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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202 
3perator protection wanted
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Doubts about the effectiveness of a }hp /ton power /weight ratio for heavy iods vehicles, without a requirement to test dividual engines, have been expressed to
e Department of the Environment by the TA.
Although the Department's proposed andard refers solely to vehicle >nstruction, the Association fears the assibility that operators could find Lemselves in trouble because of the use :quirements covering noise and smoke, if production engines do not match the approved engine in all respects.
Manufacturers, says the Association, are expected to have considerable difficulty in meeting the combined requirements of the Department's noise, smoke and power/ weight ratio proposals within the proposed timescale. Unless the timescale is relaxed, the Association fears that manufacturers will be obliged to downrate some current production models in order to cortiply.
The Association has asked for a meeting
with the DoE to discuss its comments.