Maximum
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
weights decision: an MP protests
The Government rejection of requests for heavier vehicles has been welcomed by amenity organizations, but Mr Tom Normanton, Member of Parliament for Cheadle, is concerned at the cost of the decision to the transport industry and the nation. CM is pleased to print this statement of his views.
• So the "conservationists" have won. If they've won, who has lost? This is but one of the many questions everyone connected with road transport should be asking, operator, manufacturer, customer, and the general public too.
On Wednesday December 16, the Rt Hon John Peyton, Minister for Transport Industries, replied to a Parliamentary Question put to him by Mr John Rankin, Labohr /Co-operative Member for Govan, who 'wanted "an assurance" that no increase in size or weight of goods vehicles would be permitted. Mr Peyton gave it, in a written answer. So there was no way of challenging or debating this decision on the eve of the Christmas recess. But debate there will be, indeed there must be, when Parliament re-assembles, judging by the immediate reaction from transport operators as well as vehicle manufacturers.
In the same reply the Minister announced that he had just published "draft regulations on noise, smoke and engine power", as if there were a proven link equating "juggernauts" with despoliation of the environment. No one will question the Minister's motives. In fact some may ask whether he has gone far enough. But his Ministry will have to provide pretty conclusive evidence that weights above 32 tons are "detrimental to the environment". One asks whether his officials have heard of, never mind driven in, the British Leyland Crusader, or the Volvo F86, or the Scania 110, or the Atkinson 44-ton; they meet the new "environmental" objections on all three counts and more. Driver comfort, or should one say super-comfort, power and to spare to ensure fullest control both climbing and descending gradients, and engine operating conditions at optimum efficiency.
If a new generation of heavy chassis were required—as the haulage industry at home and abroad has repeatedly stated to be the case—the environment would be protected at 38 or 44 tons just as effectively as at 32 tons_ The decision to peg max vehicle weights at this low level throws into total disarray much of the forward planning by manufacturers and operators of transport alike.
An uplift in permitted weights need not automatically be accompanied by a proportionate uplift in vehicle sizes. There may be good reasons for "controlling" the movements of certain over-size vehicles (ie over the sizes currently authorized) but there is no indication thaf this is to be done. All it means is that such vehicles, designed . to comply fully with all specifications except total weight, will have to operate uneconomically. They will continue to be "juggernauts" in all ways except weight, and since most if not all have pow'er /weight ratios far superior to the "standard" 32-ton truck they will continue to show a far superior performance technically. So perhaps the conservationists have failed here.
Planning forecast needed Subject to the Minister's laudable insistence on exacting "environmental" stipulations, however, a revision of permitted vehicle weights is long overdue.
He should publish a clear statement of intent now to introduce over a period of, say three to eight years a progressive programme, with firm dates, for minimum as well as maximum technical specifications for commercial vehicles to enable truck manufacturers as well as operators to plan forward both technically as well as commercially. To be given only a few months notice of changes will be as disastrous as it was in 1964, leaving the Continentals to scoop the British market for heavy vehicles.
No chassis manufacturer, and certainly not the smaller ones, can afford to develop new models to meet an undisclosed specification for an unknown date in the future. And the manufacturers of engines and transmissions probably stand in greater need of a, forward policy statement since their capital investment is much more long term.
Fleet managers must be in despair. Those who have invested in articulated units built for 38 tons or over, in reasonable anticipation of approval of higher weights, are faced with the higher operating cost of low productivity, and at a time when everyone in the industry should be striving desperately to keep cost down. Some managers will feel obliged to cancel vehicles already on order, and who will blame them? While deliveries are so far behind schedule, who dares to order a programmed replacement of 32-ton tractors with 200 hp engines when 38 tons with 230 hp engines may be official policy in 1972 /3?
One of the economic racts of life in Britain, repeatedly stated in the strongest possible terms by Lord Stokes, is that export effectiveness depends upon a strong home base. British-built heavy vehicle exports make a considerable contribution to our economy, but no manufacturer can afford to build to two quite different specifications, one for home, and the other for export. By comparison with the latest restrictions on our home market, the world generally is demanding heavier capacities with still higher power /weight ratios. No-one should be surpr&d if the Common Market were to agree upon a 42-ton or even a 44-ton limit, and with 8 hp per ton. And if at that date Europe has become our "home market" where will British operators be? And who will supply power units to the hastily scratched-together British chassis then? GM, Cummins, or MAN? And whose transmissions?
International incidents?
For a country professing a wish to join the European Economic Community, this opting-out of European trends must make strange reading in Brussels. In the meantime, foreign registered trucks operating under TIR cover will continue to roll off the ferries at British ports with all-up weights well in excess of 32 tons. They won't have their licences withdrawn. While UK registered operators will start their outward runs with an in-built handicap before they leave base. Or will they? The Minister's statement may well trigger off an international transport conflict, as the first restrictions placed on incoming French vehicles would automatically give rise to the withdrawal of reciprocal rights for British TIR operators to run through France. And this TIR business is of growing importance to British manufacturers of all types of products.
One of the consequences of the ministerial decision is certain . . . transport costs will continue to rise, and that can hardly contribute to a reduction in .inflationary pressures.
However one views the 32-ton decision, it must to some transport operators seem reminiscent of the man-with-a-red-flag policy of long ago. King Canute couldn't keep back the tide, and neither can the "conservationists" insulate Britain from the cold realities of international competition. Let them press for strict observance of environmental regulations; vehicle weight is not one of them. Will they take pleasure at seeing containers, even on motorways, travelling only two-thirds full? They won't when they have to pay the bill for it.
The need for more and better roads remains unaltered. Indeed it may rise as they become congested with the continued on page 29