• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

WHO WANTS 4

MINES I

MT CONDUCTED a round table discussion last month on the ubject of 40 tonnes gvw. We brought together environmenMists; manufacturers; a representative of the operators; and ngineers.

Those present were: ligel Haigh, of the Civic rust, which is concerned with le protection and improvement I the environment generally, ut perhaps more with towns nd cities than it is with the Duntryside; ob Fryers, technical director I Truck and Bus Group, British .iyfand; ionn HoIford-Walker, of the ounbil for the Protection of ural England, whose organation is concerned with the rotection of the English counyside and its towns and Ilages;

raham Montgomerie, techcal editor, Commercial Motor, ho has road tested most makes vehicles in Britain over 16 ins gvw;

eter Beattie, Ford Motor ampany, heavy truck vehicle lgineering manager;

Dhn Guttridge, chief inforation officer, Freight TransDrt Association, who re-esented the interests of trade Id industry;

liff Groves, general sales maiger from Scania (GB) Ltd, the K subsidiary of the Scania divion of Saab/Scania of rveden;

in Sherriff, CM's editor, who 3s in the chair.

in Sherriff: Now gentlemen, I could introduce today's sub:A. We will be examining the [vantages and the disadvanges, the claims and the iunter claims concerning hicles running at 40 tonnes oss vehicle weight. Could I irt first of all with you Nigel? hat is the official view' of the vie Trust on vehicle weights ing increased from 32 tons w in the UK to 40 tonnes w?

gel Haigh: Let me start first th the situation as it is now. ere is undoubted disquiet 'ough very large sectors of .7:iety in Britain about the exing problems of heavy lorries today's weights.

Perhaps this is due to the ography in Britain, perhaps it lue to the fact that more tonles go by road in Britain than many Continental countries, t whatever the reason there is doubt at all that a very large )portion of the population is deeply disturbed. This is shown in all sorts of ways.

The Civic Trust gets heaps of letters from local groups and amenity societies saying that they are disturbed. Presscutting services, social surveys, letters that local authorities get — all indicate this and perhaps it was best summed up in a report of the Noise Advisory Council which points out that the heavy lorry produced more noise disturbance than any other single factor, including factories, aircraft, motor cars, ice cream chimes, and all the other kinds of noise that disturb people.

The NAC point out that the growth in road freight more than counteracts any measures taken to quieten lorries.

Now there is nothing magic about 32 tons, which is what we have at the moment, but there are proposals that this should be increased either to 40 tonnes or 38 tonnes or 44 tonnes.

The fear is, and it's a real fear while we have an uncontrolled free market in freight, that if you allow heavier lorries you will attract yet more freight onto the roads. If that happens the situation will get worse.

Bob Fryers: As a manufacturer, based here in Britain I think our main concern is one of uncertainty. This question of weights for heavy lorries has been going on now for 10, 12, 15, or 20 years and we seem to be no nearer now to a resolution than we were about 15 years ago.

Forward planning is a very essential element in an efficient business operation and the doubt that is cast on forward planning for British manufacturers in this respect is a major problem.

Our prime objective in whole business is to see Leyland can constructively towards a harmonised sol for the European transpor dustry, because we are now of the European scene. How we help to achieve har isation and as a result of harmonisation how can we an effective and competitive in the total transport industr

Major highways

Heavier lorries have been on the Continent, I think for last 30 or 40 years. We re nise that some of the periences on the Continent h been unfortunate. S member States had to cha their regulations and reduce gross weights or axle wei ecause of the rather disastrous ffect on some of the major ighways.

We, therefore, have been ery conscious of the ways in vhich increased weight can be ccommodated without any derimental effects on the environnental aspects of road transport ,nd that really has been our thjective over the past five or six 'ears now. Leyland believes that t is now a straightforward mater to achieve these improvenents.

:ionn Holford-Waler: I think rom the CPRE point of view we ntirely agree with what Nigel las said. I don't think this is a >traight road versus rail argurent and I don't think that the itatistics that are put forward to )edevil the environmentalists .hat 80 per cent or 90 per cent )f all freight is moved by road are really very pertinent to the objections that we have.

Freight figures include milk roundsmen, for example.

Both the ordinary person in the street and the CPR E acknowledges that the majority of goods moved has got to go to its final delivery point by lorry. It can't possibly go by rail; it's not the small or medium-sized vehicle that we are worried about.

