Research and analysis

Introducing and managing LSTs: an industry-led summary of good practice

Published 9 November 2020

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Introduction

This document provides a summary of issues that might be considered by a wide range of stakeholders in the freight and logistics sector when deciding whether to introduce longer semi-trailers (LSTs) into their operation.

The issues included are drawn directly from the experience built up over the first 7 years of the Great Britain (GB) LST trial coordinated by the Department for Transport (DfT).

Specifically:

• the core of the list was developed at a workshop held in November 2019 with a group of 25 representatives of companies participating in the trial
• the workshop built on an earlier series of on-site interviews with 12 companies around their overall experience of adopting LSTs
• the process was designed using the much wider experience of speaking to operators, and the data provided in ‘company information’ for each company

Prior to the LST trial, there was a list of speculative issues that would be faced by LST operators, containing many of the points listed here.

This summary is not speculative or theoretical. It is a summary of what LST operators found actually worked or was necessary in real-world operations. These are the issues on which companies using LSTs have either spent money and resources already or anticipate they will need to do so in future.

This guidance is not a ‘finished product’ – nor at this stage has the DfT determined exactly how it will be used. The purpose of this initial version is to provide the foundation of a set of issues that could potentially form the basis of any of the following:

• a guidance or good practice guide to potential LST operators – perhaps produced in conjunction with industry trade associations
• the core of future training for drivers, fleet managers and others in relation LSTs
• awareness-raising for company owners, directors and other stakeholders
• a starting point for any policy makers, industry or government stakeholder charged with defining or executing any regulatory role in relation to operations of LSTs
• a source for freight sector analysts and researchers interested in the issues parameters affecting the operation of LSTs – and potentially any other high-volume ‘special designs’ as part of an overall system

Assumptions about context

The guidance presumes a context where LSTs are permitted by the DfT on an unlimited basis or in very large numbers in a future scenario.

Publication of this work, however, should not be taken as an indication of future DfT policy decisions on LSTs or, for example, national road design to make roads and junctions suitable for LSTs.

Structure

The document is set out in sections designed to address the issues of different stakeholder interests. Larger companies may find they need to address all these issues, which may fall into multiple individual areas of responsibility.

Smaller operators – especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – will find that some issues are not applicable to their situation or are simpler to address because of the size of their operation.

A company of any size using a single LST design for a highly uniform type of work will find it easier to address all relevant issues than a company that is working across diverse sectors, perhaps with several LSTs designs in their fleet.

Stakeholder areas of interest:

• A) business decisions / return on investment (ROI)
• B1) training and awareness – drivers
• B2) training and awareness – other toles
• C1) operational processes – routing
• C2) operational processes – depot assessment
• C3) operational processes – warehousing / supply chain
• D) equipment and maintenance
• E) depot infrastructure
• F) specifying LSTs – design choices

Issues

Within each of the stakeholder areas listed above, the document sets out a set of issues, detailing:

• an issue ‘name’ and a description of the issue and why it matters
• applicability to LST steering axle types (ALL, SS or CS):
  • ALL indicates that the issue is broadly the same for all steering designs
  • SS indicates the issue only applies to self-steer designs
  • CS indicates the issue only applies to command-steer designs
  • SS/CS indicates the issues applies in different ways for the two designs
• AS would indicate that an issue applies to active-steer designs, but there are no AS trailers on the trial; however, issues tagged as ALL would apply to AS designs

Impacts

Issues are marked to indicate the primary area of benefit or risk they influence. Some groups of issues are given a single set of icons as they apply across that whole group.

• Safety / Damage
• Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions
• ROI

These impact markings are only indicative of a primary link. The three areas are closely related, and every issue affects all three areas to some degree – the journey savings being dependent on efficient use of the additional trailer length, which then delivers the emissions benefits and justifies the ROI without which the trailers will not be built.

