1 / 9

A: Longer Heavier Vehicles

A: Longer Heavier Vehicles. Q: Environmental costs (minimise) Emissions, Pollution, Waste ... Q: Track costs (balance) Pavement design / axle loads, tyre scrub ... Infrastructure: Bridge design / imposed load, Curves / turning circle ... Q: Economics (maximise)

ownah
Télécharger la présentation

A: Longer Heavier Vehicles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A: Longer Heavier Vehicles Q: Environmental costs (minimise) Emissions, Pollution, Waste ... Q: Track costs (balance) Pavement design / axle loads, tyre scrub ... Infrastructure: Bridge design / imposed load, Curves / turning circle ... Q: Economics (maximise) Efficiency; Reliability; ... Solution - Performance Based Standards (optimise) Longer semi-trailers More efficient combinations

  2. Longer semi-trailers - background 1960 - Competitive systems: ISO Series 1 vs. palletised cargo Political:Operational:Technical bias (geographical/modal/economic) 1970 - Paradigm shift from ‘space’ to handling considerations Converging gateways : outer (handling/transport), inner (pallets) 1980 - ISO regulatory change - pallet compatible containers 2000 - EU new generation of ‘swap bodies’ Institutional asymmetries & UNCTAD/ISO rivalry? 2010/15 - Next Generation (EU or Worldwide?) EU road dominant : Import/Export ISO x2 x3 : Combined Transport? OSS - Open Source Software

  3. CEN - Intermodal & Interoperable Workshop Optimum (5x1.2) a) 6.25m & 12.5m? Economic 20’ b) 8.3m & 16.6m? ? Highways 7.82m “Second best” C745 | A1360 not modular!

  4. — 13.6m — SCM load [kg] 5% pallet 35% part laden 60% load 20% pallet 15% part laden 65% 4+pallets Consolidation Useful spare capacity 55% B825 10% Collaboration Maximise efficiency A1650 35%

  5. 1.7 (-60%) IEA-ECMT.pdf - A logistical Perspective on the Fuel Efficiency of Road Freight Transport 1.4 (-30%) energy intensity ltr/c.tkm 3 2 LHV:60t 1 piggyback NL (1.22) CZ (1.09) swap +L Rolling Resistance +h 0.5 CA (0.74) OECD(Rail) +L Rigid :12t US (0.44) Aerodynamics Auxillaries 57% avg. IRU - conclusions • Fewer political restrictions on lorry traffic • Optimal exploitation of existing infrastructure • More environmetaly friendly innovations Tractor semi-trailer BIC Study team (UIRR ..) - recommendations Refuse requests for greater road vehicle dimensions “If such pressures render successful, all those who organise common European standards based on current legislation will be dis-encouraged!” Project: ETU/B2-704-507.15476 72002

  6. Long semi-trailers Modular C782 Modular C825 Manoeuvrable Narrow corridor Tractive effort Yaw Stabilty Roll Stablity Fuel efficient Tyre life Consolidation Collaboration Lean potential … Road trials? scrub swing Safe Clear steer EMS 2 x 7.82m 5.3 12.5

  7. 13.6 m ROAD RAIL SEA 8m (nominal) 8m (nominal) Next generation? • Generic ‘grey box’ • No geographical bias! • No modal bias! • No economic bias!

More Related