O.T. Eco trucks and trailers ?

[Arfa Daily]

On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said that it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than a 'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and pollution saving.

Fair enough, I thought. But later whilst giving it a bit more consideration, I started to think about the 'not getting owt for nowt' principle, and started to doubt whether there really is any 'free lunch' to be had here. If the 'standard' trailer is about 13 m long, then this one at 2 m longer represents about an extra sixth of a truck. So for every six of these new trailers, you'd save one standard tractor unit and trailer. But then, you've got to take into account that the extra 2 m of trailer is going to weigh quite a bit, as is the extra axle and tyres that it had, and the extra equipment to make the rear axles steerable so that it can get round roundabouts, and manoeuvre in tight yards. On top of that, there will be the additional frictional drag from the extra axle, plus the weight of the nine extra cages, and the goods in them. Hauling those additional weights and losses, is going to take more engine power, and will thus use more fuel. So how much fuel usage advantage would really be gained from these extra long trailers ? Any ? Rather less than was implied ? And as for reducing pollution, I know that diesels aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as I am aware, they produce little or no carbon dioxide, which is the one that the green mist brigade are terrified of, and only small amounts of carbon monoxide, so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to the front of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a contentious change to that item, accepted ? Or am I just being cynical in thinking that if Stobarts got the approval to roll this out across their fleet of curtain-siders, they would save the wages of one sixth of their drivers ... ?

Arfa

[Paul Herber]

the CO2 is very little different.

[Andy Burns]

My thoughts exactly, companies only "care" about eco-bollox to the extent it increases profits.

[Clive George]

At speed the main loss for a lorry will be air resistance. An extra bit on the trailer won't add much to that. So yes, it'll use more fuel than the shorter one, but not that much more, and if used wisely it'll use less per unit delivered.

CO2 production by a diesel engine is pretty much directly proportional to the amount of fuel used, and the main combustion products are CO2 + water - not "little or no carbon dioxide" at all. CO2 isn't about cleanliness of burning, it's just what gets produced when you burn a carbon-based fuel with adequate oxygen.

[John Williamson]

As the biggest single cost in haulage now is fuel, in this case, the two coincide. Fuel consumption per lorry mile would probably increase by about 5% or less, as most of the effort at motorway speed is overcoming air resistance, and that would only show a marginal increase over the normal units.

I'd expect fuel savings per ton/mile carried to be at least 5%, bearing in mind that the Tesco lorries don't run anywhere near their maximum permitted gross weight. That pays about half the drivers' wages, according to the back of this envelope. The other half could be recovered by decreasing the maximum speed of the lorries to 50mph from the current 56mph.

[Dave Liquorice]

Very wise, and you highlight a lot of the variables that come into play.=

Er no, burning a carbon based fuel like diesel produces mostly CO2 and H2O...

Possibly. I would expect the truck maker to have the official MPG figure= s for that model on their website(*). IMHO what really matters is how much= is delivered for how much fuel consumed

The might be able to reduce the work force a little but these big trucks= won't be able to get everywhere. Some places there is no access for even= a "standard" acrtic...

I suspect the drivers wages are small in comparison to the trucks fuel bill. Lets say 10mpg (real mpg is probably lower) 1 hour at 56 mph is 5.=

6 gallons @ =A36.30/gallon about =A335/hour. I'd expect the drivers to get= less than half that rate, may be less than 1/3.

If you can deliver 20% more for the same fuel costs or even 20% more goods for 15% more fuel it would still be "green"...

(*) Can't find it with a quick google. But didi find and interesting document "EFFECTS OF PAYLOAD ON THE FUEL CONSUMPTION OF TRUCKS". That gives a range fro about 15 mpg down to 6 mpg, unladen to fully laden.

[polygonum]

If they end up needing to send smaller trucks to some locations, that also needs to be factored into the overall "savings". Ah! - the ten stores we deliver to saves 10% but the extra one we can't get into needs a special trip by a lorry for that place only - which wipes out all savings.

[Bill]

My big gripe is about the Tesco-owned One Stop Shops that take deliveries up narrow roads in huge artics.

Outside our local one, they have demolished a concrete bollard twice, smashed down the end of a small wall and seriously damaged the pavements on both sides of the road. They also unload parked on the wrong side of the road, with some of them leaving their headlights on. In recent mornings, I've had to creep, partly blinded by the lights, through the narrow bit of road beside the huge bits of angle iron that make up a modern lorry.

And Aldi's lorries have to mount the pavement to get out after delivering to their local store.

[Andy Champ]

seem to think bigger is better...

Andy

[polygonum]

Well this is the age of the train.

Oh - maybe not. Possibly not an acceptable phrase today.

[Tony Bryer]

I am now working as a volunteer builder with Habitat for Humanity and do a lot of motorway driving. Here there are an incredible number of what are called B-Doubles: a tractor + trailer + trailer - 34 wheels so, I would guess, moderate axle loads. They are restricted to certain routes but would work in the UK for depot-depot operations.

[Clive George]

I suspect the big lorries won't be doing multi-drop - full load from RDC to supermarket.

[Arfa Daily]

stuck in my mind from. Now I stop and think about it, both petrol and diesel are hydrocarbon fuels, burnt in an oxygen environment, so CO2 and water must be the major outputs, and similar in quantities. Senior moments ...

Some interesting thoughts and observations elsewhere in the thread, though :-)

Arfa

[meow2222]

An easy way to compare them is to visualise 6 new trucks travelling along versus

7 current ones. Its easy to see the savings: 1 less driver 1 less truck built, with its numerous parts 1 less truck front pushing air out the way

NT

[Chris J Dixon]

Am I the only one wondering exactly what stacking pattern, in a rectangular trailer, gives them 9 extra cages in 2 m?

Chris

[Nightjar]

Divide the width (c2.4m) and the extra length each by three and you get a size of cage around 0.8m x 0.66m. Now, thanks to you, I have to remember to take a measure with me next time I go into Tesco, so I can check a shelf stacking cage for size :-)

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

3x3x1

[Dave Liquorice]

Googling indicates that 800 x 715 is the "standard" "roll container" or "roll pallet" size but there are all manner of variations/options.

[Nightjar]

That was the size I used to buy, but I assume that Tesco buy enough to be able to have them custom made, should they wish. Of course, there would only need to be a spare 145mm in the existing trailer for an extra

2m to allow room for three more rows of standard containers.

Colin Bignell

[Steve Firth]

Oh $DEITY how many stinking Flokati rugs, zinc plated wastebaskets and pine scatter cushions does the world need?