Longer trailer trials must go ahead
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I’ve been privy to an email sent by the lobby group Freight on Rail to all MPs in the past couple of weeks, calling on them to gang up on transport minister Mike Penning and put a stop to the longer trailer trials. We understand the minister is about to make a statement on this issue in the near future, now the consultation has drawn to a close and the results have been analysed.
As readers will know, I’ve been pretty ambivalent on this issue (it won’t suit everyone, but will bring efficiencies to the supermarket distribution chain and the trials would seem to be the best way forward) but when the rail lobby starts to flex its muscles, then my opinion starts to polarise.
I don’t propose to go through the lobbyists’ position, line by line, I’ll assume the argument is well researched. Effectively, Freight on Rail, backed by pressure groups Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety, Campaign for Better Transport, CTC – the national cyclists’ organisation – Friends of the Earth, Living Streets, RoadPeace and Sustrans, has commissioned research that tears the government’s impact assessment of longer trailers to shreds. And, sensing Penning might be about to come down on the side of increasing trailer lengths, the rail lobby is trying one last-ditch effort to influence opinion.
Some of the arguments appear robust, others are based on skinny evidence or opinion. For instance, they state that a third of Road Haulage Association members are opposed to the new trailer lengths, but are afraid to speak up for fear of upsetting customers. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of that statement, but, no disrespect to the RHA intended, two thirds of its membership represents fewer than 15% of all the licensed operators in the UK.
Further on there’s a reference to the increased stopping distance of a longer trailer compared to a current unit, which raises an eyebrow...
The statement is based on analysis of 25m overall combinations carried out by Daimler and makes reference to the time taken to activate the rear brakes on a longer trailer. It’s clearly cobblers and indicates the researchers have no knowledge of electronic braking.
There’s further scare mongering in the letter, which isn’t doing my blood pressure any good, but what irks me most about the lobbyists’ note is the anti-truck undercurrent and the high level of ignorance of how this industry works. Once again trucks are portrayed as congestion-causing killers with no regard for the role they play in driving economic growth here and throughout Europe. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not antirail (well, OK, I might be just a little bit...) and it’s clear rail freight has a strong role to play in any freight transport considerations, but if people are to get the goods they want, when they want them, then road transportation clearly has to be the dominant mode for freight movements.
Unless, of course, we’re happy for the economy to be stuck in the sidings, waiting for the rail network to deliver a high-speed efficient freight solution. Here’s hoping Mike Penning sticks to his guns and lets the trials commence.