Consultation outcome

Fuel tanker weight limits: temporary changes during periods of fuel supply disruption

Updated 2 April 2024

This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government

Executive summary

Following disruption to fuel supplies in Autumn 2021, government has been considering how to reduce the risk of further supply disruption. One option is to allow road fuel tankers to temporarily operate at weights higher than usually permitted to allow more fuel to be transported.

The Department for Transport (DfT) and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) have been investigating the feasibility of this proposal and how it would work in practice.

It is anticipated that fuel tankers would only be permitted to operate at increased weights:

• during potential or actual fuel supply disruption
• with certain conditions in place to ensure they were operated safely to reduce risks

These conditions include:

• not allowing the fuel tanker combinations to exceed maximum permitted GB axle weights or the design train weight of the motor vehicle
• limiting increases to only those vehicles equipped with enhanced safety features such as advanced emergency braking systems (AEBS) and a vehicle stability function (VSF)

DfT have also conducted technical assessments related to infrastructure and vehicle safety and the likely impact of the use of heavier fuel tankers. Respondents are invited to comment on the proposals and assessments and provide any further information that may assist in the development of the technical assessments.

Background

Fuel supply disruption

Following a period of disruption to fuel supplies in Autumn 2021, DfT and DBT, with support from UK hauliers, have been considering options to improve the resilience of the road fuel supply chain.

This period of disruption was caused by a shortage of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) drivers. The government has taken a variety of steps to alleviate the HGV driver shortage.

While, in this instance, HGV driver shortages contributed to disruption, there are several scenarios which could lead to fuel supply disruption, including:

• disruption or cessation of supply from UK refineries or terminals
• disruption to hauliers
• malicious or criminal disruption - including cyber and conventional attack, control by unfriendly states and illegal pipeline tapping
• industrial action
• protest action
• global market supply disruption - such as that seen in 2022 due to the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
• an increase in consumer demand that outstrips supply - driven by lack of consumer confidence in supply often due to media speculation or statements

Government already has a variety of tools available to address either potential or actual fuel supply problems, as set out in the National Emergency Plan for Fuel (NEP-F). These include:

• the Downstream Oil Protocol - permitting a temporary and limited relaxation of competition rules to allow government to work constructively with fuel producers, suppliers, hauliers and retailers to ensure that disruption is minimised as far as possible
• relaxing limitations on fuel tanker drivers’ hours - to increase the capacity of the distribution system
• deploying the UK reserve tanker fleet of road fuel tankers - to provide extra capacity to fuel distributors
• granting the temporary release of compulsory oil stocks during an international shortage of fuel
• deploying military tanker drivers to supplement civilian drivers to maintain fuel deliveries, often in conjunction with the deployment of the UK reserve tanker fleet

This consultation is seeking views on an additional tool to help government respond to potential or actual fuel supply threats.

Proposed changes

Weight limit changes

Our key policy ambition is to make temporary exemptions from the current maximum train weight for 6-axle articulated road fuel tankers of 44 tonnes and allow a maximum of either 48 or 50 tonnes.

It is envisaged that this power would only be utilised at times when fuel supply is threatened in situations such as those identified in the Fuel supply disruption section, and for periods of approximately 4 to 5 weeks.

Maximum axle weight limits would remain unchanged and vehicles would not be allowed to operate at weights above their maximum design train weight.

This would only be applicable to road fuel tanker vehicles equipped with specified safety features, carrying petrol and diesel to fuel distribution centres, retail forecourts and operator depots that make use of fuel bunkers. Domestic fuel deliveries would not be in scope.

The maximum train weight proposed to be permitted is 50 tonnes, but current information about the fleet suggests that most fuel tankers have a maximum design weight of between 44 and 48 tonnes, with only small numbers with a design weight of 50 tonnes. This suggests there would be limited benefits in allowing a maximum train weight of 50 tonnes and, following any additional input from this consultation, consideration would therefore be given to applying a maximum train weight of 48 tonnes.

Current loading of fuel tankers

The Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 and the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 set out the maximum permitted weights for goods vehicles that are used on public roads in Great Britain. These regulations set a maximum permitted train weight limit of 44 tonnes for 6-axle articulated goods vehicle combinations (including fuel tankers). These regulations also set maximum limits for axle weights.

The tanks of fuel tankers are usually divided into multiple compartments to reduce the effect of fuel movement within the tank while the vehicle is on the road and allow different products (for example, both petrol and diesel) to be carried by the same tanker.

Fuel tankers often have spare tank capacity when operating, due to reaching the 44-tonne weight limit before all the compartments are full. This is particularly likely when carrying diesel, which is denser than petrol.

Utilising spare tank capacity has been identified as a way of quickly increasing the fuel carried by individual fuel tankers, which may help to avert fuel supply problems by allowing more product to be carried using the same number of vehicles, or speed up recovery of fuel stocks after a period of supply disruption.

Conditions applying to vehicle operation above 44 tonnes

There are provisions in place to allow the ‘usual’ maximum weight limits to be exceeded when it is not possible to comply, such as for the movement of unusually heavy indivisible loads. Where these are permitted, terms and conditions are applied to maintain road safety and ensure damage to the infrastructure is limited as far as practically possible.

To ensure risks to road safety and additional infrastructure wear are minimised as far as practically possible, we would only consider allowing road fuel tankers to operate at weights above 44 tonnes if they adhered to certain conditions.

These conditions would be set out in a vehicle special order (VSO) issued by DfT. Our suggestions for these specific conditions are listed in the Vehicle safety conditions section of this document. All road fuel tankers seeking to make use of this provision will be required to meet all of these conditions before they would be permitted to do so.

Conditions applying to the use of the easement

The most significant condition relating to the general use of the easement would be for participating operators to check routes for suitability with any affected road and bridge authorities before any vehicles weighing over 44 tonnes operated on them. The standard maximum weight limit for 6-axle articulated HGVs in general circulation is 44 tonnes and road structures (particularly bridges) are generally designed with this limit in mind, although some structures do have lower weight limits.

Technical assessments show that the operation of lorries at weights over 44 tonnes is outside the limits and tolerances permissible for many bridges and other structures on the British road network. Structures which are unable to safely accommodate vehicles weighing over 44 tonnes (or which have significantly lower weight limits) are likely to be more common on the local road network (managed by local authorities) than the strategic road network (SRN), managed by national authorities. However, there may still be some structures on major roads with 44 tonne limits.

Vehicles which weigh over 44 tonnes, for example those carrying abnormal indivisible loads, may be permitted to use the road under orders that have been made under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, subject to terms and conditions specified by the order. Examples of such orders can be found in the Road Vehicles Authorisation of Special Types (General) Order 2003 (STGO).

This order “makes provision authorising certain types of vehicles to be used on roads notwithstanding that they do not fully comply with the requirements that generally apply to vehicles permitted on roads.”

Vehicles operating in Great Britain at weights over 44 tonnes are required to notify all affected road and bridge authorities of their intended route. This can be done via the Electronic Service Delivery for Abnormal Loads (ESDAL) system, administered by National Highways.

Hauliers can register on this system for free and submit their intended routes, along with vehicle information (including axle weights and spacings), which are then passed to affected road and bridge authorities. National Highways has also offered to train operators on how to use the system for free.

For vehicles weighing up to 50 tonnes, affected authorities have a 2 working day window to object to the route (or suggest an alternative) if it passes over structures or along roads unable to safely hold the weight of the vehicle. If there are no objections, the authority does not respond to the notification and after the 2 working day window, the haulier can carry out the journey. Operators are required to indemnify road and bridge authorities in respect to any damage that may be caused to structures by the weight of their vehicles when using these routes.

We propose that fuel tanker operators wishing to operate vehicles weighing over 44 tonnes during periods of fuel supply disruption are required to clear movements in advance (using the ESDAL system or other methods such as email), in the same way as abnormal indivisible loads do now.

Fuel tankers weighing over 44 tonnes would be required to remain on these pre-approved routes and not take an alternative route that had not been assessed for suitability for the additional weight of vehicle. Vehicles would also not be able to travel in convoys, which may be particularly relevant when leaving fuel refineries or distribution centres.

Use of vehicle special orders

The Secretary of State for Transport has powers under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to authorise the use on the road of vehicles that do not comply with the usual requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, which is made pursuant to section 41 of the Road Traffic Act.

These powers are used to permit the movement of vehicles included in the Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003 (such as those involved in the movement of abnormal indivisible loads) but they also, under certain conditions, permit the issue of an order for other reasons. These vehicle special orders (VSOs) may be issued to an individual vehicle, to a number of specified vehicles, or to a specified person with responsibility for the operation of those vehicles.

Applicants for a vehicle special order would be expected to provide details of the regulatory requirements that they are seeking exemption from with a justification for that exemption. The Secretary of State may impose restrictions or conditions of use that mitigate any risks that may be presented by the operation of the vehicles.

Fuel tanker operators wishing to use vehicles at weights above 44 tonnes would be required to apply for a vehicle special order and have that application approved before commencing these movements. Requests for vehicle special orders would be submitted in advance, before any fuel supply disruption, in order to allow quick activation (likely to be a few days) in the event of disruption. Vehicle special orders have a timeframe included, but this could be shortened or lengthened as required, depending on the scenario.

The process for triggering the use of heavier fuel tankers is still subject to development and we would welcome views from respondents on the suggested approach which is set out below.

In the event of impending or actual fuel supply disruption UK government ministers will confirm that the activation threshold has been met. Operators who have applied for a vehicle special order would be informed of the timing and conditions associated with the implementation of the increased tanker weights period. The contact would be the named ‘specified person’ on the vehicle special order. These supply disruptions could be caused by the example scenarios, but not limited to those listed in the section on Fuel supply disruption.

Government would write to hauliers about to be granted vehicle special orders, to inform them that they can start to submit routes via ESDAL, with the proviso that vehicles should not actually begin operating at the heavier weights until the vehicle special orders have been issued by DfT and the 2 working day period for objections in the ESDAL system has expired without issues being raised by infrastructure owners.

Upon receipt of ministerial approval vehicle special orders will be prepared and issued.

If they have not already, operators apply for approval of routes using ESDAL. Infrastructure owners have 2 working days to raise objections or agree alternative routes, or applications will be assumed to have been approved. This process may run in parallel to or overlap the 2 previous stages.

If no objections are received within 2 working days of an application being successfully entered into ESDAL, and as long as the vehicle special order has been issued, vehicles under the authority of the person specified in the vehicle special order can start to make use of the higher weight limits using the approved routes for deliveries.

When would permission to operate at over 44 tonnes be withdrawn?

It is proposed that vehicle special orders would be in place initially for a period of 4 weeks. After this timeframe has passed, further applications for vehicle special orders could be made which would also expire after a period of 4 weeks. If it were still necessary, further vehicle special orders could be issued. Operators would be also required to reapply for route clearance via ESDAL every 4 weeks, to account for possible changes to road conditions.

Funding arrangements

Use of heavier fuel tankers would incur additional costs to infrastructure owners, due to additional road wear, potentially accelerated deterioration of structures and road surfaces and additional resource requirements to assess potential routes for suitability. It is proposed that local authority infrastructure owners are compensated for these additional costs, in line with the new burdens principle.

The new burdens assessment (NBA) requires the sponsoring department or departments to commit to reimbursing local authorities for these costs, where they will exceed £100,000 per year. As the initial cost has been estimated at £500,000 per month, an NBA will be undertaken before this policy is introduced. The government is committed to reimbursing local authorities to fully fund any net additional costs.

The information gathered from responses to this consultation, will assist in further determining the financial impact to local authorities.

Our initial analysis estimates that implementation of this policy will cost road maintenance authorities around an extra £0.10 per mile travelled by the heavier fuel tankers. Note that this figure references the average extra wear and tear cost associated with the additional weight allowance under consideration.

Based on initial analysis, we anticipate that it would cost one administrative officer from one operator between around £1.50 to £3.00 to send one route submission to one authority, based on the time cost associated with submitting routes. Routes submitted into ESDAL can be stored on the system, so this may be a one-off cost. Information on expected costs is contained within the analytical information section. Based on the last 5 years, it is envisaged that this intervention would have been operational on 3 occasions.

The level of payment for local authorities would be based on modelling by DfT using established processes, which quantifies the additional road wear caused by heavier fuel tankers. Asking for local authorities to accurately and consistently quantify additional costs imposed by the heavier fuel tankers is likely to be extremely difficult, given these vehicles would be sharing the road with normal traffic, and operating over a wide variety of routes and weights, with a maximum of 48 or 50 tonnes.

Use of modelling would also allow for payments to local authorities to be made in a timelier way, as it would avoid the need to verify claimed additional costs by local authorities.

It is anticipated that payments would be made to local authorities using an existing capital funding mechanism, such as the settlement for highways maintenance for English local authorities. Payments would be calculated formulaically for Scotland and Wales and it would be down to the relevant devolved administration to determine how additional payments should be split.

Technical assessments

The vehicle safety, infrastructure safety and analytical information sections are all initial assessments, which will be developed further based on the feedback to this consultation. Views from respondents on whether the correct issues (and their impact) have been identified in each of these assessments would be welcomed.

Vehicle safety assessment

Braking

The annual roadworthiness inspection assesses the efficiency of the brakes in relation to the vehicle’s design weight and not the maximum weight limit permitted in Great Britain. The design weight will be equal to or higher than the maximum Great Britain weight. 

It is not proposed to permit a vehicle to operate above its design weight, therefore any relaxation will not affect the compliance of the vehicle with roadworthiness requirements.

However, it can be expected that, in certain circumstances, the braking distances of heavy vehicle combinations operating at their higher design weight would be greater than when that vehicle was operating at 44 tonnes. This results from the effect of weight on the deceleration generated for a given braking force; the braking force available to decelerate a heavy vehicle will be more effective on the vehicle at a lower weight.

For a vehicle meeting the roadworthiness requirement for braking at 48 tonnes, the stopping distance from 60 miles per hour (when fully laden at 48 tonnes) could be approximately 9% more than when operating at 44 tonnes. This could increase to approximately 14% for a vehicle operating at 50 tonnes.

At a speed of 60 miles per hour a vehicle operating at 48 tonnes gross weight could take an additional 6.0 metres to stop and, at 50 tonnes an additional 8.6 metres. At a speed of 50 miles per hour, the additional stopping distances could be 4.2 metres and 6.0 metres respectively. However, a heavy vehicle combination designed only to operate at 44 tonnes, and meeting the minimum roadworthiness requirements, would take a similar distance to stop.

We are considering whether a 40 miles per hour speed limit on single carriageways and a 50 miles per hour limit on dual carriageways (where there are not lower local speed limits) should apply to the operation of these fuel tankers at higher weights.

Increased braking distance risks additional road traffic collisions and also means that any collision that would have occurred at 44 tonnes will involve a higher impact speed, resulting in higher energy levels and greater risk of damage and/or injury when operating at 48 or 50 tonnes. Other road users would also anticipate these vehicles to have the same stopping distances as 44 tonne fuel tankers, which may lead to more accidents.

Technical regulations require that these heavy vehicles first used on or after 1 November 2016 are equipped with advanced emergency braking systems (AEBS). These systems monitor traffic ahead of the vehicle to detect a potential collision. If detected, the AEBS provides a warning and, if the driver does not respond, applies the brakes automatically. AEBS is not guaranteed to avoid all collisions but will reduce the severity of an impact.

This proposal will be limited to vehicle combinations where the motor vehicle is equipped with an advanced emergency braking system.

Stability under braking

All vehicles within the target group will be equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) that aid directional control of the vehicle under braking, particularly on roads with reduced adhesion (for example during winter). The performance of the ABS should not be impaired by an increase in mass.

Roll-over stability

Adding mass to the vehicle will raise its centre of gravity and increase its propensity to roll-over during cornering or directional changes. This roll-over event can occur at relatively low speed, for example exiting roundabouts.

Technical regulations now require heavy towing vehicles and their trailers to be equipped with a vehicle stability function (VSF) that monitors the roll stability of the vehicle and, on recognising a potential loss of stability, intervenes by interaction with, for example, the brakes and power transmission to mitigate the risk of roll-over. These stability functions are designed to be effective up to the design weight of the vehicle but the incremental effect of a higher mass and higher centre of gravity on the efficiency of these systems has not been assessed.

In addition to aiding roll stability, the vehicle stability function required for motor vehicles also aids their directional stability under braking conditions.

The requirement for VSF applied to some heavy towing vehicles first registered after 11 July 2013 and to the remainder from 11 July 2014. Similar requirements applied to heavy trailers first used after 11 July 2011. While it may be expected that the fuel tanker fleet is relatively young, limiting an increase in mass to only those vehicle combinations where both the motor vehicle and trailer are equipped with VSF is proposed.

Infrastructure safety assessment

The standard maximum weight for 6-axle HGVs on UK roads is 44 tonnes. Bridges and other structures on the SRN are therefore designed with this limit in mind. It is noted however, that there are many bridges (often on minor roads) that were designed to accommodate lower weights which in some cases will be significantly below 44 tonnes.

In order to assess the infrastructure safety risks of fuel tankers operating at weights above 44 tonnes, independent consultants were contracted to undertake an assessment. This assessment considered the effects to the SRN of the heavier vehicles on structures and any additional risk due to the higher weights.

The element of the study on the effects of heavier fuel tankers on structures carrying traffic (such as bridges), specifically considered vertical bending and shear load effects, braking, acceleration and centrifugal load effects, and general wear and tear. The risk element of the study investigated the additional risk to the affected population and the risk to infrastructure on the SRN of accidents involving heavier fuel tankers.

The use of convoys of 50-tonne vehicles (the maximum potential weight of the heavier fuel tankers under consideration and therefore the vehicle model used to assess the impact on infrastructure) would result in a higher risk of exceeding the assessed capacity of structures to carry vertical load than the use of single vehicles. If convoys of the heavier fuel tankers were not permitted, the risks would reduce, particularly for longer span structures. The infrastructure assessment therefore recommended that the vehicles should be restricted to travelling as single vehicles and not in a convoy. This would be one of the conditions of operation for heavier fuel tankers.

When travelling as single vehicles, the vertical load effects of the 50-tonne vehicles are 11% greater than the effects from traffic that normal structures are currently assessed for. However, the current assessment standards include an allowance for the vehicles to be overloaded. If the weight of the 50-tonne vehicles could be very tightly controlled, it may be possible for the standard allowance for overload to be removed from the assessment of vertical loads.

Removing the overload provision from the assessment may mean that the normal traffic assessment live load effects would not be exceeded by permitting the use of the 50-tonne vehicles travelling as single vehicles. The effects of braking and acceleration, centrifugal force and skidding were found to fit within standard design and assessment loading models for single vehicles.

Additional road wear and tear would occur, given that individual axle weights would increase (but individual axle weights would remain within the legal limits). Wear and tear would be expected to be greater on those roads close to refineries, and for these, more frequent monitoring was recommended.

The analysis found that the additional risk to individuals as a result of use of heavier fuel tankers was negligible. No mitigations were recommended, other than monitoring and annual review of accident data.

The report considered a number of accident scenarios, involving a heavier fuel tanker impacting a pier, parapet, vehicle restraint system or a superstructure, or the tanker catching fire beneath a structure. In each case, the higher weight of fuel carried could lead to more severe damage to structures, although without further testing and due to the level of uncertainty of the impact scenario, the exact level of extra damage could not be determined.

It was also highlighted that the deformation characteristics of the vehicles were likely to have a more significant effect than the extra weight. For example, it was not possible to determine whether H4a parapets (very high containment level) could contain a 50-tonne fuel tanker without testing a variety of impact scenarios.

It was noted however, that the introduction of 50-tonne fuel tankers during limited time periods would not cause a step change in the level of safety provided by H4a parapets and this conclusion was mirrored in the other incident scenarios considered. It was recommended that high risk locations should be managed on a case-by-case basis and any incidents involving heavier fuel tankers should be monitored.

The current likelihood of a collision between a fuel tanker and a bridge pier or parapet is considered to be very low and therefore, given the reduced exposure, the likelihood of such a collision occurring when a tanker is operating under any higher weight provisions would be even lower.

Analytical information

Responses to this consultation (and to the more detailed questions about impacts below) will help to inform updates and revisions to the assessment, so it quantifies the costs and benefits of this measure more accurately.

The list below gives a summary of the costs and benefits associated with the increase in the permitted weight of fuel tankers:

Costs

To businesses

• Familiarisation costs of recovery and route submission schemes.
• Additional fuel costs of running heavier tankers.
• Increased tanker loading and unloading times.
• Increased road wear and tear costs.
• Potentially changed insurance premiums.

Other costs

• Possible increase in greenhouse emissions (per tanker).
• Costs associated with approving routes for local authority roads and highways.

Benefits

To businesses

• Increase in fuel tanker efficiency.
• Decreased cost of fuel transportation.

Other benefits

• The possible reduction of the impact associated with fuel supply disruption.

How to respond

The consultation period began on 5 April 2023 and will run until 17 May 2023. Please ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date.

See the Ways to respond section of the GOV.UK homepage for this consultation for an online response form and other ways to respond.

When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If responding on behalf of a larger organisation, please make it clear who the organisation represents and, where applicable, how the views of members were assembled.

What will happen next

A summary of responses, including the next steps, will be published within 3 months of the consultation closing. Paper copies will be available on request.

If you have questions about this consultation please contact:

fueltankerweights@dft.gov.uk

Vehicle safety conditions

Safety features requirements

In order to operate at weights in excess of 44 tonnes, various safety conditions must be satisfied in relation to the motor vehicle, these conditions will be listed on the vehicle special order. The vehicle must:

• have a plated weight for operation in Great Britain at 44,000kg as shown in column 2 of the ministry plate
• comply with the gross weights and individual axle weights not to be exceeded in Great Britain, shown in column 2 of the ministry plate
• be equipped with a trailer coupling suitable for the weight of the trailer being used
• comply with the following technical requirements:
  • the axle weight of each driving axle must not exceed 10,500 kg and either:
  • each driving axle be fitted with twin tyres and road friendly suspension, or
  • each driving axle which is not a steering axle be fitted with twin tyres and the axle weight of each such axle must not exceed 8,500 kg
  • the vehicle has at least 3 axles.
  • be fitted with a low pollution engine as defined in regulation 2 of the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1988.
  • have been registered on or after 1 November 2016
  • be equipped both with a properly functioning vehicle stability function

‘Vehicle stability function’ is defined by Regulation No 13 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE). Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles of categories M, N and O with regard to braking, and an advanced emergency braking system maintained in the active (switched on) condition.

‘Advanced emergency braking system (AEBS)’ is defined by Regulation No 131 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE). Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS).

The following conditions must be satisfied in relation to a trailer, it must:

• comply with the gross weights and individual axle weights not to be exceeded in Great Britain shown in Column 2 of the ministry plate
• not exceed the maximum design kingpin load shown in column 4 of the ministry plate
• have 3 axles that are closely spaced and have a distance between the foremost axle of the trailer and the rearmost axle of the drawing vehicle of at least 4.2 metres
• have each axle equipped with road friendly suspension
• have been first used on or after 1 July 2011 and be equipped with a properly functioning vehicle stability function

Full list of consultation questions

These questions are listed here to give you an overview of what we are asking. Not all questions will be appropriate for all responders.

See the Ways to respond section of the GOV.UK homepage for this consultation for an online response form and other ways to respond.

About you

• Name:
• Email:

Are you responding to this consultation on behalf of an organisation or as an individual?

• on behalf of an organisation or company
• as an individual - please go straight to Proposals

Organisation details

Name of organisation:

Your organisation is best described as:

• a government body
• a local authority
• an infrastructure owner
• a small business (10 to 49 full-time equivalent employees) or micro business (fewer than 10 fulltime equivalent employees)
• a trade association
• a trade union
• a fuel haulier or operator
• a private company
• another type of organisation:

How many employees are there in your organisation?

• 1 to 9
• 10 to 49
• 50 to 249
• More than 250

How many companies do you represent?

• 0
• 1 to 9
• 10 to 49
• 50 to 249
• More than 250

Questions for local authorities and infrastructure owners only

ESDAL is the Electronic Service Delivery for Abnormal Loads system, administered by National Highways.

