Common Market urged towards 42-tonners and 11.5-ton axles
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Last week in Brussels the Commission of the Common Market suggested that the • maximum axle load for commercial vehicles should be standardized at 11.5 metric tons throughout the EEC. In sending this recommendation to the Council of Ministers, the Commission suggested that this axle weight would permit large containers to be carried without an exaggeratedly large number of axles and that it would be a suitable design weight for both single vehicles and combinations.
The Commission also proposes a 42-metric-ton gross limit for articulated vehicles and vehicle and trailer combinations, a 25-ton gvw limit for rigid vehicles with more than two axles and an 18-ton limit for two-axled commercials.
On sizes, the suggestion is that the maximum length of rigid vehicles should be 12metres (39ft 3.5in), artics 15.5m (50ft 1 lin) and lorry and trailer combinations 18m (59ft 2.4in). Maximum width would remain 2.5m Mt 2.5in) as at present, and there would be a maximum height limit of 4m (13ft 1.2in).
Minimum manoeuvrability is also to be specified; it is recommended that any vehicle must be able to turn in a path whose outer radius is 12m and inner radius 5.3m (lift 4.8in).
The Commission is suggesting a minimum power-to-weight ratio of 6bhp /ton for vehicles put into service before 1978 and 8bhp per ton for vehicles thereafter.
The Common Market Commission has recommended that all these unified limits should be adopted throughout the EEC by 1980 at the latest.
As -recorded in CM last week, the standardization of permitted axle loads was an important topic at the Conference of European Transport Ministers in Madrid last month. As the Spanish Minister of Transport pointed out. European countries had axle limits of between 8 and 10 tons except in the case of Norway (6 tons) and the four who permit 13 tons—Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Spain. Belgium has already announced a reversion to the 10-ton axle from the beginning of 1972 and Luxembourg is likely to follow suit. Spain is considering reducing its limit, which has apparently been causing highway problems.
All the British proposals of the past two years for heavier commercial vehicles in the UK have assumed the continuation of a 10-ton axle limit (although there was talk at one time of 11 tons becoming a possibility) and the current discussions on increased weights for sixand eight-wheelers and on revised axle spreads to give more compact artics have been based on the 10-ton axle limit.
The DoE bridge engineers—whether or not as a result of the recent box-girder design report—have, it is understood, now revised their requirements for commercial vehicle loadings, so the intermediate-weight and compact-artic measures appear to be in the melting pot once more. There had been hopes that new regulations for these classes might have been announced this summer, even if heavier maximum-capacity vehicles were ruled out until the new motorway network was completed.
At his motorway Press conference last week, Mr Peter Walker, Secretary of State for the Environment, said flatly in reply to a question, that the Government had already made clear its decision not to raise the maximum weights of the biggest commercial vehicles. However, in Parliament on the same day Mr John Peyton, Minister for Transport Industries, said that heavier lorries might be permitted on certain designated routes when a comprehensive network of improved roads embracing the ports had been provided.
Commenting on the latest EEC weight and size proposals this week, a spokesman for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders told Commercial Motor that an 11.5-ton axle limit was unlikely to be acceptable in the UK even if it were adopted by EEC and Britain became a member. All present and future discussion on vehicle weights was on the basis of a 10-ton axle limit in this country.
Mr Frank Denmee, SMMT chief engineer, welcomed the spirit of the recommendations as much as the content. There were many advantages in standardizing the regulations of European countries and this was a step in the right direction.
The EEC Commission must have good reasons for believing that the 11.5-ton axle (which originated as a Dutch compromise proposal—lying midway between the 10 and 13 ton figures—in the spring of 1970) could prove acceptable as a European figure. If it does, and if Britain nevertheless remained at 10 tons, there would obviously be operational problems for international traffic and a tendency for two different lines of vehicles to emerge; there , is no EEC mention of the axle spacings which have become fundamental to British weight regulations.
The new EEC size limits would give an extra 0.5 metre length on articulated vehicles compared with the present British Limit of 15m (4911 2.6in), and this is a margin which container carriers have been asking for. The 18m length limit for road trains would remain unchanged but the weight of such outfits would be restricted to the same 42-tons as for artics, and not the 56 tons about which there has been speculation.
The possibility of maneouvrability limits has been mooted in Britain in recent years, but one problem raised by the 12m outer-circle radius in the EEC document is that the alignment of curves on British roads has generally been based on 14m radius and this is reflected in British commercial vehicle design.
CM's technical editor writes: Reactions from manufacturers were hard to come by this week, as the report .is so recent. Ford Motor Co Ltd chief engineer, truck development, Mr Walter Manning, told me he was in favour of the proposed higher axle loading (11.5 tons) but would personally like to see the French 13-ton limit adopted; however, he felt that this would inevitably lead to route restrictions in some countries, especially because of bridge loadings, and it was important that the final figure adopted should be for all routes in all countries.
Mr Manning felt that the proposed 6 bhp /ton would be satisfactory as a minimum requirement, though it would not be sufficient for countries such as Switzerland; but with proper application engineering, local problems would take care of themselves. The swept-path steering proposals, similar to those in force in Germany, would not present any difficulty for new designs but could cause trouble if applied retrospectively to existing vehicles.