Small lanes

The present legislation controlling the movement of heavy vehicles provides for the advisory routeing of lorries, but plans no restriction on the right of access. This means that the smallest lane which is patently unfitted for the very heavy lorry may be nevertheless used by it. The stand that the Government, and industry and various other interests have taken on access is one which worries us considerably.

We have got 250,000km of -road in the UK. Let's say 50,000km are principal roads, motorways and trunk roads, 200,000km are minor roads and lanes. Those are the roads which are being asked to bear traffic for which they are totally unsuited. They were made for the horse and cart era and yet they are being asked as the law stands to take vehicles up to 32 tons and 40 tonnes.

A road which is constructed to carry heavy lorries can bear four, five or six-axled vehicles, but on a minor road, a thinskinned road, it is the gross weight not axle weight which is far more likely to cause damage. Graham Montgomerie: I think I would like to make two very brief points at the moment; one is to go along with Bob and the problem facing the manufacturing industry, and that's that the uncertainty they are faced with should be resolved.

Restrict size

The other point is that are we putting the cart before the horse. Are we accepting that the lorry is too big and too heavy or should it be argued that the roads are too small?

A number of points put forward have been suggesting that we restrict the size of the lorry or its weight, but could it be suggested also that a lot more energy could be put into improving the roads so that the problem didn't arise in the first place?

Peter Beattie: I'd like to speak fom both a personal and a manufacturer's viewpoint.

First of all, a personal view because I am lucky to live in a quiet little village. From this standpoint I'm concerned when I see a 32-ton truck come through my village because it is a wide vehicle, it is a long vehicle, it does have high axle loads and if it goes over the kerb, maybe it damages the pavement. Certainly from an emotional standpoint it looks potentially more frightening and potentially more damaging than a small vehicle.

However, this discussion is about increased gross weights, which does not necessarily mean increased physical size.

There is no doubt in my mind (and now I'm putting my manufacturer's "hat— on) that it is technically possible to design articulated vehicles at a gross weight of 40 tonnes on fiv, axles (and indeed at a gros

weight of 44 tonnes on six axles which in relation to the factor that I mentioned before wouli be no worse than, indeed coull be better than the current 32 ton vehicles. Specifically, 40 tonne or 44-tonne vehicles fleei be no longer, no wider, n higher, they could have smallE average axle loads and do Ie road damage, and be no noisiE than the current 32-ton vehicls It is desirable to achiev standardisation of trailers, whi recognising the need for in proved driver environment an engine noise shielding. Th would require a half-met, greater maximum length for a tic combinations regardless 1 any increase in maximum pe mitted weights.

Therefore I suggest that tt argument is not about wheth. 40 tonnes, provided that we acknowledge that we have design those vehicles proper with respect to environment factors.

Rather the issue is that eith we extend use of powers e eluding maximum size vehicli from selected local or min roads or alternatively we u grade the roads in those I cations to properly cope wi these vehicles.

can imagine, for exampi that the main road through n village could, if necessary, I quite satisfactorily upgraded allow safe passage of the exi: ing 32-ton vehicles in whil case it would also by definith allow equally safe passage of properly designed 40-tanner 44-tonner.

Count axles I have to say as somebo who deals with these vehicles , a day-to-day basis that ev. from a position of technical pertise counting the axles woi. be the only simple way to clet( whether the truck runni. through my village was' rated 32 or 44 tons.

John Guttridge: I think my fi point is that from a technil point of view I think Peter Iprobably answered it. Operati would agree very much w what he said. Transport, course, is absolutely keyed industry because you can't raw materials into factories finished products out to c tomers without transport.

Our interest becomes one operational efficiency bearinc mind transport costs infringe all costs. Going to a heavier lc means increasing payload Tleans that you can operate and rove at a cheaper cost, and if )ne takes the 40-tonne lorry I hink it's generally accepted the ;aving on operating costs is of he order of 121/2 per cent.

There will be a reduction in uel consumption of about eight )er cent. If you take the same evel of industrial output and ncrease vehicle weights you are Kling to require less vehicles tr` lo the same amount of work.

In this respect it's interesting hat the GLC has done some :alculations and they have reckmed that if 50 per cent of the 32-tonners in the GLC area went ip to 40 tonnes that within he GLC area there would be I 20 per cent reduction in the lumber of vehicles and 53,000 niles per day saved in vehicle novement.