Hauliers register on this system and submit:

• their intended routes
• vehicle information (including axle weights and spacings)

This information is then passed to affected road and bridge authorities.

For vehicles weighing up to 50 tonnes, affected authorities have a 2 working day window to object or suggest an alternative route if it either passes:

• over structures
• along roads unable to safely hold the weight of the vehicle.

It is currently used to process route notifications of abnormal indivisible loads.

We propose that fuel tanker operators wishing to operate vehicles weighing over 44 tonnes during periods of fuel supply disruption are required to clear movements in advance, using either the ESDAL system or other methods such as email or fax, in the same way as abnormal indivisible loads do now.

Q1. Do you currently process route approvals via the ESDAL?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Q2. How do you currently process ESDAL route notifications?

• Manually
• Automatically (computerised process, no staff involvement)
• Combination of manually and automated
• Via a third party
• Don’t know

These questions on using ESDAL are set in relation to notifications involving a Category 1 Abnormal Indivisible Load vehicle up to 50 tonnes, complying with construction and use requirements for axle weights only.

Category 1 abnormal indivisible load vehicles are defined in Schedule 1 of The Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003.

Q3. On average, in your opinion, how many minutes does it take you to process one of these notifications submitted via ESDAL?

• Don’t know
• Number of minutes:

Q4. If an ESDAL notification is rejected, are you involved in advising applicants on alternative routes?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Q5. On average, in your opinion, how long does it take to process an ESDAL notification, if a route has to be altered from the original request (for example the original route was not suitable)?

• Don’t know
• Number of minutes:

These questions on using ESDAL are set in relation to notifications involving a category 1 abnormal indivisible load vehicle up to 50 tonnes, complying with construction and use requirements for axle weights only.

Category 1 abnormal indivisible load vehicles are defined in Schedule 1 of The Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003.

Q6. In your opinion, would you currently have the capacity to be able to process up to 100 of these types of extra ESDAL notifications within 48 hours?

• Don’t know
• We would need additional staff
• We would need additional time to process notifications
• We currently have the capacity exists within existing staff and time
• We would not be able to process up to 100 extra ESDAL notifications of this type because:

Q7. How many additional staff, in full time staff amounts, would you require?

Q8. How many extra hours would you require?

These questions relate to all the types of ESDAL notifications received.

Q9. On average how many staff are involved in processing ESDAL notifications?

• Don’t know
• 0 people - it is an automated process
• 1 person
• 2 people
• 3 people
• 4 people
• More than 4 people:

Q10. On average, how many notifications submitted via ESDAL do you currently process per week?

• Don’t know
• Number of notifications processed is:

Questions for fuel haulier and operators only

If you are not a fuel haulier or an operator, go to Proposals.

Q11. In your view, is it reasonable or unreasonable to assume that the average journey per fuel tanker trip is 56 miles?

• Reasonable
• Unreasonable
• Don’t know

Q12. What, in your view is the average length of a fuel tanker journey in miles?

• Less than 30 miles
• 30 to 60 miles
• 60 to 100 miles
• 100 to 150 miles
• More than 150 miles

Q13. What, if any, contextual information can you provide for us to develop a better estimate?

Q14. What do you charge to transport fuel using a fuel tanker?

We anticipate that the cost of one administrative officer to send a single route submission to a single local authority to be between £1.50 to £3.00 based on the time cost associated with submitting routes for approval.

Q15. In your view, is this a reasonable or unreasonable figure?

• Reasonable
• Unreasonable
• Don’t know

Q16. What do you suggest is a likely cost figure?

• Less than £1.50
• More than £1.50 but less than £3.00
• £3.00 to £4.50
• More than £4.50

Q17. Why?

Q18.Do you charge companies on a:

• pence per mile value?
• pence per litre value?
• a combination of both pence per mile and per litre value?

Q19. What amount or amounts do you charge?

We are proposing temporary exemptions from the current maximum train weight for 6-axle articulated road fuel tankers of 44 tonnes to 50 tonnes.

Q20. Do you currently own tankers which could operate at a higher than 44 tonne weight, if this proposal is implemented?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Q21. As you have tankers which can operate at a higher than 44 tonne weight, would you utilise this exemption in periods of fuel supply disruption?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Q22. Why not?

Q23. Do you expect the use of this exemption to impact your insurance cover?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Q24. How?

Q25. If you were to use this exemption will you operate tankers at their maximum capacity?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Q26. Why?

Q27. As you currently have no tankers with a design weight greater than 44 tonnes, would you expect to renew your fleet in the future with higher design weights in order to make use of this exemption?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Q28. Why?

Q29. At what rate will you change your fleet and to what design train weight?

We are assuming that tankers complete only one trip, without additional drop offs, to load and unload the total contents of their tank.

Q30. In your view, is this a reasonable or unreasonable assumption?

• Reasonable
• Unreasonable
• Don’t know

Q31. Why?

