48 tonnes HGV's for road-rail freight - good or bad?

[Bmblbzzz]

And I think the 48 tonners used in eg NL are the same 6-axle vehicles used elsewhere in Europe at 40-44T.

[Pebble]

I thought Eddie Stobart revolutionised the industry by getting loads on the way home as well as the way out

back loads used to be far more common than they are now. They're becoming less common now due to more specialised vehicles designed to carry only certain products, and also the demands on the haulage industry to meet ever narrowing time windows for goods to be delivered. So much of our manufacturing industry now relies on materials to be delivered within hours of it being used and the finished product to be taken away within hours of being completed. Unless the distances are large such as on international journeys back loads can be more bother than they are worth

[Pebble]

We may well be just going to 48t to make up for the ever increasing unladen weights. Back when when top weight was 32t pay loads were around 21t Now at 44t they are struggling to carry much more than 25t. 12 tonne more wagon for 4 or 5 ton more load.

Unladen weights are forever increasing - Tag and mid lift axles are heavy but save big on fuel when unloaded , then there is the sheer power, engineering and safety features that goes into modern lorries, all of which have a weight penalty, then the anti pollution devices, I read recently some of the big V8s have 620kg of anti pollution devices attached to the engine.

I do hope they improve the design of lorries to accommodate heavier gross vehicle weights , hopefully with self steer axles on the tri-axle trailers. But in reality they may not need do anything. You could easily run a current 44 tonner at 48t and not exceed any max axle weights. In fact with a 6x4 unit pulling a tri-axle trailer you could possibly get to 54t (7t steering axle + 23t over the drive + 24t on the triple trailer axles) and not be overloaded on any single axle.

Sounds like the best way to reduce unladen weights - not yet viable except for urban goods, but give it time - is going to be electric propulsion. Electric motors plus batteries tend to be lighter than diesel engines plus fuel for the same output and it removes at a stroke all the anti-pollution devices (while still being much cleaner).

Back of the fag packet calculations

a typical lorry using 200 litres diesel per day is equivalent to 2000 kwh ?
typical EV battery has about 0.21 kwh per kg
therefor battery for wagon need to be in the region of 9.5 tonne for a days work
(electricity is more efficient so lets reduce that to 6.5 tonne)?

typical engine + fuel on a lorry - 3 tonne ?
(lets assume electric motor same weight as lorry gearbox?
we desperately need a power to weight break through for batteries.

[Pebble]

.

[tim-b]

Hi

They're all on air suspension now, can't run at 44t without being on road friendly suspension and the vast vast majority of that is air.

Only 75% of the suspension need be a compressible fluid (usually air) or equivalent to be "road-friendly". The drive axle could be maximum 8500kg and not be "road-friendly" for example.
I'm talking about 100% air on these vehicles
Regards
tim-b

[Mick F]

Often see huge heavy lorries full of gravel leaving the local quarry here.

It makes me smile at the wording on the back. "Highway Maintenance".
More like highway destruction with a lorry like that.

[ThePinkOne]

The idea, or at least supposed idea, is that this increased weight limit will apply only to intermodal traffic - containers transferred between rail and road. So the heavier lorries will be doing the first or last mile of a rail journey. Mode shifting causes delays and expenses so is generally only done where distances and loads are large, mostly between ship and some form of land transport. Finishing a rail journey by road is generally not worthwhile, at least in UK where distances are not so long. So you send stuff the whole way by road. It's cheaper and quicker. But by making transshipment easier, you increase the attractiveness of "road + rail" v "road only".

Yes, I agree with all of that, was about to write something similar.
It's a consultation and I'll be interested to see where it goes. Not sure if the extra weight of a container is restricting rail freight, many come from overseas and are collected from the port by road. As you say it is the transfers that are time consuming, there would have to be a financial advantage to using rail and even then I'm not sure we have the infrastructure to deal with it. I've also read that any rail infrastructure project has to demonstrate a cost benefit over a timescale that isn't applied to road building. Near me they're a huge new distribution park, East Midlands Gateway, most of the big players are already there, including Amazon, and they're still building. It has it's own rail freight depot, but my casual observation, from riding past it twice a day for three months, is that only a tiny percentage of the goods are coming in that way, despite the number of containers arriving at the warehouses.

Not particularly, in fact many/most rail freight colleagues see larger HGVs as a threat to rail freight which is already a very tough place to earn a living, unlike HGVs rail freight gets no indirect govt subsidy and unlike passenger rail gets no direct subsidy!

The uneven loading of containers is more of an issue.

Also remember that incoming shipping containers are not generally weighed when being unloaded so unless grossly overweight enough to overload the dock crane, will not be detected.

I wonder how many HGVs are already running with a load over 44 tonnes?

The govt should scrap the 48 tonne idea and use the reduced passenger demand to promote rail freight.

TPO

[Pebble]

The idea, or at least supposed idea, is that this increased weight limit will apply only to intermodal traffic - containers transferred between rail and road. So the heavier lorries will be doing the first or last mile of a rail journey. Mode shifting causes delays and expenses so is generally only done where distances and loads are large, mostly between ship and some form of land transport. Finishing a rail journey by road is generally not worthwhile, at least in UK where distances are not so long. So you send stuff the whole way by road. It's cheaper and quicker. But by making transshipment easier, you increase the attractiveness of "road + rail" v "road only".

Yes, I agree with all of that, was about to write something similar.
It's a consultation and I'll be interested to see where it goes. Not sure if the extra weight of a container is restricting rail freight, many come from overseas and are collected from the port by road. As you say it is the transfers that are time consuming, there would have to be a financial advantage to using rail and even then I'm not sure we have the infrastructure to deal with it. I've also read that any rail infrastructure project has to demonstrate a cost benefit over a timescale that isn't applied to road building. Near me they're a huge new distribution park, East Midlands Gateway, most of the big players are already there, including Amazon, and they're still building. It has it's own rail freight depot, but my casual observation, from riding past it twice a day for three months, is that only a tiny percentage of the goods are coming in that way, despite the number of containers arriving at the warehouses.

Not particularly, in fact many/most rail freight colleagues see larger HGVs as a threat to rail freight which is already a very tough place to earn a living, unlike HGVs rail freight gets no indirect govt subsidy and unlike passenger rail gets no direct subsidy!

The uneven loading of containers is more of an issue.

Also remember that incoming shipping containers are not generally weighed when being unloaded so unless grossly overweight enough to overload the dock crane, will not be detected.

I wonder how many HGVs are already running with a load over 44 tonnes?

The govt should scrap the 48 tonne idea and use the reduced passenger demand to promote rail freight.

TPO

Any yard/dock loading containers onto wagons will have an out going weighbridge, and these days they would't let you leave overweight. On top of that most modern wagons have an in cab readout of all axle weights.

Rail freight is not really practical in such a small country, when it comes to moving goods efficiently and timely the lorry is still king. Rail is struggling to meet passenger demand and I would guess all future investment will go that way.

Only way to have less wagons on the roads would be to consume less, with the added bonus that in consuming less would also be quite good for the environment.

Hi

They're all on air suspension now, can't run at 44t without being on road friendly suspension and the vast vast majority of that is air.

Only 75% of the suspension need be a compressible fluid (usually air) or equivalent to be "road-friendly". The drive axle could be maximum 8500kg and not be "road-friendly" for example.
I'm talking about 100% air on these vehicles
Regards
tim-b

How often do you come across such set ups ? show vehicles / vintage stuff ? I doubt anyone on hire and reward is trying to make a living that way

single drive axles are nearly all on air and are 11.5t for single, and 19t for tandem.

[tim-b]

Hi

How often do you come across such set ups ? show vehicles / vintage stuff ? I doubt anyone on hire and reward is trying to make a living that way
single drive axles are nearly all on air and are 11.5t for single, and 19t for tandem.

A change in the law can be trumpeted, "33% more road-friendly suspension law for heaviest lorries", whether it makes a practical difference is a moot point. Trial the greater weights on some selected routes for a period and it'll become accepted
Regards
tim-b

[landsurfer]

Speaking as a cyclist ...
Getting hit by a 36 tonne or 48 tonne HGV will not really bother me as the result will be the same ... there's a lot more to sort out about HGV's than weight.

[Pebble]

Hi

How often do you come across such set ups ? show vehicles / vintage stuff ? I doubt anyone on hire and reward is trying to make a living that way
single drive axles are nearly all on air and are 11.5t for single, and 19t for tandem.

A change in the law can be trumpeted, "33% more road-friendly suspension law for heaviest lorries", whether it makes a practical difference is a moot point. Trial the greater weights on some selected routes for a period and it'll become accepted
Regards
tim-b

And this was how the last change came about, back in the 90s? top weight was 38t but was extended to 44t only for containers moving from railheads and docks, then came a very confusing period of a whole range of max weights for various types between 38 & 44t (considerably more bamboozling than covid rules) In the end no one really knew what max was so they let everyone run at 44t. I suspect the same will happen with the proposed 48t, (don't worry public it is only for some on certain roads) give it a year or two and it will be standard across the board.

[Bmblbzzz]

Yes, probably, but it will be more like five years than two.

[irc]

Electric motors plus batteries tend to be lighter than diesel engines plus fuel for the same output and it removes at a stroke all the anti-pollution devices (while still being much cleaner).

First time I've seen that assertion. The accepted wisdom being EVs are heavier than the equivelent ICE caer. Any links?

Quick google gives ....

EV manufacturers are driving demand for any material that can reduce the weight of their cars. Currently, the powertrain of a full-battery EV with a 35.8 kWh battery pack and 100kW electric motor is nearly 125 per cent heavier than a standard internal combustion engine vehicle powertrain.

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/sma ... v-engines/

[ThePinkOne]

Yes, I agree with all of that, was about to write something similar.
It's a consultation and I'll be interested to see where it goes. Not sure if the extra weight of a container is restricting rail freight, many come from overseas and are collected from the port by road. As you say it is the transfers that are time consuming, there would have to be a financial advantage to using rail and even then I'm not sure we have the infrastructure to deal with it. I've also read that any rail infrastructure project has to demonstrate a cost benefit over a timescale that isn't applied to road building. Near me they're a huge new distribution park, East Midlands Gateway, most of the big players are already there, including Amazon, and they're still building. It has it's own rail freight depot, but my casual observation, from riding past it twice a day for three months, is that only a tiny percentage of the goods are coming in that way, despite the number of containers arriving at the warehouses.

Not particularly, in fact many/most rail freight colleagues see larger HGVs as a threat to rail freight which is already a very tough place to earn a living, unlike HGVs rail freight gets no indirect govt subsidy and unlike passenger rail gets no direct subsidy!

The uneven loading of containers is more of an issue.

Also remember that incoming shipping containers are not generally weighed when being unloaded so unless grossly overweight enough to overload the dock crane, will not be detected.

I wonder how many HGVs are already running with a load over 44 tonnes?

The govt should scrap the 48 tonne idea and use the reduced passenger demand to promote rail freight.

TPO

Any yard/dock loading containers onto wagons will have an out going weighbridge, and these days they would't let you leave overweight. On top of that most modern wagons have an in cab readout of all axle weights.

Rail freight is not really practical in such a small country, when it comes to moving goods efficiently and timely the lorry is still king. Rail is struggling to meet passenger demand and I would guess all future investment will go that way.

Only way to have less wagons on the roads would be to consume less, with the added bonus that in consuming less would also be quite good for the environment.

Hi

They're all on air suspension now, can't run at 44t without being on road friendly suspension and the vast vast majority of that is air.

Only 75% of the suspension need be a compressible fluid (usually air) or equivalent to be "road-friendly". The drive axle could be maximum 8500kg and not be "road-friendly" for example.
I'm talking about 100% air on these vehicles
Regards
tim-b

How often do you come across such set ups ? show vehicles / vintage stuff ? I doubt anyone on hire and reward is trying to make a living that way

single drive axles are nearly all on air and are 11.5t for single, and 19t for tandem.

Passenger demand has dropped through then floor and unlikely to recover for years.

Plenty opportunities for rail freight. Even more so if the hidden subsidy for HGVs in the tax regime (the tax is not proportionate to the load impact) and the artificially high entry barriers to rail freight were removed. Or local authorities having to cough up to strengthen bridges to take 44 tonne trucks, that should have been recovered by a special tax on all 44 tonne trucks. That would level the playing field.

Much easier to electrify the railway.......

A lot of logistics is hub and spoke these days so rail could indeed do more especially if used multiple units for fast freight.

If the 48 tonne HGVs are such a good idea then any work required to make a highway accessible (be it a bridge strengthening or moving street furniture to get a wider swing on a corner) should be paid for by the users of the trucks. If it's such a good thing there will be a business case, no?

Whilst we're at it bring in the same standard for licences to drive the bigger trucks to the same standard as Train Driver licences. Given the proportion of HGVs involved in collisions, that should also help level the playing field.

TPO

[Bmblbzzz]

Electric motors plus batteries tend to be lighter than diesel engines plus fuel for the same output and it removes at a stroke all the anti-pollution devices (while still being much cleaner).

First time I've seen that assertion. The accepted wisdom being EVs are heavier than the equivelent ICE caer. Any links?

Quick google gives ....

EV manufacturers are driving demand for any material that can reduce the weight of their cars. Currently, the powertrain of a full-battery EV with a 35.8 kWh battery pack and 100kW electric motor is nearly 125 per cent heavier than a standard internal combustion engine vehicle powertrain.

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/sma ... v-engines/

Having looked back at what I originally wrote, I'm not sure. It's clear I was referring to HGVs rather than cars but I might have had in mind trains, where electric traction via OHLE or third rail is quite a bit lighter than diesel-electric. No batteries involved there, of course, at least not for traction.
???