1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194 
Industry defends proposed LHV trial
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Freight on Rail suggests that longer, heavier vehicles should not be trialled in the UK; the road haulage industry disagrees. Roanna Avison reports.
THE ROAD HAULAGE industry has reacted angrily to the suggestion by Freight on Rail that longer, heavier vehicles (LHVs) should not be trialled in the UK.
In a letter published in The Times, Freight on Rail argued that there was no reason to hold a trial because there was not a case for LHVs in the UK.
Campaigner Philippa Edmunds says Freight on Rail is not against road haulage, but believes existing 44-tonners are large enough. "There are issues about safety. for example how would they reverse in an emergency?"
She adds that restricting LHVs to motorways and dual carriageways would not be enforceable so they could end up on local roads. 'I think they are unsuitable for motorways and dual carriageways as well."
From a congestion point of view Edmunds says that while the traditional statistic that two LHVs could replace three LGVs may be true. LHVs would not cut congestion or pollution on the roads. -A German trial showed that to get a fuel and therefore emissions reduction would need a 77% utilisation of LHVs, but the average utilisation of 44-tonners is not that high in the UK at present — so there will be no benefit:.
She also warns that the use of LHVs would affect water and rail freight because the market is so price-sensitive. -66% of the container business on rail could be lost to road if LHVs are introduced, and rail freight has a much better emissions record than road haulage," she says.
But some in the road haulage industry have questioned the motives of Freight on Rail.
Geoff Dossetter, director of external affairs at the Freight Transport Association, says: "Freight on Rail needs to think about whether it is objecting to the trial on the basis of safety or competition because the letter seems lobe a mix of the two."
He adds that LHVs could improve the efficiency of road freight transport and -FTA members are much more concerned with delivering goods economically and efficiently".
think this negative campaigning is just because LHVs are seen as a threat to rail freight."
Roger King, chief executive at the Road Haulage Association, says he is surprised by the reaction when"all the industry is asking for is a trial-.
King also questions Freight on Rail's environmental argument, saying that moving more freight in one vehicle will have a fuelefficiency benefit.