On the international scene ve are wildly out of line not only vith any proposed standard but vith what actually happens on he Continent.

So if you've got a job in the lliddle East and you're a British ompany quoting against, say, a rench company and all the ther factors are equal, as a lritish company you've got two lisadvantages. One, you've got 3 get the load across the Chanel and then if its weight is over bout 21 tons the French perator can use one vehicle to eliver that load and the British hap has got to use two ehicles.

I think the question we have to consider as environmentalists, and we are all environmentalists — is what is better, two or three light vehicles or one heavier vehicle delivering the same amount of goods?

Cliff Groves: The United Kingdom and Ireland are the only two countries on 32 tonnes at the moment. The only lower one that I know of is Switzerland and there they have particular gradient problems. Everyone else is talking of 38-40 tonnes.

Swedish position

Europe has been through the problems real or imaginary that we are talking of today. I don't know of any city in France or Sweden with cathedrals which, have fallen down because of heavy vehicles — because they have taken a realistic approach to the problem.

They have segregated vehicles from town centres. The problem really lies with how to take roads round buildings. There is no country which is more environmentally conscious than Sweden. They've been through these problems many years ago; they've learnt to overcome them.

I.S.: From all that has been said two things emerge very clearly. We seem to be saying that our roads are inadequate, and we are also accusing the planners of allowing industrial building in rural areas thus generating road traffic?

N.H.: I'm going to jump straight in and say I'm absolutely delighted at these protestations that we're all environmentalists now, because you weren't all saying this five years ago.

At the first proposal in 1969/70 for an increase in vehicle weights the opinion inside the industry was that environmentalists were a few extremists — -They've got a bee in their bonnet, don't take them seriously" was the popular opinion.

That idea has now gone, and you confirm this with your protestations today. I think that's an enormous step forward and it is good of you to recognise that people like Hann and me arent really quite as eccentric as you used to think.

Having said that I'm very disappointed that only a few months ago I had an argument with Richard Turner and Hugh Featherstone after he made a speech saying that the Civic Trust used facts and figures in a very partial way in order to show that a 40-tonne lorry does more damage than a 32-ton lorry. We banged away through CM'S letter pages. The end of the argument was that the Civic Trust won and the FTA lost hands down.

Let us agree that a 40-tonne lorry — because that is the EEC proposal being discussed — would do more damage than a 32-ton lorry to the road surface and probably cause more vibration. That is distinct from the argument that per ton moved there may be less damage using 40-tonners than 32-tonners. .C.G.: Can I say that Upsala Cathedral is still standing despite the fact that Sweden has 52 tons as a regular operating weight?

Efficiency

There is a finite tonnage of goods to be moved in this country in any one year. Because vehicle weights are increased it does not follow that we move more goods. If all conditions are right we will move no more goods but we will move the same amount more efficiently.

N.H.: I am going to disagree with that later.

C.G.: This is not a selfperpetuating situation surely. N.H.: In the transport consultation document issued by the Ministry of Transport 18 months ago, there is a graph which very much surprised me and I talked to the DoE of about it.

The graph shows th tons of goods moved in has actually not been incr over the past 10 years. agree with your point, th amount of freight moved increasing. What has bee pening is that the good being moved further so every year the number o miles has gone up on th before which means vehicle miles.

Now if you contin cheapen road freight, you've all been saying tha freight must be cheaper, w don't agree with at all, yo increase the movement. freight should be a great more'expensive and I'm g see that the Treasury is doi best to see that it is.

J.G.: You can make road fr more expensive and yo make rail cheaper, but won't significantly affec choice of the customer. Th far more concerned delivery times, efficiency, larity and service.

Road v rail

British Rail have sai years, their wagon load serv is not all that it should be 1r they have tried to do somet r about it.

Now that are getting in ment in new wagons, the) running high-speed wagoncit trains, but there are pitifully fis of them at the present time. , J.S.: So much for the road argument in economic tern but can we return to the el vironmental effects of 4 tonnes? Have we establi beyond any doubt that the ton axle lorry would cause damage to York Minster or terbury or any other anc building than it does at tonnes?

B.F.: I think we can be p clear on this. As far as I kn the British motor industry,li never ever suggested we gp an axle weight over 11 ton4tq but 11 tonnes was a figiqt which we thought would apik a sensible compromise to try t get harmonisation in a Europe3 scene.

Now, because we know b more about road damage various other aspects today; are really saying that we d need to go as high as 11 ton We must convince the of Europeans that we can get monisation on a rather la figure.

On gross weights the been a mention of 44 tonnes here today. I've been associated with a recommendation to the Government, in fact, to look at 44 tonnes as a basis of harmonisation in Europe.

The road damage with a 44tonne vehicle is lower in total' value than the damage done by the present 32-ton vehicle. This is in any absolute terms you like to think of, so that I don't really think Nitre are talking about increasing the environmental problem when we are talking about increased weights.

I think the problem is not one of weight but of location. We have got to accept that planning mistakes have been made in the past; we have got premises in unsuitable areas. with unsuitable access. Therefore as a matter of priority we have got to make vehicle access suitable to the industrial premises that are now existing and not to restrict vehicle dimension which need only be an extra half-metre on overall length.

We can produce 40 or 44 tonne vehicles to perform better than the 32-ton now and here I would like to correct this idea that manufacturers have been going for weight regardless; this is not so.

The problem is undoubtedly a locational one and a good analogy. I believe, is found in air traffic. The Jumbo jet is to air what the 40-tonner is to road and it can move more tons efficiently for less environmental impact.

That's what the Jumbo jet's done for air traffic.

F.H.-W. I quite agree with the analogy between the Jumbo and lorry in one respect. It doesn't matter to the person on the ground whether there is one person in that aeroplane or 500. It is an aeroplane going overhead registering a certain number of decibels. The Jumbo jet registers the same number of decibels or perhaps fewer than a BAC 111, but it is on a fixed route and usually the route has been subject to agreement after discussion.

There are roads which are made to carry these very heavy vehicles be they 32 or 40 tonnes. I take the point that you can make a 40-tonne lorry absolutely indistinguishable from a 32-ton lorry in size.

But it is weight not dimension that damages road surface So if there is going to be any increase in heavy lorry weights there has to be some restriction on the roads that they use. I think this is absolutely essential.

The second point that I want to make is in answer to those who say, -It is our duty to find the cheapest form of transport''

. I don't accept that principle, when the environmental price is excluded. I think that the economics of the matter have got to be examined. Some economic weight has got to be given to the environmental burden which the heaviest lorries are creating.

C.G.: Manufacturers recognise the problems; we don't want to live with noise but we cannot accept the argument .of absolute silence at any price. Our argument says that it's a matter of efficiency of moving goods, but definitely not at any cost. We must aim at the lowest possible transport cost.

J.G.: First of all I think both our environmentalists friends, with a big E, have mentioned this factor of planning and they are absolutely right. We don't and we haven't for years in planning decisions given enough attention to the transport aspects of those decisions. There's no real sort of planning for the transport activity and this is quite ridiculous.

There have been lots of planning decisions made in the siting and location of industrial premises and port expansion which have been stupid in an environmental and transport sense. But those decisions have been taken and the industry is there. They now need to be serviced by transport and economically.

Taking a wider environmental view, perhaps they have been good decisions because they have brought industry to rural communities and areas where otherwise there might have been unemployment.

If I could tome back to this Jumbo jet thing which I think is a superb analogy. The difference between the Jumbo jet and the heavy lorry is that the heavy lorry is diversifying ai takes a variety of routes.

The GLC had a "'flight patl proposal. It was that at nig heavy lorries, unless they r eded access, should stick to t North Circular Road and if collection of signposts called t South Circular Road.

That was defeated in the er A lot of people lived on this lo flight path and the general cc census was that it was better have vehicles filtering throu by a variety of routes than cc centrating the vehicles on t residents' flight path.

This is another argumen think that the environmentali have got to consider. Do if 'want to concentrate the probli or disperse the problem?

P.B.: It seems to me there ; two key factors in our d cussion.

First, we have the issue physical dimensions which t concerned us all on the basis trucks coming through c villages and it seems to me t we have established beyo reasonable doubt that increa: gross weights need not lead adverse environmental effect Secondly, we have sul ested that a fundamental r( transport planning issue whether we should further trict access of physically la vehicles to local or minor roa If they are to be permit access then there must be a ri transport planning policy t

lows them to have access thout doing unacceptable enronmental damage. But I -ess that I do not believe that ich a need has anything rectly to do with maximum tights of vehicles.

