AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

WHY NOT ROAD VEHICLE BY RAIL?

11th November 1939
Page 24
Page 25
Page 24, 11th November 1939 — WHY NOT ROAD VEHICLE BY RAIL?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

By A. MARENBON, A.M.Inst.T., A.I.T.A.

THIS is a time of national emergency and to conserve fuel a method of road-rail co-ordination is being sought. Apparently this co-ordination will result in long-distance goods traffic going by rail, the road haulier merely carrying out the terminal transport.

What are the fundamental essentials for any co-ordination system? I suggest that there are five : Economy of operation; efficiency; flexibility; speedy application, and minimum of new construction to be required.

These terms need little explanation, although I do suggest that economy should be considered in its widest aspect, and that it would not be in the better interests of our national economy if the measures adopted resulted in the gradual strangulation of the road transport industry. The need for efficiency is, of course, obvious, and by flexibility of operation I refer to the ability to cater for varying circumstances. Rail track offers a vulnerable target to air attack and it is essential to be able to switch over from rail to road if the railway line becomes damaged.

It is desirable to put our co-ordination system into force without delay, and we should, so far as possible, eliminate the necessity of building vehicles both on account of the capital cost involved and the fact that the vehicle-building industry is already taxed to its utmost fulfilling Government requirements.

I understand that the two main plans discussed at the recent meeting between road and rail interests were : (a) Transhipment, viz., the road hauliers to hire rail wagons, carry out the terminal transport themselves and let the railway companies effect

A.=

the long-distance part of the haul, and (b) extension of the use of containers.

The question of whether the adoption of these two proposals would be to the detriment of the road-transport industry I prefer to leave alone, but I believe there are certain criticisms which can justly be advanced against the twe■ plans.

Transhipment would give us a flexible system, always supposing that the road haulier could afford to keep his long-distance machines in service. It could be put into operation reasonably quickly, but it is doubtful whether it would be economic or efficient. At the same time a good deal of new construction would be necessary as it is fairly certain that a sufficient supply of rail wagons—especially those with closed bodies—would not be available.

Transhipment can never be truly economic. The additional loading and Unloading operations mean delay and added labour costs, extra packing would be necessary involving additional weight and increased freight, and, in spite of this, breakages would probably be increased. Railway facilities are already greatly taxed. Congestion and hold-ups would be inevitable, especially at the terminal points, and contractors' lorries would be delayed waiting to pick up or discharge their loads.

Presumably the haulier would have to use his long-distance machines for this collection and delivery work, so that any delay on a Vehicle of this kind with extremely, high standing charges would be a serious matter.

The railway companies have recognized this difficulty with their normal working—a difficulty which would be considerably aggravated under the new conditions—and their adoption of mechanical-horse and other types of tractor-trailer combination, which permit the motive unit to be kept busy while carrier units are being loaded or unloaded, speaks for itself.

To make a transhipment scheme economic for the haulier to operate he would probably have to adopt tractor and trailer combinations for the collection and delivery work and carry out this job on the same basis as the railway companies.

The extension of container use is subject to certain similar criticisms. Congestion of railway facilities— especially crane facilities—would certainly arise. It is true that the double handling of the load is eliminated, but a standard railway container carries only a net weight of 4 tons and has a tare weight of rather over 30 cwt.

Body space considerations prevent two containers being carried on a single road vehicle, and the plight of a road haulier who has nothing else to use but 15-ton eight-wheelers for container carrying with net payloads of 4 tons can well be imagined. In this case also tractor and trailer combinations would, probably, have to be adopted if any measure of economy were required.

There is also the serious objection that a good deal of new construction would be necessary. Even if there were railway trucks available, new containers would have tq be built. In the event of road services having to be recommenced, the containers would be wasted. The haulier would not use them because of the restriction of load entailed and the unnecessary tare weight being carried.

It seems to follow that out of both the plans discussed above a logical development would be the extended use of tractor-trailer combinations by the road haulier ff he wished to carry out his part of the job cheaply. In this case, why not carry the matter a stage farther—use trailers but not tranship the load or the container, carrying instead the laden trailer by rail?

The rail transport of loaded trailers is an accomplished fact. For the past eight years road-rail trailers weighing as much as 15 tons gross have been in daily service, proving an economically sound, safe and ex

peditious means for transport. Why not extend this -system in the present emergency?

Existing road-rail trailers may be slightly complicated in their construction, but for emergency working a number of these complications could be omitted without affecting the safety or efficiency of the outfit. What is more, it should not be necessary to build new road-rail trailers. There are probably thousands of trailers with carrying capacities of from 6-8 tons, which are capable of simple adaptation, so that they could be carried on a standard 12-ton railway wagon, slightly converted.

A road-rail trailer can be run on or off a railway wagon at any end.

loading bay. The trailer can run from one truck to another so• that the whole line of wagons can be

loaded or unloaded without any shunting. Imagine the economies that could be effected by this method, especially if the scheme were operated on a large scale. Almost any trailer with a sided body could be used, no additional packing would be required, and a net pay-load of 7-74 tons could be carried without interfering with railway regulations.

I realize that one criticism which will be levelled is that it will be uneconomic to carry the dead load represented by the tare weight of the trailer, but is this the case? The following simple facts should speak for themselves. A road-rail trailer weighing 2-24 tons would carry a pay-load of 7-74 tons and be transported on a railway underframe weighing approximately 8 tons. Thus, 14-15 tons of merchandise would be carried on two railway wagons, having a gross laden weight of 36 tons.

A container weighs 30 cwt. and carries a 4-ton pay-load. To carry 16 tons of merchandise in containers, four railway wagons would be required, each with a tare weight of about ei tons and with a total gross laden weight of 48 tons. Which is the more economic proposition?

I should like to re-emphasize that the underlying suggestion is that certain existing trailers can easily be adapted so that they can be safely transported by rail on a more or less standard underframe. This method of transport, obviously, will not solve all the present difficulties, but it may help in numerous cases, and I put forward the suggestion in the hope that it may give a lead to some of the parties concerned.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus