Memorandum by Logotrans Ltd (RH 11)
With reference to your involvement on whether
44 tonne gross vehicles will be allowed on British roads other
than for rail related traffic. Which I will deal with in a separate
letter as rail related traffic has nothing to do with the increase
of 44 tonne gross weights on British roads for general traffic.
It is my opinion that the Government and department
of transport should instigate as quickly as possible the authorisation
of 44,000kgs vehicles on British roads. I hope that the decision
to raise the gross vehicle weights are not of a political nature
to appease certain groups which lobby to achieve political decisions.
As I have been involved with International road
transport for over the last 30 years, also within the last five
years with the integrated road/rail transport by intermodal swapbodies
to and from Italy. I think I have gained enough knowledge to pass
on my expert opinion in this matter.
The reasons why I think you should allow heavier
vehicles in the UK, is for the benefit of the British transport
industry, British manufacturing industries and also the benefit
of the environment.
The following:
1. At present the majority of vehicles on
British roads are 40 tonne vehicles on five axles, we in the industry
also government bodies do accept that these are the most damaging
type of vehicles to the environment, whether it be damage to roads
or older type vehicles which the emissions are not generally environmentally
friendly.
The government so far has gone some way to address
the damage to roads by allowing 41 tonnes on six axles, giving
less heavier axle weights but does not address the situation by
making it more advantageous for the road transport industry to
reinvest in to more acceptable goods vehicles.
2. For example take a small coaster ship
taking grain at one of many British small ports with a capacity
of 500 tonnes from local British farms with no facility for transfer
to rail. 40 tonne vehicles with an average payload of 25 tonnes
would need 20 journeys to complete this movement. If environmental
friendly 44 tonne vehicles were used with a payload of approximately
28 tonnes only 18 journeys would be needed this is a reduction
of 10 per cent of road usage.
These bulk type operations whether it be for
foods and agriculture, chemical industry, mining and quarrying
all of which are not serviced by rail links or not susceptible
to rail transport. All these types of movements could be carried
on a reduced number of vehicles if the payload of goods vehicles
could be increased.
This would also be an advantage to British manufacturers
and exporters as in the long term this would reduce haulage costs,
as the modern type vehicles that would be used, would have greater
fuel efficiency over the older type truck that has been with us
for much too long.
3. You may have noticed from my examples
that I have used the word "environmentally friendly"
44 tonne vehicles these are the vehicles that your committee should
push the appropriate departments and government bodies to allow
the increase of the gross weight, as the government has already
set a precedent on these type of vehicles. But under two separate
issues I think it's the job of government and industry to collate
both axle weights and pollution into the same category.
(a) Under the 41 tonne banner axle weights
have been reduced by using six axles.
(b) Under the excise duty rebates for low
pollution vehicles an increase of environmentally friendly vehicles
has materialised.
If government was to bring a 44 tonner with
the same emissions as the rebated vehicle without increasing the
excise duty this would widen the gap between the vehicles that
are undesirable and the vehicles that are acceptable. This could
quite easily be done by categorising heavier vehicles in the following
manner
37,000kgs vehicles on five axles an excise duty
of £1,500 per annum
37,000kgs to 40,000kgs on five axles an excise
duty of £6,000 per annum
41,000kgs on six axles an excise duty of £1,500
per annum
44,000kgs on six axles (low pollution vehicles
only, as defined by existing legalisation) £1,500 per annum
as you can see by suggestions on excise duty that
it wouldn't take long for a sudden move within the industry to
invest in more environmental friendly trucks, as cost and competitiveness
would eventually force hauliers down this road.
4. If 44 tonners are to be used on British
roads and different taxation classes for vehicle weight and different
axle configuration are to be used I suggest that all vehicles
show a 250mm disc on the front of the vehicle in white with a
black border, showing the gross vehicle weight and the taxation
class of the truck, this will advise weighbridge operators, loading
parties in factories and ports, and also the driver of the vehicles
maximum gross weight.
You will note by my example discs that 41 and 44 are showing
the letter r after the t for tonnes, this would denote that the
vehicle is capable of doing 44 tonnes from railheads at a reduced
excise duty that is presently in force, naturally the r in this
case means rail.
