Softly, Softly. . .
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ALTHOUGH there may be a good case for increasing from 24 tons to 28 tons the maximum gross laden weight of all eight-wheelers, the present is not the best time to press it. The Minister of Transport proposes to restrict the concession to tankers built to carry liquids, because, although 4,000 gallons of petrol (the largest quantity authorized by law as a unit load) can be carried within a gross weight of 24 tons, a similar amount of oil fuel cannot. To prevent the oil companies and others from taking full advantage of the legal limits of tank capacity is an unnecessary restraint and adds needlessly to transport costs.
The Minister's proposal has been made for a specific purpose, and it would be wise to accept and welcome it as such. If the concession were granted to all eight-wheelers it is likely that many bridges would have to be strengthened, whereas if it were limited to tankers—a minute portion of total road traffic—there would be -little danger to existing structures.
Any increase in the legal weight of large vehicles is controversial, and even Mr. Harold Watkinson, the greatest of the 20 Ministers of Transport who, until last week, had held office since 1919. had to tread warily. A new Minister must be even more cautious. If operators and manufacturers' organizations show sympathy with his position they may later be rewarded by an all-round advance in maximum legal weights. By that time it will have been possible to survey bridges and strengthen them where necessary.
When Mr. Watkinson proposed to raise the speed limit of buses and coaches and light vans to 40 m.p.h. there was a wholesale demand for a much higher speed. The technical argument in favour of it was unassailable, but its psychological wisdom was doubtful. In the event, the Minister refused any increase.
A Little More Latitude
It would be a great pity if, as a result of embarrassing pressure, he now changed his mind on the question of the gross weight of maximumload tankers. On the other hand, it would be logical and reasonable to ask also for a small degree of latitude in the gross weights of other tankers—perhaps a maximum of 15 tons for four-wheelers and 23 tons for six-wheelers. Such a concession could cause no damage to roads or bridges.
An increase in maximum legal weight would be unlikely to have any immediate effect. Extensive alterations might be needed to a 24-tongross tanker to convert it into a 28-ton-gross machine. Larger tyres would be necessary and different wheel rims might be required. It is likely that the cab wheel-arches would have to be altered and the tank might have to be raised. With the rear bogie weight still limited to 18 tons, a load of 10 tons would be imposed on the front bogie, and power steering would become desirable. Eight-wheel braking would be necessary and even on vehicles with braking on all eight wheels the system might require to be increased in power. This work would cost more than £600, and would be completely uneconomic unless the vehicle were only a few months old.
A new 28-ton-gross tanker could, however, be built at a cost about £200 greater than that of a 24-tonner. On a vehicle costing £.8.000 or more, the extra charges for depreciation and interest would be small, whereas payload capacity would be raised by almost It tons. Overall, therefore, .there should be a saving in trafisport costs per ton or per gallon.