Turning to another point, gel expressed real concern at, if we make road transport re efficient all that will hapin is that the number of road n-miles per annum will inaase. He says that with higher oss weight vehicles road will Ke even more tonnage from I, and therefore, there will be ever larger amount of mage done.

I am arguing that the road or I modal choice depends Dstly on factors other than hicle gross weight and that gher gross weights mean dyer vehicles to transport a Jen quantity of goods. If I tre a distribution manager th a railhead at my depot and other railhead immediately )se to the destination I would Dbably choose rail. I had no !head facilities I would choose ad throughout because the ods are going to start and ish their journey on the same ick and I would not wish to :ur the uncertainties of tranipment. I think it could now be interesting to come back to the damage numbers and the fuel consumption and so on and consider what the alternative weights really mean in this context.

If we take the existing twoaxle artic tractor and two-axle trailer at 32 tons as a base line, and compare it with a two-axle tractor and three-axle trailer at 40 tonnes it is true that the 40-tonne vehicle will do in absolute terms up to 20 per cent more damage than the 32-ton vehicle.

Less damage

I submit, however, that the really significant comparisons should be made on the basis of tons payload carried.

We then find, that the five-. axle vehicle at 40 tonnes will do 10 per cent less damage per tonne of payload transported per mile than will the existing 32-ton four-axle vehicle and consume 8-10 per cent less fuel per payload ton per mile.

Conversely, the 16-ton twoaxle tipper can produce more damage per ton of payload than the existing 32-ton artic.

G.M.: You mentioned about the five-axle, 40-tonne; have you a particular preference where that axle goes?

P.B.: First, from the manufacturer's angle the "naturalconfigurations are 38 tonnes on five axles and 44. on six axles. Addressing 40 tonnes on five axles from a strictly technical standpoint, I think I would opt for three-axle tractors and two-axle trailers, but with my economic hat on I would have to say that the 6x4 tractor is more costly and mechanically less efficient in fuel usage, having more moving parts to produce friction. We have tested a four-axle artic at 32 tones against two five-axle artics at 40 tonnes, represented by a two-axle tractor with three-axle trailer and a three-axle tractor with two-axle trailer. It was interesting to find that at 40 tonnes the three-axle tractor did consumer significantly more fuel than the two-axle tractor outfit. On balance, therefore, I come down at 40 tonnes in favour of the twoaxle tractor and three-axle trailer.

C.G.: I support what Peter says. Scania ties up very closely with his figures. Ours are based on many years' experience in Sweden. I think there may be a problem in the UK of going to five axles with a two-axle tractor, but that's a domestic problem that has to be argued out by SMMT and Ministry of Transport in the short term.

Five axles

In Sweden we're talking about single-drive axles and the problem don't exist, and I can't see any reason why problems should exist in this country. I would support the Ford argument completely and I presume it's the British Leyland argument also — five axles, 40 tonnes with a two-axle tractor. F.H.-W.: One point that hasn't been made and I think ought to be made is the effect of our transport storage policies. How retail stocks mean daily deliveries. This reduces storage costs, but it increases both transport costs and volume of traffic. I also believe more thought must be given to breakbulk depots.

We are all talking about heavier lorries and, therefore hopefully, fewer lorries. I wonder how the unions look at this, when it means fewer lorry drivers? This is a period of unemployment and it iS an aspect which the industry can't dismiss too lightly. My last point is this and must come back to the thin-skinned road aspect.

Our town and country plan

ners have been wrong past in the way that it ha lowed industry and agricul conglomerations to be down the most unsuitabl cess roads. There has to reversal of this trend and haps the manufacturers by designing more suit vehicles. If the country n bigger vehicles there has g be some quid pro quo on environmental side such a cess restruction.

N.H.: I think you people greedy. You say you want monisation in Europe. You here we are in Britain lag behind our Continental cou parts, who have much he lorries now than we do, don't hear you saying you want harmonisation of the dal split they have on the tinent.

Modal split

One way of putting it is in Britain we have smaller lo and a free freight market on the Continent they h larger vehicles with limitat on their use.