Q32. How long, in minutes, does it take to:

• load a full fuel tanker?
• unload a full fuel tanker?

Q33. In your view, if a speed restriction is introduced for fuel tankers, operating at weights of up to 50 tonnes, would you be likely or unlikely to use the exemption?

• Likely
• Unlikely
• Don’t know

Q34. Why not?

Q35. What, if any, sources of reference material can you provide that can help monetise particular costs or benefits associated with the weight limit increase of fuel tankers?

Proposals

We are proposing to make temporary exemptions from the current maximum train weight for 6-axle articulated road fuel tankers of 44 tonnes in order to allow a maximum of 50 tonnes when fuel supply is threatened, for periods of approximately 4 to 5 weeks.

Maximum axle weight limits would remain unchanged and vehicles would not be allowed to operate at weights above their maximum design train weight.

This would only be applicable to road fuel tanker vehicles:

• equipped with specified safety features
• carrying petrol and diesel to fuel distribution centres, retail forecourts and operator depots that make use of fuel bunkers

Domestic fuel deliveries would not be in scope.

The maximum train weight proposed to be permitted is 50 tonnes.

Q36. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal?

• Agree
• Disagree
• Don’t know

Q37. Why?

Q38. As you are against or non-committal about the proposal to make temporary exemptions from the current maximum train weight for six-axle articulated road fuel tankers of 44 tonnes to 50 tonnes, you may now either:

• continue answering the questions
• go to the final comments section

Cost analysis

Q39. In your view, does the table in the analytical information section correctly or incorrectly identify all costs and benefits of the use of increased weight road fuel tankers?

• Correctly
• Incorrectly
• Don’t know

Q40. What do you think is incorrect and why?

Q41. In your view, does the analytical information section correctly or incorrectly identify all the benefits of the use of increased weight road fuel tankers?

• Correctly
• Incorrectly
• Don’t know

Q42. What do you think is incorrect and why?

It is our estimate that it costs around £0.10 per mile (when loaded) for the additional road wear and tear associated with increasing the weight of a fuel tanker, compared to the wear and tear associated with a 44 tonne limit.

This figure references the average extra wear and tear cost associated with the additional weight allowance under consideration.

Q43. In your view, is this a reasonable or unreasonable assumption?

• Reasonable
• Unreasonable
• Don’t know

Q44. Why?

Q45. In your view, what would be a reasonable estimate for the additional road wear and tear cost?

• Less than £0.10 per mile
• £0.10 to £0.20 per mile
• £0.21 to £0.30 per mile
• £0.31 to £0.40 per mile
• Over £0.40 per mile

Policy

Q46. In your view are there any fundamental barriers to road fuel tankers being permitted to operate at a maximum of 50 tonnes during periods of fuel supply disruption?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Q47. Your assumed barriers are:

• Concerns over safety
• It would not make a significant difference to fuel supply
• Advantage over other fuels/industries
• Concerns over impact to infrastructure
• Process is too complex
• Concerns over enforcement
• Another reason (please specify)

Conditions

Q48. Is the proposed safety feature of:

advanced emergency braking systems for road fuel tankers operating at weights exceeding 44 tonnes

• Suitable
• Unsuitable
• Don’t know

anti-lock braking systems for road fuel tankers operating at weights exceeding 44 tonnes

• Suitable
• Unsuitable
• Don’t know

vehicle stability functions for road fuel tankers operating at weights exceeding 44 tonnes:

• Suitable
• Unsuitable
• Don’t know

If unsuitable, why?

We propose that fuel tanker operators wishing to operate vehicles weighing over 44 tonnes during periods of fuel supply disruption are required to clear movements in advance using the Electronic Service Delivery for Abnormal Loads (ESDAL) system or other methods such as email or fax.

Q49. Should these tanker operators seeking to operate vehicles clear their movements in advance with local authorities using:

• the ESDAL system?
• email?
• fax?
• another method?

To mitigate the risk of increased braking distances for heavier weight fuel tankers, it is proposed to limit the speed of such vehicles to 40 miles per hour (mph) on single carriageways and a 50mph limit on dual carriageways where there are not lower local speed limits.

We will not consider allowing such vehicles to travel at speeds that are greater than the existing speed limits for the class of vehicle.

Q50. In your view, would it be appropriate or inappropriate for the heavier fuel tankers to be subject to speed limits of 40mph on single carriageways?

• Appropriate
• Inappropriate
• Don’t know

Q51. What speed limit, in your view, should the heavier fuel tankers be subject to on single carriageways?

• No change
• Below 40 mph

Q52. In your view, would it be appropriate or inappropriate for the heavier fuel tankers to be subject to speed limits of 50mph on dual carriageways

• Appropriate
• Inappropriate
• Don’t know

Q53. What speed limit, in your view, should the heavier fuel tankers be subject on dual carriageways?

• No change
• Below 50mph

Process

We propose to use Vehicle Special Orders (VSOs) as the mechanism to approve the use of increased weight fuel tankers at times of fuel supply disruption.