On a question of controlling weights and excise duty by the
appropriate authorities my suggestions are that these discs would
also help enforcement officers ie: police or department of transport
inspectors on routine spot checks of the vehicles this would quickly
denote the gross weight and taxation class, this would be easier
for prosecuting people that overload their class of vehicle or
deliberately tax dodging, as it would be very difficult to use
mitigating circumstances for leading parties and the driver and
also the operator that he was unaware of his gross vehicle weight
or taxation class. These discs could be issued by the department
of transport or motoring organisations or even motoring factors.
As the cost would be very little as these could be of plastic
similar to the speed limit discs that are used on the backs of
vehicles throughout Europe at the moment.
5. If nothing is done about making British road transport
more desirable to stay British, then the trend of flagging out
or even moving lock, stock and barrel to other EU states to take
advantage of their lower costs, but still continuing to move goods
within Britain, then I am afraid you are going to see more undesirable
40 tonne vehicles that are not controlled by reduced pollution
and heavier axle configurations. And these trends are reducing
revenue for the British government as they are bearing the costs
for road damage without any contribution whatsoever to the upkeep
of the UK roads.
If 44 tonne vehicles were allowed on UK roads with six axles
and low pollution control, and also low excise duty for this type
of vehicle then these foreign vehicles would not be able to compete
in the UK even at their reduced excise rates, as they would not
be able to match the payloads. As other EU vehicles cannot operate
internationally or in any other EU state above 40 tonne plus local
margins under EU regulations, as 44 tonne would be a domestic
gross weight only and not covered by EU regulations, same as British
vehicles outside the UK.
6. As Britain is an island, most of our import and export
other than EU states is mostly done through our ports with the
emphasis on containerisation, our competitors can load containers
locally to their ports, and ship them throughout the world with
a 4,000kgs advantage, this added to the strong pound must give
exporting a distinct disadvantage.
Most of the industry within the UK is within 90 miles of
the major ports, and rail links for these short distances is not
cost effective, as the railways are more suited to moving greater
numbers of containers of distances over 150 miles from transfer
point to ports ie Birmingham to Felixstowe or Southampton to Manchester,
as these type of movements definitely do suit the rail network,
and should be encouraged. But the railways should not oppose 44
tonnes for the short distances.
I hope you do not waste the opportunity to raise the gross
vehicle weight to 44,000kgs which would be in the common interest
of British industry, the Road transport industry and a step forward
in reducing damage and pollution control on the environment and
even in the long term which is contra to public opinion it would
be good for the rail industry as this would encourage them to
be more integrated with road transport rather than heavily subsidised
competition.
I would like to clear the air on the question, road versus
rail, therefore I will give some examples where the railways are
not gaining traffic from the road because of their structure,
working practices and a no go forward attitude.
I have been involved with the movement over the last five
years of road/rail integrated swapbodies between the UK and Northern
Italy, therefore I can justify my comments as being truthful and
realistic as opposed to a biased case put forward by the rail
users to act in their own interest using the excuse that rail
is good for the environment.
Don't get me wrong but my attitude is not anti rail but anti
inefficiency, also none cost effective work practices and the
foreign companies and also the middle men between the manufacturers
and shippers that cream off most of the profits before the heavily
subsidised railways get their share.
It's a miff that most of the freight that has been attracted
through heavily subsidised low cost rail movements has been taken
away from road transport, as I myself have been involved with
moving thousands of tonnes to British ports from rail terminals
within the UK, for onward shipment to offshore destinations that
used to arrive from the country of origin direct to the port,
this has only come about because the movement by rail was cheaper
than using coaster ships within the EU, therefore the figures
of the tonnage carried by rail are distorted because most of the
traffic used to arrive by container or coaster vessels to this
island. And within the past 18 months the lack of rail equipment
to move swapbodies has got gradually worse, which has deteriorated
the service to a level now where only the less urgent and low
paying traffic can now move by rail.
I recently read in the press where a spokesperson for the
railways has made comments that if the gross vehicle weights in
the UK are increased they could lose traffic, I can assure you
the railways cannot cope with their existing amount of traffic
that goes through the cannel tunnel to the EU, as sometimes there
is three or four days delay of waiting for a slot on the train
giving transit times of over six days to Southern Europe.