A) Business decisions and ROI

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Customers demand LSTs	Some customers (internal or external) may demand, request or expect LSTs for a job. The trailer operator, manufacturer, third-party logistics provider (3PL) or fleet manager may need to advise on benefits, but also on constraints to work patterns to ensure they result in fewer trips and safe operation.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Customers averse to LSTs	Customers (internal or external) may be hesitant about adopting LSTs if they are unsure of the potential savings or overly concerned about the potential limitations on use, additional resources required or safety implications. Major issue for smaller fleets or companies who may be less able to afford to trial the use of LSTs.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Estimating ROI	The ROI of adopting LSTs is a complex issue, especially if the real-world average utilisation of the additional length is not predictable (such as driven by variable demand or just-in-time supply chains with timetabled departures). ROI may be reduced if rental companies cannot supply temporary LST trailers when needed to cover peak demand or trailers being repaired, as the operator then has to hold ‘spare’ LSTs in the fleet.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Benefit estimates	The commercial benefits – required to justify the investment – depend on the % of journeys saved by using LSTs, seen in lower costs of fuel, standing costs (drivers etc) and time saved. The emissions benefits also depend on the % of journeys saved, as well as the engine technology being used to pull both the LSTs and the trailers that would be used if LSTs were not available.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Benefit sharing	Reduced emissions provide a societal shared benefit. Outside of ‘own operation’ fleets, the cost benefits derived from LSTs may need to be shared contractually between the client and operator to justify the investment and deliver the journey savings. There is also a potential perverse incentive for reward-for-hire hauliers NOT to use LSTs if the contracts do not share the benefits with the haulier and remain a fixed payment ‘per trip’, since making fewer trips becomes less attractive. Benefit sharing may require a commitment to longer-term contracts for work to ensure the investment can be recovered at limited risk.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Whole-life cost	A full assessment of ROI involves the up-front marginal capital cost, plus any marginal maintenance costs and residual value.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Infrastructure costs	A true assessment of value must take into account some portion of any of the other adjustments listed here to operations or depots.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Residual value	Value at disposal is zero unless there is a viable second-hand LST market and adequate demand to sustain prices. Otherwise LSTs must be presumed to run until scrap value is realised, which may then lead to increased maintenance costs and lower use in later life.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	LST design decisions: a) length b) steering c) lock at speed	Chosen combination of length and steering drives cost and potential return, and influences all other factors (such as routes and maintenance) (see F) Specifying LSTs: design choices): a) length can be up to 15.65m – length choice trades off the quantity of extra cargo space vs. route and site access constraints b) steering choice at present is self, command or active steer c) self-steer choice of whether to lock-at-speed or not	ALL
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Operational flexibility	General: LSTs cannot be used on ALL routes, limiting flexibility Specific designs: A chosen length and steering design may offer optimal savings in one contract or route but not for others.	ALL

Example management actions:

• review operations and only introduce LSTs if sustainable benefits are predicted
• develop lists of the potential savings and constraints, presentations and case studies of real operations for different types of work
• demonstrations of site access, adequacy of temperature control, specialist case benefits (such as extra spacing between cargo items, reducing risk of product damage)
• robust whole-life costing calculation based on real-world data
• contractual terms relating to risk/benefit sharing and duration

B1) Training and awareness – drivers

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
Safety / Damage	Turning	Steering axle functionality – especially CS – shorter wheelbase and added length increases kick-out vs 13.6m trailers in turns on road in depots (especially docking and undocking between other trailers), potential damage.	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	Driving line	Shorter wheelbase allows tighter cut-in, reducing effect of extra kick-out at rear – varies between designs.	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	Lane positioning	Taking account of other road users, including cyclists, command of lanes, negotiating road hazards.	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	Length	Extra length when changing lanes, parking, on bay, reversing.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Trailer switching	Drivers pulling mix of 13.6m and LST trailers need to change driving behaviour – especially when off trunk network – need reminder when change what they pull.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Weight	When below 44 tonne limit – trailer is heavier than 13.6m with same cargo due to chassis, steering axle and maybe extra fridge units.	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	Loading / Distribution	Drivers aware that 44 tonne overall limit still applies and the need to check axle loading, load stowage.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Ride height	Where driver can adjust ride height manually; it must be reset before driving or it can affect behaviour of some LSTs.	SS (CS)
Safety / Damage	Self-steer axle locking	Drivers aware of: (a) procedure for lock-in-reverse (b) behaviour at speed (locked or not, depending on design)	SS
Safety / Damage	Route / Site awareness	Drivers aware of the specific route risks and issues noted in route assessment (see sections C1) to C3)) and of condition they can expect at sites.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Route adherence	Drivers need to be aware of the reasons for LST route assessment and adhere to assessed route.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Dynamic risk assessment	Drivers need to be sufficiently aware of LST issues and risks to make appropriate dynamic risk assessments (such as diversions).	ALL
Safety / Damage	Retaining skills	Training only effective if drivers use LSTs regularly.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Trial	If the LSTs continue to be operated under some other form of trial, drivers need to know: – some background to the trial – need for data collection and record-keeping – relevant paperwork – agencies involved – benefits of the longer trailers	ALL