In France and Germany t have a licensing system wh means that the modal sph more or less a mirror imag what it is here. Here the mileage is 70 per cent road less than 30 per cent rail.

In France only 39 per goes by road. I would settle and shake anyone's hand f 40-tonne lorry if I had French modal split in Britai but none of you boys of ing that.

P.B.: But then Nigel, if didn't have the French mo split then by your argume think you would also settle 40 tonnes.

N.H.: No, I wouldn't.

P.B.: With respect, I submit t you would because what yo really saying is that you wo like to see a modal split t moved less ton-miles per ann by road. However, whatever resulting road ton-miles per num, we have seen that use 40-tonne vehicles can lead less road damage! I have yet hear anything that says to that an increase in gross weig to 40 tonnes is other than go news!

N.H.: What I need convinci about, and none of you peo have yet convinced me, is t going to a higher gross wei will not do anything other th make the medal split worse. I was convinced that there wo actually be less lorry miles if o was going to a higher wei then I'd start talking.

B.F.: I think the transport si ion in the UK differs in a imber of major respects to the st of Europe.

We've got to have regard to ie German situation, where. ley are in the centre of a transJropean network of highways. they allowed unrestricted road ansport they could become ver-saturated with British, rench, Belgian and Dutch .hicles running on their autoanns. So the Continental situ:ion is very different to the one this country, and I think we 'ant to bear that very much in France is twice the area of the K. When we're talking modal plit we've got very different ircumstances indeed, a very ifferent economic situation. I rould like to try to deal with ow we in Great Britain see the uropean situation.

Could I say that as manufacirers, and I think I speak for most all manufacturers, not J s t British Leyland, we have leen doubtful of this 40 tonnes

five axles? It's been a recomnendation by the Commission o the Council of the Ministers nd has been accepted in prin:iple last December. The Cornnission have been charged with rying to work out their propoials in more detail.

As we see it, 40 tonnes on ive axles is not an ideal soution. We see political as well is technical and operational )roblems as you approach 40 tonnes with a single driving axle on a two axle drawing vehicle. I think this view is shared by Graham Montgomerie, by Ford and all the other British manufacturers.

We would have gone for 38 tonnes. We would have said that if we could run combinations hauled by two-axled vehicles at 38 tonnes that's a very economical formula for road transport. At that weight I would correct the 40-tonne figures that Peter gave us earlier because at .38 tonnes I would say the absolute value of damage is no greater than the present 32-ton vehicle. We are on record with the DoT now in having recommended that as a figure that the British Government should look at very seriously because we see no disadvantage. •

Extra E4m

I accept Nigel's arguments that if transport is made more efficient it may distort the modal split. But frankly I cannot accept in principle any argument that says improved efficiency is wrong. If British Rail can improve their efficiency they will pick up extra traffic, I'm sure. G.M.: I'd like to understand Ni9el's position on 40 tonnes. Does he say no to 40 tonnes on all roads or would he accept 40 tonnes on certain roads?

N.H.: I have already said that I am prepared to start talking about heavier lorries under certain conditions.

J.G.: Can I pick up Fionn's point? I think you were making the point that perhaps it doesn't matter if goods go by rail even if it does take an extra day in transit. I think it does matter and the figure that came last week from the chairman of Unilever, in terms of Unilever' UK domestic operations, is that one day's delay in the movement of the products means to them an extra E4m in inventory costs.

Taking Uniliver's operations worldwide, that figure jumps up on one day's delay to £16m, so that when you come down to prices to the consumer I think in fact it is important.

Another point raised, Nigel, you were saying, we as operators have been arguing, that if we go to higher weights it will mean fewer vehicles, and surely that means less jobs.

Perhaps one point I should have made earlier is that research in our member companies on the matter produced evidence that this will mean no redundancies. The number of vehicles that would be put off the road every year if we had higher weights is in fact less than the actual shortfall in drivers through natural wastage. It would mean that people would lose their jobs. If trade takes off then there will be heavy demands on transport, both road and rail. On this question of access thin-skinned roads, I don't thir anybody is saying that heavi vehicles should • willy-nilly everywhere.

On the question of harmo isation of the modal split wi :the French and the suggestic that we adopt their form licensing system, we used have their form of licensing s) tern or something very akin to which was far more geared the transport market on quanti factors rather than the safe factors.

