ROLL UP FOR 44-TONNERS
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Question: What do the Camping and Caravan Club, Porsche Cars and the Guide Association have in common? Answer: They're all "consultees" in the Department of Transport's latest consultation document On 44 tonnes. What the DOT expects to learn about topweight artics from that little lot is beyond us, but that's democracy for you, Commercial Motor is also on the list—so if you have a view on 44 tonnes fax us on 0181 652 8969. Do you want 44 tonnes? Own-account operators will no doubt say "Yes—and right now!" However, hire-or-reward hauliers will probably want to consider a few of life's little imponderables like: "Can I recoup any investment in new equipment from my customers?". "Will I get any more running at 44 tonnes?"„."Will my drivers want more money?" They won't be the only ones to be wary. If 44 tonnes is granted on general haulage then you can kiss goodbye to any rail revival. That's probably why English Welsh & Scottish Railway, the newly privatised railway company running the majority of Britain's raifreight, has declared that "...20% of our existing business would be put at immediate risk..." Welcome To the free market, boys! The one thing that does make sense is the adoption of a sixaxle configuration, regardless of whether we go to 40 or 44 tonnes. The extra axle will mean reduced road wear: a 44-tonne 3+3 artic is infinitely preferable to the 2+3 40-tonners with 11.5-tonne drive axles due in 1999 (and yes, a six-axle 44-tanner is exactly what Sir Arthur Armitage recommended 16 years ago). What will the DOT do? Probably something non-controversial to start with, like allowing 44-tan ners on piggyback operations to and from seaports. But it mustn't withhold the economic and envi ronmental benefits of heavier wagons simply to assuage the rail lobby. Promote railfreight by all means, but protectionism is really not an option.