N.R.T.F. TO RE-SUBMIT WEIGHT AND SIZE COMMENTS
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FROM A SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT IT had been expected that the recommendations, by the National Road Transport Federation and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, on the proposed new vehicle weights and dimensions would be known in detail this week, but after the operators' repre sentatives had discussed their tabulated list of comments at the Ministry of Transport on Friday, the Ministry asked the Federation to submit a new memorandum setting out in more detail the alterations which operators desire and their reasons for them.
Although the S.M.M.T. recommendations are now known, it will thus be a week or so before the N.R.T.F.'s final comments are available. The new memorandum was drawn up in draft form early this week and is being sent to committee members for their comments. The recommendations put forward at the Ministry last Friday by the Federa tion were based on those agreed at a joint meeting with the S.M.M.T. on March 12. It is clear, however, that the proposals which the S.M.M.T. actually put to the Ministry—in a letter dated March 27—were not in all respects the same as those agreed at the joint meeting.
For example, it had been agreed jointly to ask for 11 tons for a single two wheeled axle (in order that the spread of 16 tons on four wheels could be 5 tons front and 11 tons rear) and that the proviso requiring these axles to have twin tyres with not less than 12-in. centres be deleted. But the S.M.M.T. letter accepts the Ministry's proposal to make 10 tons the maximum for two-wheeled axles, asking only for deletion of the requirement that axles be fitted with twin
tyres having not less than 12-in. centres. As foreshadowed in The Commercial Motor last week, this is to permit low
profile single tyres to be used; the S.M.M.T. says these are safer in that there is greater contact with the road surface, giving a more stable vehicle.
The main items on which the S.M.M.T. comments, and those put forward by the N.R.T.F. last Friday, appear to agree are as follows: While the proposed increase in length from 35 ft. to 42 ft. for articulated outfits was accepted, it was pointed out that E.C.M.T./E.E.C. recommendations are for 15 m. (a little over 49 ft.) and that if Continental artics of this length are permitted to use designated highways in Britain, then the same facility should be afforded for British artics of similar length. The Ministry has been asked to clarify the length proposals for road trains, especially whether it is envisaged that the increase in overall length from "about 57 ft." to 'about 63 ft." could be met by, say, a 30-ft. motor vehicle, a 5-ft. drawbar and a 28-ft. trailer (an implied B26 increase of 6 ft. in permitted trailer length).
On two-axled rigids the Ministry has been asked to delete the qualification " if the axles are more than 12 ft. apart ", so that all two-axled lorries could gross 16 tons—not simply those with the stipulated axle spacing. It is possible, I understand, that some compromise might be put forward, asking for -graduated figures: e.g., 15 tons gross with 11-ft. spacing of axles and 16 tons with 12-ft. spacing.
The N.R.T.F. asked for 22 tons gross to be the limit for three-axled rigids (the Ministry proposal was for the figure to remain at 20 tons, rising to 22 only where outer axles are more than 18 ft. apart); the S.M.M.T. accepts the Ministry figures with the proviso that the spacing should be 16 ft., not 18 ft.
Axle Spacing at Issue On the proposals for four-axled rigids, both organizations are very dissatisfied with the Ministry's suggested axle spacing stipulation; this would allow an increase from 24 to 28 tons gross only where the outer axles were more than 26 ft. apart. At the joint meeting in March the N.R.T.F. felt the maximum spacing it could agree to would be 19 ft. 6 in., while the S.M.M.T. was reported as finding a 22-ft. limitation acceptable. Both agreed to press for the shortest possible distance.
In its letter to the Ministry the S.M.M.T. said that the increase from 24 tons to 28 tons at last appeared to be in sight, but if the Ministry insisted on the outer axles being more than 26 ft. apart then it might as well not give the increase at all. "This would give a rigid vehicle with a turning circle of about 95 ft., which would also be otherwise unmanceuvrable, and we cannot see an operator buying such a vehicle. In effect, your proposal would kill this vehicle stone dead and would transfer sales to the four-axled articulated vehicle. Is this your wish? We request, and this is the most important request we are making, that the spacing of 26 ft. be reduced as much as possible. At this stage we will not state a figure."
The S.M.M.T. asked that, this being of very great importance to the manufacturers concerned, it should be given the most sympathetic consideration; the manufacturers believed that an appreciable reduction could be made from the 26 ft. without endangering bridges.
On the proposed linking of gross weight increases for artics with a series of stipulated axle spacings, the N.R.T.F. took the same general view that it had in regard to rigid vehicles; namely, that all these spacing limitations should be deleted because of the effect on design and manceuvrability and, in the case of artics, because of the effect on inter
changeability of trailers of varying lengths.
In its letter to the Ministry the S.M.M.T. asked that for four-axled artics the increase from 24 tons gross to 30 tons be made if the outer axles are more than 32 ft. apart (35 ft. in the Ministry proposal) which, it points out, is well over the 26 ft. being proposed for 28-ton four-axle rigids. The Society remarked that it seemed unreasonable to call for 35-ft. spacing for a total load of 30 tons, which is only 2 tons more than the Ministry proposes for a wheelbase 9 ft. shorter.
The S.M.M.T. also pointed out that if 30 tons gross was to be permitted on a four-axled artic, then no one was going to buy an articulated vehicle with five (or more) axles if only 32 tons were to be permitted, as the Ministry proposed. Most of the extra 2 tons, it suggested, would be taken up by the additional axle and there would, therefore, be little left for increased payload. The Society therefore requests 36 tons gross for a fiveaxled artic, though at the joint meeting in March both bodies had worked on the basis of 38 tons gross for artics with five or more axles, the S.M.M.T. then stating that it would be prepared to accept an axle-spacing limitation of 24 ft. in place of the proposed 26 ft. (the Ministry figure in this case was linked to a gross weight of 28 tons).
Among other items on which the figures recorded at the joint N.R.T.F./ S.M.M.T. meeting in March differ from those of theMinistry's proposals are the following;
Single four-wheeled axles (twin-oscillating type): Ministry, 11 tons, unchanged ; joint meeting, 14 tons (though a notation pointed out that 14 tons could not be carried with present tyre equipment, and the Continental 13-ton figure should be considered).
Tandem axles : Ministry, 18 tons, unchanged except for reduction to 16 tons where axle centres are 3 ft. 4 in. to 4 ft. apart ; joint meeting, 18 tons.
Three-axled artic with trailer having a single four-wheels-in-line axle Ministry, 24 tons, unchanged ; joint meeting, 28 tons.
Four-axled attic: Ministry, 24 tons, unchanged, but 28 tons where outer axles are more than 26 ft. apart ; joint meeting, 28 tons.
Road trains : Ministry, 32 tons, unchanged, or 24 tons if not fitted with power-assisted brakes ; joint meeting, 38 tons, or 26 toss if not fitted with power-assisted brakes.
Quite apart from all the specific recommendations, however, the biggest point at issue is, as reported exclusively last week, that the S.M.M.T. wants the new regulations to apply only to new vehicles, or existing vehicles certificated by the manufacturers, while the operators want all existing vehicles to be eligible. In this the N.R.T.F. is backed by British Road Services which, in sending its comments to the Ministry, says: "In general, the Ministry proposals would be to the advantage of B.R.S. by increasing the payload capacity of many vehicles in current use."
And B.R.S., too, is disturbed that link. ing new gross weights to the propos& axle spacings would reduce the value of the increases, especially with artics.