Example management actions:

• driver training on specific LST design used in company on all issues:
  • classroom, video and on road (driving LST and observing following from behind)
  • training on one specific LST design may not be a ‘universal’ qualification for all LSTs, if drivers use more than one design, move to another fleet, or are from an agency
  • internal research by a large operator showed that it may not be duration of the training that makes the difference (they compared 2 vs 8 hours) but the quality and content, along with tailoring the training to the complexity of the task and skill level of each driver
• driver training a requirement before using any specific LST design
• LST training restricted to more experienced and high-performing drivers
• process to ensure awareness of route and site assessment
• driver reminder of LST being pulled (such as specific LST identifier in trailer IDs, job sheet flags, visual on trailers like corner pillar markings viewed in mirror, coloured headboards etc)
• built-in protection (such as auto ride height reset)
• IT-based protection (where fitted) such as reminders from cab systems
• driver rostering for regular LST use by drivers to retain skills
• refresher training
• driver retention programmes (embed the experience, reduce retraining)
• promotion of qualification for LSTs as a professional developmental step for drivers
• driver cost incentive to train for and operate LSTs? One company did this – most do not

B2) Training and awareness – other roles

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
– Safety / Damage – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	– fleet and driver managers – planners – safety, health and environment lead – sales staff – accounts staff – directors and executives – owners – driver trainers	All levels of management – especially in larger organisations – need to be aware of the LST issues in this guidance as it applies to their area of responsibility. Without such awareness, they may make inappropriate decisions or issue instructions that will: – reduce realisation of LST benefits – introduce potential safety risks – reduce ROI As companies, operators also need to consider their statutory duty of care to all staff in the operation of LSTs.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Fleet and driver managers	While training is essential, many operators suggest the underlying quality and experience of the driver matters, and so they only allow their most trusted and experienced drivers to operate their LSTs.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Fleet managers	Availability of LSTs for driver training.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Shunters	Shunters need suitable training, including LST behaviour and swept path when subjected to turning in confined spaces.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Loading staff	Loading staff may need special guidance for LSTs.	ALL

Example management actions:

• incorporate LST element into driver training programme (appropriate to company size)
• incorporate LST ‘qualification’ requirement into process that allocates drivers to jobs

C1) Operational processes – routing

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
Safety / Damage	Road route assessment and approval	Safe operation of LSTs requires that the dimensions and swept area (when turning) must be considered along the route to consider risk posed by ingress into other lanes, interaction with pedestrians, roadside asset damage. May include variables such as presence of parked vehicles at certain times of day. May need to consider route approval for specific LST designs not just all LSTs.	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	a) Desktop	Geographic information system (GIS), tracking system or ‘public’ tools (such as Google Maps) or consult with LST driver who is familiar with route using non-LSTs.	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	b) Non-LST test	Experienced LST driver tests route with 13.6m trailer or car.	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	c) LST test	Experienced LST driver tests route in LST (perhaps accompanied).	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	Road changes	Reassessment required when roads and routes change over time	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	Road route adherence	Any measure to check whether LSTs are using the assessed route: i) planner observation (“planners know what is going on”) ii) aggregate measures (such as total km actual vs expected) iii) exact – some telematics providers are able to provide measures of deviation from a planned route	SS/CS
Safety / Damage	Diversion / Emergency protocol	Any measure to manage the case of diversion off assessed route: i) unanticipated events – incidents, emergency works ii) anticipated events – planned period of road works	SS/CS
ROI	Temporary replacement trailers	Planning for operations when LST is not available: i) unplanned – at time response (damage, breakdown) ii) planned unavailability (service, MOT etc) NB: Leasing companies may not guarantee a replacement trailer for LSTs as, until the market grows, they may not hold spare trailers.	SS/CS