The proposed timeframe is 4 weeks for validity of VSO’s.

We propose that the process for issuing VSO’s involves ministers confirming that there is a fuel supply issue. Following this:

• officials will then write to hauliers to inform them that they can start to submit routes.
• vehicles should not actually begin operating at the heavier weights until the VSOs have been issued by DfT
• a 2-working day period for objections in the ESDAL system has expired without issues being raised by infrastructure owners
• upon receipt of ministerial approval VSOs will be prepared and issued

Q54. Is this, in your view, a suitable or unsuitable method for approving the use of increased weight fuel tankers?

• Suitable
• Unsuitable
• Don’t know

Q55. Why?

Q56. In your view is the suggested timeframe of 4 weeks for validity of VSO’s permitting increased weight fuel tankers appropriate or inappropriate?

• Appropriate
• Inappropriate
• Don’t know

Q57. Why?

Q58. In your view, is the suggested activation process for issuing VSOs appropriate or inappropriate?

• Appropriate
• Inappropriate
• Don’t know

Q59. Why?

Funding

The level of payment for local authorities would be based on modelling by DfT using established processes, which quantifies the additional road wear caused by heavier fuel tankers.

Asking for local authorities to accurately and consistently quantify additional costs imposed by the heavier fuel tankers is likely to be extremely difficult, given these vehicles would be sharing the road with normal traffic, and operating over a wide variety of routes and weights (with a maximum of 50 tonnes).

Use of modelling would also allow for payments to local authorities to be made in a timelier way, as it would avoid the need to verify claimed additional costs by local authorities. It is anticipated that payments would be made to local authorities using an existing capital funding mechanism, such as the settlement for highways maintenance for English local authorities. Payments would be calculated formulaically for Scotland and Wales and it would be down to the relevant devolved administration to determine how additional payments should be split.

Q60. In your view is the suggested approach to calculating extra costs suitable or unsuitable?

• Suitable
• Unsuitable
• Don’t know

Q61. Why is this unsuitable and what alternative approach do you suggest?

Impact

Our vehicle safety assessment identified increased risks from increased weight fuel tanker vehicles from:

• braking distance
• higher energy collision impacts
• roll-over

The mitigations proposed for the identified risks are:

Decreasing the operational speed permitted. Requiring vehicles to be fitted with advanced emergency braking systems, anti-lock braking systems and vehicle stability functions.

The ‘Infrastructure safety assessment’ considered effects of heavier fuel tankers on structures carrying traffic (such as bridges), it specifically considered:

• vertical bending and shear load effects
• braking and acceleration with centrifugal load effects
• general wear and tear

The risk element of the study investigated the additional risk to the affected population and the risk to infrastructure on the strategic road network (SRN) of accidents involving heavier fuel tankers.

Q62. In your view, has the vehicle safety assessment accurately or inaccurately identified the risks that may arise?

• Accurately
• Inaccurately
• Don’t know

Q63. Why is it inaccurate and what additional risks, if any, do you think should be considered?

Q64. In your view, is the intended mitigation measure of:

decreasing operational speed

• Appropriate?
• Inappropriate?
• Not known if appropriate or inappropriate?

advanced emergency braking systems

• Appropriate?
• Inappropriate?
• Not known if appropriate or inappropriate?

anti-lock braking systems

• Appropriate?
• Inappropriate?
• Not known if appropriate or inappropriate?

vehicle stability functions

• Appropriate?
• Inappropriate?
• Not known if appropriate or inappropriate?

Q65. If inappropriate, why?

Q66. In your view, does the infrastructure safety assessment correctly or incorrectly identify the additional infrastructure safety risks of increased weight road fuel tankers?

• Correctly
• Incorrectly
• Don’t know

Q67. Why and what other infrastructure safety risks should be included or removed?

Q68. What, if any, other comments do you have about these proposals?

Q69. Any other comments?

Freedom of Information

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory code of practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.

In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the department.

The department will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Data Protection

The DfT is carrying out this consultation to gather evidence on changes to fuel tanker weight limits. This consultation, and the processing of personal data that it entails, is necessary for the exercise of our functions as a government department. If your answers contain any information that allows you to be identified, DfT will, under data protection law, be the controller for this information.

As part of this consultation we’re asking for your name and email address. This is in case we need to ask you follow-up questions about any of your responses. You do not have to give us this personal information. If you do provide it, we will use it only for the purpose of asking follow-up questions.

Your personal data is processed on behalf of DfT by Smartsurvey, as they run the survey collection software. You can view their privacy policy.

Your personal data will be securely deleted 12 months after the consultation analysis report has been published.

DfT’s privacy policy has more information about your rights in relation to your personal data, how to complain and how to contact the data protection officer.

Consultation principles

The consultation is being conducted in line with the government’s key consultation principles.

If you have any comments about the consultation process please contact:

Consultation Co-ordinator
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR

Email consultation@dft.gov.uk