way to go. The only reason why road haulage of goods is so big now is that in the 70's British Rail decided to go "Trainload" rather than "Wagonload". This meant that if you wanted to have your good taken by rail, rather than just putting it into a single wagon (or container onto a wagon), you had to provide an entire train of goods and pay for it. So how many businesses do you know that can produce a trainload of produce on a regular basis? Once they started at that, the road hauliers were able to expand sufficiently that they could reduce their costs and provide a preferable alternative to rail.
The current tax environment makes it favourable for businesses to move freight my road, all it would take is a few tax breaks to move a lot of traffic onto the underused container terminals spotted around the country (Wakefield Europort for example). Considering that a good proportion of road haulage is part of the Ireland-UK-Benelux Trans-European Freight Corridor, in that it's headed abroad, perhaps more use could be made of the underused Channel Tunnel.
There's too many as it is, going around wrecking the roads and causing congestion. Did you know that when road surfaces are designed for trunk routes where HGV's are expected, the number of cars using the road is barely even considered, such is the disproportionate damage HGV's do to the surface!
Rail is the way to go. The only reason why road haulage of goods is so big now is that in the 70's British Rail decided to go "Trainload" rather than "Wagonload". This meant that if you wanted to have your good taken by rail, rather than just putting it into a single wagon (or container onto a wagon), you had to provide an entire train of goods and pay for it. So how many businesses do you know that can produce a trainload of produce on a regular basis? Once they started at that, the road hauliers were able to expand sufficiently that they could reduce their costs and provide a preferable alternative to rail.
The current tax environment makes it favourable for businesses to move freight my road, all it would take is a few tax breaks to move a lot of traffic onto the underused container terminals spotted around the country (Wakefield Europort for example). Considering that a good proportion of road haulage is part of the Ireland-UK-Benelux Trans-European Freight Corridor, in that it's headed abroad, perhaps more use could be made of the underused Channel Tunnel.
nickyboy said:
The idea of putting it on the Railways and Ships is purely pie in the sky, its good in theory. This country has been built around the road in recent years and there is no going back. Rail in this country is geared towards passengers and always will be.
They also wont be allowed on most single carraigeways and will be limited to 50mph on Motorways.
Not necessarily the case. Anything can be fixed given the right amount of planning and incentives. It's just governments for the past 30 years have been lazy about freight transport almost as much as passenger transport.
Highway restrictions for HGV's are great in principle but will they be policed in practice? So many HGV's currently break the Highway Code on so many levels I don't think giving them a much larger vehicle will change this behaviour.
Imagine a monster like this that's been badly maintained losing control and hitting you...
jazzyjeff said:
Not necessarily the case. Anything can be fixed given the right amount of planning and incentives. It's just governments for the past 30 years have been lazy about freight transport almost as much as passenger transport.
Imagine a monster like this that's been badly maintained losing control and hitting you...
Totally agree, unfortunately i dont see the government doing anything for a very long time. If they did then yes as you said anything is possible. I love the american railroads and the vast amount of freight they carry, if this country could get something similar then i'd be all for it. On another notre i believe we use different gauge railways to the continent so cross channel freight would be a problem as well.
Thankfully badly maintained trucks are relatively rare now, huge fines and loss of operating licenses have reduced the numbers. Still doesnt stop some tho
Regularly drive down the M11 motorway, often get 5-10 trucks in lane 1 and they all try and overtake each other, often by no more than a few mph. The cars get into a reallylong q in lane 2, some get a bit upset when I pass them in lane 1, where they should be... 1 mile of cars queing in lane 2 - tend to overtake as and when needed.
Most of the trucks are 10 feet or so away from each other, sometimes a bit more, other times not so..
Trains used to be used for hauling lots of stuff, then the govt privatised rail and the prices went up massivley for hauling goods,so they go onto the crowded roads :
Most of the trucks are 10 feet or so away from each other, sometimes a bit more, other times not so..
Trains used to be used for hauling lots of stuff, then the govt privatised rail and the prices went up massivley for hauling goods,so they go onto the crowded roads :
my arguement would be that there simply isn't enough space for these "large" vehicles. Yes i do believe that maybe doubling the size would be benifical. BUT trucks overtaking each other is bad enough as it is and the amount of space you would have to leave so that the truck driver could just about see you behind him/her just doesnt make sense...common sense that is!!!
nickyboy said:
On another notre i believe we use different gauge railways to the continent so cross channel freight would be a problem as well.
Mainline rail gauges are now standard across western europe, consequently a container loaded in Glasgow can be carried as far as Bavaria or southern Spain without changing train (or indeed stopping).
nickyboy said:
Stan Robinson Transports Man TGA clocked 7.55mpg running with a single trailer but used only 54% more fuel when coupled to a second trailer and running at twice the weight (82tons)The trailers will be fitted with advanced rear steering devices to enable easy manouvering. They also wont be allowed on most single carraigeways and will be limited to 50mph on Motorways.
Unless he has developed this rig further since I last saw it the problem is that the turning circle does not comply with EU inner and outer turning radii of 5.3 and 12.5metres.
His rig then was a 12 axle double bottom rig, comprising the MAN tractor-unit towing a conventional semi-trailer which in turn towed a single-axle dolly with a fifth-wheel coupling and a second conventional semi-trailer.
A far better solution imho is Denby's B train here >
When I first saw this rig it JUST failed the turning test by a gnat's thingy, but at the later BTAC tests it passed with a metres to spare. Dutch Swedish and Finnish trains fail to comply by a long way.
The picture doesn't do justice to the way it works. There is automatic steering of the wide spread tandem axle bogie at the rear of the leading semi-trailer.
The photo and more detail is available here
Most heavies travel at below full weight capacity. As pointed out its cubic capacity that is the limiting factor not weight, eg many supermarket artic have not much more than around 12 tonnes on board when full to gunnels.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Monday 10th October 19:11
nickyboy said:
...The US for instance has always been built around freight movement by rail, factories have their own rail tracks so road movements are rarely used...
I grew up in Rugby (a town near Coventry). That town had the remains of a once well thought out industrial environment. In my Dads day, the station was a central hub of the UK rail network. Next to that was a huge site used by GEC with it's own shunting yard where goods could be received and distributed by rail. A little further along was Rugby Cement which had it's own rail line joining the main line at the station.
It all made sense as thesse were big industries, but for the past 30 years these facilities have stood unused as the traffic around the town has increased immeasurably. Infact, 20 minutes drive from Rugby Station is the DIRFT distribution centre at junction 18 on the M1 - built specifically for lorries, but it could easily have been for trains - or even both.
Many, many wasted opportunities...
groomi said:
...The US for instance has always been built around freight movement by rail, factories have their own rail tracks so road movements are rarely used...
I grew up in Rugby (a town near Coventry). That town had the remains of a once well thought out industrial environment. In my Dads day, the station was a central hub of the UK rail network. Next to that was a huge site used by GEC with it's own shunting yard where goods could be received and distributed by rail. A little further along was Rugby Cement which had it's own rail line joining the main line at the station.
It all made sense as thesse were big industries, but for the past 30 years these facilities have stood unused as the traffic around the town has increased immeasurably. Infact, 20 minutes drive from Rugby Station is the DIRFT distribution centre at junction 18 on the M1 - built specifically for lorries, but it could easily have been for trains - or even both.
Many, many wasted opportunities...
Good call. More freight trains - less passenger (give up they are pretty useless!) less lorries. This country was built on the rail network - freight, and now we're worse than any other country in the EU? Trains not trucks are the way forward.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff