Q & A in the Mail today,
Science tells us that a streamlined shape is more fuel-efficient, so why do most European manufacturers produce trucks with a flat front?
The answer goes on to explain about maximum lengths, but the final 3 paragraphs are as follows:
‘Increased lorry lengths could be increased for more streamlining, but this would mean them taking up more room on the roads at a cost to other drivers.
It isn’t just the number of vehicles on the road that contribute to congestion, it is also their size.
A 5ft increase in lorry length would be the equivalent of adding one extra lorry for every 12 currently in use, but without the benefit of adding extra cargo-carrying capacity. This would be the equivalent of putting in excess of 23,000 more lorries on the road.’
Surely this must be BS? I just don’t believe it. He hasn’t taken into account separation between vehicles has he?
If we ran double bottoms on the motorway, while sticking to current axle weights surely that would massively decrease the number of vehicles? A tractor and two trailers in 100 feet has to be better than 2 trucks one behind the other?
John
The Dutch (among other Europeans) recognise this, and run road trains. Robert
Well, you did read in the Mail John, anti lorry at the best of times, usual write up about a truck accident will include the words…carearing out of control, juggernaut, slamming into, forcing its way, bullying tactics, etc, etc, and that’s just a delivery “truck” ( they never use the word lorry) negotiating a
roundabout…bias against “truckers” written by a child of 14 with an I.Q of 7… 
Sometime in the seventies, when we used to load cardboard packaging out of Reed’s ( RCC ) in Wigan, ( now SCA I believe ) on 40 foot flats, before they insisted that everything had to go on curtainsiders, I seem to recall, they conducted an experiment that involved running a double bottom outfit between Wigan and somewhere down south. Possibly Thatcham, but I could be mistaken there. Unless I’ve dreamt it, I’m sure I actually saw the rig on the yard at Wigan on one occasion. I think it was pulling either two 28 foot or two 33 foot trailers. My understanding is, they had obtained special dispensation from the ministry for really long wagons, or someone similar, and the trials were strictly controlled. I think the maximum speed limit for the rig on the motorway was set at 40 mph. Just a tad bit dangerous in itself methinks. I don’t know how long the experiment went on for, or how many trips the outfit made, but it all came to nothing in the end evidently. I’m just curious, does anyone else remember this episode or am I just losing it? Eddie.
Eddie Heaton:
Sometime in the seventies, when we used to load cardboard packaging out of Reed’s ( RCC ) in Wigan, ( now SCA I believe ) on 40 foot flats, before they insisted that everything had to go on curtainsiders, I seem to recall, they conducted an experiment that involved running a double bottom outfit between Wigan and somewhere down south. Possibly Thatcham, but I could be mistaken there. Unless I’ve dreamt it, I’m sure I actually saw the rig on the yard at Wigan on one occasion. I think it was pulling either two 28 foot or two 33 foot trailers. My understanding is, they had obtained special dispensation from the ministry for really long wagons, or someone similar, and the trials were strictly controlled. I think the maximum speed limit for the rig on the motorway was set at 40 mph. Just a tad bit dangerous in itself methinks. I don’t know how long the experiment went on for, or how many trips the outfit made, but it all came to nothing in the end evidently. I’m just curious, does anyone else remember this episode or am I just losing it? Eddie.
It was Reed Transport Eddie and a Volvo F88 pulling 2x 23ft flats but the payload was only 18:8 tons and the experiment was a failure,you are right that the combination was limited to 30 MPH on A roads and 40 MPH on M/ways.There is a chapter on it in The Reed Transport book. Cheers Dennis.
Not quite trucks but similar
In 1967 when I was at sea with Caltex, the old war built T2 tankers were falling (rotting) apart, but the main engines were still functional
So back at Hitachi in Osaka they took the old ships, chopped them off for’ard of the engine room, lifetd the bridge from midships & moved it aft and welded on a new longer hull increasing capacity from 12,00 to 17,000 tons.
The increase in hull length meant they went faster at 17 knots & were more fuel efficient
In truck terms I guess it would be like taking a day Cab Atkinson & - on second thoughts no!!
1945 T2 around 1967:
And after jumboisation:
I seem to remember reading somewhere that as lorries/trailers have got larger and with higher gross weights so the amount of HGVs on the road have fallen. When I started on max weight (32 Ton) artics 19 Tons was a good load (tipper), thirty years later, in 2001 I think, when the gross was raised to 44 Tonnes we could just about get 30 Tonnes on a tanker. Perhaps the transport law makers could remind themselves of this when considering future regulations.
John West:
Q & A in the Mail today,
Science tells us that a streamlined shape is more fuel-efficient, so why do most European manufacturers produce trucks with a flat front?
The answer goes on to explain about maximum lengths, but the final 3 paragraphs are as follows:
‘Increased lorry lengths could be increased for more streamlining, but this would mean them taking up more room on the roads at a cost to other drivers.
It isn’t just the number of vehicles on the road that contribute to congestion, it is also their size.
A 5ft increase in lorry length would be the equivalent of adding one extra lorry for every 12 currently in use, but without the benefit of adding extra cargo-carrying capacity. This would be the equivalent of putting in excess of 23,000 more lorries on the road.’
Surely this must be BS? I just don’t believe it. He hasn’t taken into account separation between vehicles has he?
If we ran double bottoms on the motorway, while sticking to current axle weights surely that would massively decrease the number of vehicles? A tractor and two trailers in 100 feet has to be better than 2 trucks one behind the other?
John
Correct. I’m surprised they get rubbish like that past the editor. I suppose that, if the reader buys it…
Regarding the issue of streamlining, the front corners of the cab could have a far greater radius, without compromising the useable space within. How often do you go into the corner of the cab, next to the A-post? Never. Likewise, the cab could taper far more aggressively from the B-post forward. This would also make the vehicle easier to maneouvre, because a full-width cab would only be, say, 2m wide across the front corners.
This ran for a while -I think it was Holland to Spain
Food for thought
Well Whisperingsmith , good information i knew about the building of the sam[san]boats from the U.S.A.however never thought about the transformation of
a tanker using the old center castle, was that the engine as well.?
Since quite some years VDL (with BOVA and Berkhof in their group) manufactures the Phileas,
total length 24m and operational in Nijmegen and Eindhoven as well some French cities. VDL
bought DAF Bus when Paccar wanted to concentrate on trucks. In 1978 DAF Trailers and Special
Products was excluded and sold as well.
This one pulled into the local port today. 
This was some ones idea of aero-dynamics and they got Ryder interested enough to build a handful for their rental fleet but it met with very poor driver acceptance.
ChrisArbon:
0
This was some ones idea of aero-dynamics and they got Ryder interested enough to build a handful for their rental fleet but it met with very poor driver acceptance.
The first reaction on seeing that is how ugly it looks! That of course shouldn’t alter any purchase decision, but inevitably it would. There’s an inbuilt mechanism within us that says ‘if it doesn’t look right it won’t be right’ which extends from cars to aeroplanes.
John
I seem to remember a haulier from lincolnshire trying to put a stretched artic on the road, but falling foul of the law. I think it was a Volvo and wasit from Boston? - A good 10 years ago. Nice looking outfit. Jim.
John West:
ChrisArbon:
0
This was some ones idea of aero-dynamics and they got Ryder interested enough to build a handful for their rental fleet but it met with very poor driver acceptance.
The first reaction on seeing that is how ugly it looks! That of course shouldn’t alter any purchase decision, but inevitably it would. There’s an inbuilt mechanism within us that says ‘if it doesn’t look right it won’t be right’ which extends from cars to aeroplanes.
John
Bit over the top for a shunter I think!
> deckboypeggy:
> Well Whisperingsmith , good information i knew about the building of the sam[san]boats from the U.S.A.however never thought about the transformation of a tanker using the old center castle, was that the engine as well.?
Hi Peggy, In 1966/67 Caltex took the best of the T2s for this, and yes the aft end complete with engines & machinery, and I think the pump room was grafted onto a new hull. I believe Caltex Melbourne was the last to be broken up in 1985. ( I was lucky to have 3 month dry dock in Osaka when this started)
