The blame of access barriers

NHVR personnel are quick to claim credit for progress but are much quicker to point blame of access barriers on the states, writes Bob Woodward.

The NHVR HVPP includes initiatives to accelerate the uptake of PBS vehicles, the fleet of the future — on our roads! This is unlikely to happen unless there is a quantum change in the approach to access.

SUBSCRIBE to the PowerTorque newsletter

Operators regularly state that the cost of PBS certification is a continued operational burden. The migration of PBS vehicles to prescriptive “deemed to comply” status is progressing at slower than snail pace.

The first obstacle to addressing the access problems is for road managers and the NHVR to acknowledge that the current access arrangements are a mess. By sharing open, respectful and evidence-based discussions, we can create positive change and amplify the benefits for industry and the country.

Road managers continue to be reluctant to engage in technical debate.

A bridge doesn’t know if the freight is drought relief HML or the increase in steer axle load is due to Euro 6 or electric. Newton’s laws don’t change, but some bridge engineers believe otherwise. It is difficult to accept that a change in engineer at local government changes the performance of a bridge — that what was once HML, suddenly becomes GML.

There are many tools available to manage mass and axle group loading. With mass management accreditation and available tools overloads should be a rarity.

Having participated in road trials where representatives of the road manager agreed, at-site, that the trial proved a vehicle performance suitable to the road infrastructure, then to go on and submit a report to the contrary — how can industry respect assertions that a 20mm difference in the spacing of axles within a group is critical to the longevity of infrastructure when road managers won’t share the engineering assessments?

The work that I have seen shows minimal variation in stresses cause by the vehicle, excluding the self-support stresses of the structure columns and support beams. Then there are the many times in government discussions having been advised that the assessment procedure is ‘policy’ but when requested, this muted policy never seems to be available.

The concept of access for vehicles with demonstrated performance (now PBS) was initially proposed in 1992.

It took some 15 years for that resolve to produce a vehicle assessment criterion and then, when PBS was first introduced, the states were to provide published PBS level networks within two years — it was another project fail.

The rate of development of high productivity freight vehicles far exceeded establishment of approved network levels, and many applications and approval-in-principle has just been another process that hasn’t always guaranteed immediate access when the vehicle is PBS certified.

Access is a mess, compounded by bureaucratic red-tape. It can be fixed, but there has to be a change in the bureaucratic mindset. Industry needs to promote HPFV’s by giving operators 100 per cent confidence that when they invest access will be assured.

So as an industry we need to get started on the hard work. Don’t tell me it can’t be done, tell me what needs to be changed so it can be done.

The issues for each vehicle combination is how does it perform when compared to criteria?

Dimensions – linear and simple:
Length – intersection and rail crossing stacking
Height – structure clearances
Width – all routes should be assessed on the basis of 2.6 metres width (international standard)
On-road Performance:
Lane keeping
Swept path
Structures – bridges:
Axle spacing mass schedule
GML
CML
HML
Concessions
(Emission/ technologies)

Combination preferences

Many assessment practitioners promote roll coupled vehicle units to the rear of the combination. If this is fact, then is:

An AB-triple (semi-trailer + converter dolly + B-double) a better performer than a BA-triple (B-double + converter dolly + dog trailer using the same individual vehicle units)?
If typically, the BA-triple is a lesser performer, then should a PBS assessment (not certification) be carried in the vehicle operation documentation?
Is an ABB-quad (semi-trailer + converter dolly + B-triple) better than BAB-quad (B-double + converter dolly + B-double)? Multiple road train drivers promote the ABB-quad.

Routes:

Length (consider increasing prime mover length – future cabin aerodynamics’ and steer axle mass)
Height (4.3^m-4.6^m) highlight restrictions
Width – all routes should be assessed for an overall width of 2.6 metres, where deemed unsuitable the limitations need to be logged for future road works.
Bridges and axle spacing – grouping (3L+12.5; 1.5L+29.5: or complies with another performance criteria) but it must be within the general scope of Australian Bridge Standards, for concessional mass limits and higher mass limits.

Lane keeping ability

Swept path (assess primarily on basis of PBS levels, however additional references are required.)
Basic general access network – 20 metres OAL (Maybe 20.3m – some allowance for future aero); 4.3metres OAH; 45 tonnes:
Example: if the operator has a modular AB-triple with an overall length of 42.5 metres:

Network

Length ≤ 42.5 metres
Height≤ 4.3 metres
Swept path ≤ 11.2 metres
Lane keeping Level 3B
ASMS meets criteria

The route A-B-C-D may be shorted but would be limited to GML and 4.3 metres height; whereas the route A-E-D, would allow a HML operation with trailer up to 4.6 metres height.

It is acknowledged that there would need to be operational controls. These might include accredited operator requirements to participate in access self-assessed access: ie: accredited to TruckSafe or NHVAS module (to be developed). Failure to comply may include temporary or permanent suspension of access module accreditation.

Freight movements and the nation has benefitted in the granting of access to the network such as the Sheahan Bridge at Gundagai, and the Hume Highway. The controls for trucks include lefthand lane only and 60 km/h speed limit, enforced by camera technology.

This has allowed extended access to the Hume Highway for many HPFV vehicles. The restriction applies to about 1.5 kilometres, where the resulting travel time difference for that section between 100 and 60 km/h is less than 40 seconds.

The Gundagai bridge is an excellent example of a solution to an infrastructure limitation. However, when a network or specific access is approved by permit, that access should generally be considered as a “proof of concept”.

When the functionality and suitability of that access is proven over a period (not multiple years), it should then be migrated (with operational restrictions if required, such as speed) to the multi-tier approved network no longer requiring a permit.

Let 2025 be the year of change. NatRoad policy has a target — in that 90 per cent of permits should be eliminated by 2028, so it’s time to hold the bureaucracy accountable to clear and measurable outcomes.

The NHVR claim new initiatives that accelerate the update of PBS, and should also include Modular HPFV combinations in pursuit of pursuit of world-class safety and productivity outcomes. There is an urgent need to create positive change.