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 
The case for double-bottoms: Peter Reed replies
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I was very interested in Mr J. Anderson's letter (CM November 15) even though it was painfully clear he had not read the report by Miss F. J. Rees and myself: "The Economic Potential of Long-distance Road Haulage: an Operational and Environmental Study".
We did, of course, examine the economics of drawbar trailer opera tion in Chapter 5. In one of our comparisons, the drawbar trailer did almost as welF as the short-double but the latter was preferred on grounds of operational flexibility, inter-working possibilities with singles and ease of conversion of existing equipment. I should emphasize here that all the studies were carried out with the aid of operators in the UK and USA. They reflect actual circumstances.
I would agree that almost any increase in vehicle size will improve the private economics of road haulage if the extra capacity can be used. The major point of doing the exercises, however, is to compare private benefits to the operator with the environmental effects of different operating strategies. That is why about half of the report is given over to environmental analysis.
Certainly, the type of drawbar combination Mr Anderson favours might perform a useful role. The doubles strategy, however, would seem to offer a unique combination of benefits to operators and the environment where conditions are suitable. These conditions are defined in the report.
Incidentally, nowhere do we suggest that long-distance road haulage should be forced into a doubles-cum nominated route strait-jacket.
Operators would decide whether or not to participate in the system and, according to our broad estimates, there would not be an overwhelming majority of such operators in the early stages. Over the next ten to fifteen years, the attractions of the system would prove themselves, particularly if backed up by a squeeze (which we do not advocate) on urban vehicle movement and size. The major alternative, physical trans-shipment at urban peripheries, is hardly attractive, to say the least.
The fact that public debate on these issues is so one-sided — Dr Sharp's Living with the Lorry is one of the few notable contributions to rationality — does not strengthen the forces of reason opposed to arbitrary restriction ism and the non-economic transfer of traffic to rail. If the industry seriously wishes to counter ill-informed, hostile criticism, there ought to be far more published analysis and debate on the sort of issues we raise. Reactions from people who have not read the report are not very worrying; inertia and lack of interest is.
P. W. REED Henley-on-Thames
Post haste
Your interesting leader and article on the new transport procedures in the Post Office (CM November 22)suggest a 130-year cycle. Road surfaces in this country first became adequate to carry regular coach runs in 1784. The first mail coach set off in that year, replacing a postboy on a horse. The first Royal Mail was carried on a train in 1830 and trains took over inside two decades. The last mail coach ran on a road in 1846. Now they return, though without the passengers and the jolly coaching inns.
There was a preview of this Post Office initiative at the 1973 Lorry Driver of the Year national finals when no fewer than seven PO finalists competed in artics with bright red Post Office livery, and Mr M. Clynch, of Euston Parcels Off icevvon fourth place overall. In 1974, alas, the Post Office had to be content with national champions in the two van classes. A. D. WILSON London SE?.
Locking device
With reference to Mr C. Robert Taylor's letter on unpropped bodies at the Commercial Motor Show (CM October 11): In the case of the Volvo N10 on/off highway tipper exhibit on the Volvo stand and the Edbro Stand at the Show, both these vehicles are fitted with a permanent locking device on the rear of the chassis when the body is in a tipped position, which is a standard fitment in order that mechanics can carry out service work. Naturally, this device was used during the period of the Show.
The design is somewhat discreet, but I am sure that if Mr Taylor had examined the vehicle carefully he would have noticed the safety device.
D. I. THOMAS, Ailsa Trucks Ltd, A ltrincham, Cheshire.