IT'S TIME THE DRAWBAR TRAILER WON RECOGNITION
Page 47
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DRAFT regulations have just been announced by the Minister of Transport, proposing—among other things— that drawbar trailer length should go up to 39 ft. 3-1 in., still within the overall combination length of 59 ft. 0-1 in. No further alterations are being proposed to the regulations governing the use of this type of vehicle. Surely the time has now come to consider the whole case for the drawbar trailer, and press for changes in the Regulations to enable this extremely useful tool to assume its rightful place in the transport fleets of the country.
Assuming that the draft regulation becomes law, two factors remain which mitigate against its economic use here. The first is the speed limit of 30 m.p.h. which applies on all roads other than motorways. The second is that which makes the vehicle carry a second man as a statutory attendant at all times when a drawbar trailer is being towed.
The rust point is possibly noticeable more for its absence than its observance; but this presupposes either an outsize pair of mirrors and vigilant eyes, or police who tend to turn a blind eye to this rule. The fact remains that if this regulation is observed vehicle schedules become unrealistically long, and hence uneconomic, when compared with other vehicles.
The second point, concerning the extra attendant, automatically adds at least £150 p.a. to the operating costs—if wages, SET, and fringe benefits are taken into consideration—and this can often be a far higher figure. It is not even possible to make use of this attendant as a second driver to spread the working day to 14 hours, as he is counted as being in the same position as a driver, and working all the time he is in attendance.
A drawbar trailer combination is generally acknowledged to be a safe vehicle—up to the recent development of the light laden valve, considerably more so than the articulated vehicle. For this reason, and by virtue of its property of better tracking—with less cut-in on corners—it has enjoyed considerable popularity on the Continent. Over there the roads are full of this type, with every conceivable type of bodywork.
It is already being found that the newer and longer semi-trailers are proving difficult to handle round roundabouts, and on some of the twistier routes; and serious doubts are being voiced about even greater lengths in the future, although fitting expensive steering rear axles should go some way to solving this.
There is no need to worry about this factor in a drawbar trailer combination as the length of each half can be reduced to a minimum for a given overall length, and the steering characteristics of the trailer can be designed to give optimum tracking. Finally it is possible to carry 32 tons on a four-axle combination, thus enabling a simple fourwheeler to be used as the towing unit for a four-wheel trailer, keeping cost to a minimum. This latter has the effect of reducing tyre wear to a minimum, as tyre scrub is avoided.
The drawbar trailer combination is restricted to 32 tons in this country, as is an articulated outfit, therefore there is no obvious gain in payload—though it is possible that it may be lighter than a fiveaxle attic. The obvious advantages of the tractor-trailer must lie in the use of its considerably greater usable platform length, even though this is divided into two portions. Looked at in this way it has obvious commercial possibilities for lightweight, high-volume products, where the limitations in vehicle design are not dictated by weight, but the amount of space available for stowing the goods.
The total platform length available would be up to 48 ft. compared with 35 ft. on an
articulated vehicle under existing regulations. The figure for an artic can only be achieved with certain tractors, and with a bulky, lightweight product. If the proposed regulations for 49 ft. artics become law a maximum platform length of 41 ft. 6 in will be attainable, but with all the disadvantages of sharp cut-in on corners, and general unwieldiness. All the foregoing seems to add up to a strong case for using the drawbar trailer combination, but it would be as well to state some of the disadvantages, both factual and imagined.
The mere fact that the load-carrying platform is split into two can be a disadvantage, and make certain operations impossible; but a great many transport jobs involve carrying packages, or pieces of equipment, which can be fitted on short or long platforms. If, for instance, the goods being carried are packets of cereals or crisps, inside light cartons or tins, the total platform length, whether it be in one part or two, is the most important factor.
One major disadvantage is that preloading is only partially possible. It can be argued that with spare trailers it would be possible to pre-load half the cargo; but an articulated fleet, with the appropriate numbers of trailers, can keep its tractive units running continuously. This can prove a serious obstacle, but it could be said that with the advent of the fork-truck and prepalletized goods, that some of the preloading advantages of articulation have been lost already. One fork-truck should be able to load a tractor and trailer in 30 minutes, and more trucks would reduce this time further. Nevertheless it is a disadvantage to many firms; but equally there are others who chose artics for their greater payload only, and therefore would not find the inability to pre-load a snag or a factor they would consider when choosing a vehicle.
I believe the main reason a statutory attendant is required is because these combinations are so tricky to reverse, and it is argued that a mate is essential to help during this manoeuvre. This factor still pertains, but in a situation where the need to reverse arises people are invariably available to assist_ I also feel that the use of this combination would automatically be confined to situations where backing and filling would be at a minimum.
An obvious application would be for long-distance trunking between factory and depot, rather than distribution work within crowded cities. The fact that the load is split could be of some advantage, if the depot were a redistribution point rather than a store. The rigid half would be able to act as a fairly manoeuvrable delivery vehicle for one group of customers, while the trailer was used with another tractor to deliver simultaneously to another group. To make this practical the four-wheeled trailer would be made up from a semitrailer mounted on a removable front dolly, by means of a fifth-wheel coupling. By removing the dolly the trailer becomes a standard semi-trailer capable of hitching on any standard conventional tractor.
It seems to me that if the above factors are carefully considered there is a strong case for applying to the Minister for a change in the Regulations, to allow these outfits to be operated by one man, and under the same speed limits as articulated vehicles. The time is ripe for such an application, since the Minister is obviously conscious that Continental regulations and our own must coincide to give economic interchange of vehicles. It is also appropriate because the whole set of Construction and Use Regulations are under review in draft form, and possible changes are being explored for driver's hours.
It is likely that this will be one of the last chances that operators will have to influence the Minister before the changes become law.