All the evidence since 1, went away from that after t 1968 Act is that the modal sp has not been affected. We c. rid of the bureaucracy, b we've not effected the split.

If you study the figures eve period of years you find that t Continental split figures a slightly edging towards oL rather than the other way. A don't forget they have got a t advantage on the Continent their very large land mass a the much longer trunk haul th we've got in this counti Geographically there is a mu greater opportunity for rail the Continent than there is oN here. So it's not really a factor the licensing system.

Break bulk

The break-bulk depot, is ric brand new concept, it's bE happening in this country years. Big companies I Sainsbury, Tesco, Co-op C. Unilver have all got depots ready. The big owner-opera trunks either himself or Freightliner or by British F company train or wagon k service or by haulier between depots and he breaks down then he distributes to his out in 16 ton loads.

N.H.: I am not yet convini that the industry representati have shown that they rei grasp the environmental c cerns .about heavy lorries, only have to look at the offi forecasts as to the amouni .road freight there will be in country to realise that if haven't got a problem now, gum, we're going to have very soon.

The seat of the Ministel Transport is going to becc hotter as time goes on. assumption that road freight simply go on increasinc something which cannot countenanced. What w( looking for in the long terr the prospect of the amoun freight going by road stabilis

If the larger lorry is goin,

mean that there will be less tonmiles, less vehicle damaging miles, then I can see a real proDect of a liaison between the idustry and environmentalists, t the moment I am not coninced. I think if the industry is oing to make protestations that ley are environmentalists, that aving the heavier lorry is actully going to improve things rther than make things worse len you've got to do more to )nvince people like me that iat is so. The track record of the dustry is not good enough in iis respect for us to believe you Yt.

I don't see, for example, that mu have done a great deal to 'omote break-bulk depots for vvns similar to those in Paris. eavy lorries thunder down the mwer Bridge Road where I live • it's not just a problem of small Ilages. There's not been enigh pressure from the industry r environmental goodies and iu might press for things if you ink that they're good for you.

Take the tachograph for ample. With the exception of W, which has been very good, e industry as a whole has not me enough to educate the ierators or drivers.

You've not done enough search on the damaging efts of vibration; pressure has me from people like us, before a Government commissioned search. But I haven't heard of e industry getting together, Ating up a sum of money and mmissioning an independent search on vibration.

I think if you want people like to go along with you then we int to see more evidence that you're really taking the issue seriously. Summing up, I think this meeting is a marvellous opportunity to get these points of view across.

B.F.: I'm going to go straight back to what I started with and say that the primary objective of every manufacturer here in the UK is to get a basis for forward planning his products. This is essential to the UK-based manufacturer retaining a competitive position in the world market, and I mean the' world market — I'm not just talking of the European market or the British market.

No problems

Not many years ago we were the world's leading exporters of commercial vehicles. We find ourselves today in an .isolated position in the European Common Market and our first objective is to try to see how we can assist in achieving a harmonised solution with this problem of heavy commercial vehicles. I have had to listen to other European manufacturers saying to me: -We have no environmental problems in our country-.

On this question of employment we've got two aspects to look at. We've also got the position of the fellows on the shop floors of the industry manufacturing commercial vehicles in the UK. It's a major industry; I think it ranks as one of the top 20, of all British manufacturing industry employing tens of thousands of people. It's very important, therefore that we in Britain see ourselves

as on a competitive basis with other European manufacturers. So long as our domestic regulations confine us to 32 tons I do not think we have a• fair opportunity.

Reduce damage

We are going to do everything we can to pursue European harmonisation which, in our view, should be achievable without the environmental disadvantages which have been referred to. That problem seems to be not one of dimensions but one of weight, of the vehicle. I think we have got solutions in the recommendations that British manufacturers have made in the 38-44 tonne range' which will be seen to reduce the road damage and the environmental consequences.

So the plea I am making to sum up is that we have got vehicles today which are causing us problems — problems not related to weight, but related to the disposition of our industrial premises around the country and the road access to those premises. I argue that we can have flexibility on weight without environmental consequences and on the most conservative basis 4-5 per cent saving on fuel and energy costs and 10 per cent on operating costs.

G.M.: The environmentalists have said that the industry hasn't convinced them of their intentions. I'd like to know what the industry has to do to convince you. You talked about the grey areas of social costs in relation to environmental problems. Can the Civic Trust put a figure on this?