Sometimes there is so much congestion at rail terminals that
the terminals become gridlocked and cannot accept any traffic
from road vehicles to transfer to rail until the backlog has been
cleared.
This coupled to the inefficient and continual labour dispute
ridden SNCF makes for a very poor service.
Also with the increased traffic going through the channel
tunnel on designated complete trains and increased shuttle trains,
it seems that even if the railways were to increase their train
capacity via the channel tunnel to France they would be in conflict
with the tunnel operators as slots through the tunnel are now
approaching saturation point, one can assume that if these slots
are not available to freight trains then Euro tunnel must have
more viable traffic to take up the slots of which are not available
to intermodal trains, many a time we have had faxes advising us
of delays owing to trains missing their slot and being delayed
over 24 hours.
Furthermore as the speed limits through the channel tunnel
for certain trains will be increased then the slower freight trains
could have less time allocated to them than what they have got
now.
The alternative is to get the rail movements to the nearest
port on the Northern coast of mainland Europe then transfer from
railhead to ferry, and then by short sea routes to the nearest
port. In some cases this would be 44 tonne cassamobile going to
Hull and Immingham for delivery to Yorkshire and the North East,
some going to Harwich for delivery to the East Midlands, and some
going to Portsmouth for delivery to the South West and Wales.
And in a majority of these cases some of the 44 tonne vehicles
will do less mileage in the UK than what they are doing now from
inland rail terminals. As at present these 44 tonne vehicles are
serviced from a rail terminal in a residential built up area in
West London, close to the A40 and North Circular road which contributes
more inner city traffic within Greater London. So therefore it
would be unrealistic to accept the theory that the railways are
more environmentally friendly, when their biggest rail terminal
is within the confines of the Greater London area, and every vehicle
exiting the terminal must use the type of roads that the road
haulage industry should be encouraged not to use.
If the ports are used for more containers and intermodal
traffic at 44 tonne then there must be a scope for the longer
distances ie, Manchester and Glasgow to be moved from these South
coast ports by the railways as these type of distances it is more
advantageous and cost effective to go by rail. As these types
of rail movements will definitely cut down road miles within the
UK. And no doubt the railways could give a better service that
their limited capacity they can offer through the channel tunnel
at the moment.
The railways should not take the attitude that they should
have a cartel on 44 tonne, as this has created a them and us situation
within the road haulage industry.
There is a future for the railways if only they would work
with the road transport industry as opposed to being in direct
competition on a no win basis.
It may take a long time to break down the barriers, change
the working practices, and the attitude of the railways towards
road transport but I am sure that with co-operation as opposed
to conflict, I am sure both sides of the transport industry can
go forward to get a good working relationship that will benefit
both sides and also British industry.
If you would like me to appear before your Committee, I am
quite willing to take the time and effort to attend a meeting
to put my case forward for the increase weights to 44 tonne for
domestic transport with the UK.
As I think that now is an appropriate time to make good the
problems we have within the transport industry in one easy sweep,
that would be to the benefit of every one concerned and also to
save face with the anti pollution and anti truck lobby. The reasons
I have given for the increases in the gross vehicle weights can
surely be put forward to the electorate on an environmental friendly
footing, without making this a political issue.
And for the increase fuel costs that has been levied over
the last few budgets maybe the increase in weights and the decrease
in excise duty for these 44 tonners would redress the extra burden
of costs that has been put on the road transport industry to move
traffic from road to rail without success.
The decision on whether fuel duty levels are lowered must
lie within the conscience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
because as long as there is a difference in price of fuel between
member states and especially high prices in the UK all international
vehicles, entering the UK will fill up at the cheapest fuel point,
regardless of the difference whether it would be a few pence per
litre or 33 per cent cheaper, as it is at the moment.
The lower prices available for fuel in the rest of the EU
is helping keep the cost down of British exports when moved by
road, but this is definitely not helping UK domestic transport.
As most of my transport is done by intercontinental trucks
by road at European fuel prices, and the movement of swapbodies
within the UK from railheads, where the increased fuel has been
passed on to the customers. I cannot say that a reduced fuel duty
would effect my company, but I am sure other transporters whose
customers cannot bear the increase costs must be at a disadvantage.
But I am sure increased payloads at no extra costs would be a
great advantage to offset these costs within the industry.
P Vernon
Managing Director
| 