I'm surprised that not more has been said on the standards

of our roads. On a road test a couple of years ago wit Italian lorry and Italian dr we were going along the A a major road and is a s back with a very severe gra in the middle of it. The d was complaining very stro at the number of times he having to change gear in to keep a reasonable spe reminded him his forbears built it and that is the age of we are operating on. We operating our 20th Cen machinery on a BC type of r P.B.: I'd like to basically a with Bob's points and reinf them in a specific manner. it is the point of view of environmentalists that creased weight simply lea more ton-miles per annu road because road beco more efficient. I Would res that, within any given ov road transport taxation bur vehicle manufacturers w step up to a redistribution tween vehicle groups w would reflect environme factors such as road d agability.

Dimensions

On dimensions I think have very clearly establis that the issue of dimensions nothing directly to do with g weights. We have establis that in the village situation current dimensions may ind be a problem but that we w have to make extreme re tions in the gross weigh vehicles before we achieved major change in those di sions.

On the issue of weigh come to Nigel's point. To sta ise the number of ton-miles annum transported by road )ntinuing to restrict gross )hicle weights is not only :onomically inefficient but enronmentally inefficient. We lye demonstrated from a techcal standpoint as manufacrers that whether maximum eights are revised on 32 tons

38, 40 or 44 tonnes, it is )ssible to design vehicles to ve the same or less absolute ,ad damage per vehicle, or per n payload.

Coupling this with less fuel )nsumption per ton-mile )yload, no more noise and no orse visual impact, I might ell, if debating as an environlentalist, find myself still rguing in favour of increasing ross weights!

let solutions

In summary, provided that e manufacturers have careilly selected and standard,ed parameters within which ) work, it should be possible to esign trucks such that the enironment is actually improved ancurrent with increasing the ross weight.

.H.-W.: I welcome the opporanity of sitting round the table ke this. I think one of the ways at one can get to a solution is y understanding each other's oints of view rather than bangig each other over the head. I Is° feel a little blinded with science. One can prove anything by statistics. I am worried as I represent people who live in villages and rural areas where very large lorries use roads which are just not designed for them.

150 ton loads?

There is nothing that I've heard so far that really shows if any research has been done on the gross vehicle weights.

I've spent 40 years of my life driving abroad on dirt roads and I know what the gross weights of vehicles can do to softskinned roads. We have been talking about 40-tonne lorries, but do we stop there or might this be the start of an escalation? In Australia I have seen photographs of 150-ton road trains. Is this the sort of thing that could be in store for us?

This year we agree, perhaps to 40 tonnes, next year 44 tonnes; in five years time it could be 50 tonnes, and so it goes.

There has got to be a sticking point and as far as the CPRE is concerned the sticking point is now. If you want heavier lorries they must be confined to the roads which are designed for their use and after that you have bulking and breaking centres. C.G.: We still enjoy freedom of choice in Britain and industry chooses the form of transport that it wants; presumably the main consideration is efficiency and industry is choosing road transport.

Britain's road haulage industry wants to be able to compete on an equal footing with its European counterparts. This is difficult since our lower weights inflate cost per ton. 5o we don't want higher weight limits just for the sake of it. For example, I don't believe that any operator in this country wants to take maximum capacity vehicles down country lanes if he has a choice.

On the break-bulk issue nobody to my knowledge ever has ever said no to bulking, or breaking up loads and taking them into major cities in smaller loads. It should be examined further, but we must accept it is a costly concept.

Planners blamed

I blame the planning authorities for our problems today and they are allowing the situation to develop even further. The problems we have have been solved today in Europe. On the Continent they are now in a situation where they are running an efficient transport operation despite environmental constraints that once existed. We have something to learn from mainland Europe and I think we should take the opportunity to learn it quickly.

IS.: It seems to me that over the past two years those represented round this table have come to understand the other group's point of view. I did n detect today total acceptance I any party, but we did not expe that.

The point which comes o very clearly is that local auth( ities cannot have both their bt and penny.

If they wish to protect tl environment then they mu either accept that they cann have lucrative rates from inci trial or commercial premis unless they can provide suitak access roads.

There also seems to be a fc that road haulage if allow. higher gross weights will extrz more traffic from British RE This seems to me a poor reas for penalising the road haul with higher taxation.