Example management actions:

• a route assessment and LST approval process, appropriate to the size of the fleet and the diversity of routes on which LSTs might be used
• a format (paper or electronic) for communicating the assessed route and key problem areas
• measures to ensure drivers have the route information in a format they can easily use, and understand the importance of adhering to the route (see B1) Training and awareness – drivers
• possibly, measures to discourage drivers from deviating onto their personal choice of route. May involve work to understand why drivers might make such a choice.
• planned process for diversions or emergencies that require route deviation
• planning process for operations where LST loads must be carried using other vehicles.
• ensure that route assessments are updated when there are changes to the conditions on that route and periodic checks to ensure any such changes are being picked up

C2) Operational processes – depot assessment

This section of the document relates to the need for a suitable assessment process.

Sections C3) operational processes – warehousing / supply chain, D) equipment and maintenance and E) depot infrastructure contain more detailed descriptions of factors that might need to be considered in designing or modifying a site to accommodate LSTs.

The same list of factors would be relevant in assessing a site’s suitability for LST operations.

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
– Safety / Damage – ROI	Site or depot assessment and approval	As for road route assessment, but within sites where additional assessment may need to consider much tighter turns, bay access, space to drive straight to lock SS axles before reversing and parking for LSTs. In addition, factors in sections C3), D) and E) could all form part of a site assessment.	SS/CS
ROI	Pre-contract assessment	Where work is being contracted, the assessment of all sites involved needs to be carried out before commissioning or bidding for work to determine whether LSTs can be used.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Mixing LSTs/other trailers	When mixing LSTs and other trailers, interactions need to be considered (such as can regular trailers turn if there is an LST on bay?).	ALL
– Safety / Damage – ROI	Compliance over time	Ensuring assessed conditions remain valid if depots or sites are upgraded (such as turning space for LSTs not reallocated to other use formally or by ‘custom and practice’).	ALL

Example management actions:

• review of current and future requirements to likely accommodate specific LST designs in a given site or on a specific piece of work/contract
• consider assessment of all sites (clients) to establish how close they are to being LST-ready – could be joint client and operator assessment of potential value of site upgrade
• ensure that depot assessments are updated when there are changes to the conditions at that depot and periodic checks to ensure any such changes are being picked up

C3) Operational processes – warehousing / supply chain

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
– Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	Load consolidation	Sub-optimal loading of LSTs reduces the emissions-saving benefit. Business processes and software may need re-optimising to take available LSTs into account in making consolidation decisions, both for the additional load space, and the issue of matching outbound and inbound loads to make best use of LSTs.	ALL
– Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions – ROI	IT systems	IT systems managing jobs, load collation in warehouse and pallet, and item tracking may need optimising or even redesigning.	ALL
ROI	Warehouse layout	Warehouse staging areas for consolidated loads may need to be assessed and redesigned to accommodate LST load sizes.	ALL
– ROI – Safety / Damage	Load lock/bay allocation	Processes – paper or IT – that finalise a load and allocate a bay may need adjustment if LSTs are only permitted at designated bays.	ALL
ROI	Loading time	Assumptions for loading time needed to manage LST loads.	ALL

Example management actions:

• review of current and future requirements to accommodate loads for relevant LST designs
• forward plan for LSTs in:
  • immediate changes that can be made to systems at minimal cost
  • medium-term plans for more major changes to existing systems
  • long-term planning for future systems before commissioning
• industry response – discussion of issues with warehousing systems and IT providers

D) Equipment and maintenance

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
– ROI – Safety / Damage	Facilities	Any operator, client or service provider running maintenance and repair facilities will need to consider additional requirements for the LSTs or perhaps equipment an operator has added to LSTs that is not fitted on the rest of a fleet (such as tracking, cameras etc).	ALL
– ROI – Safety / Damage	a) Space	Will LSTs fit inside the facility and can they access the site?	ALL
– ROI – Safety / Damage	b) Skills	Do the technicians have the relevant training – for example, from steering axle suppliers? (Skills may be LST design specific.)	SS/CS
ROI	c) Spare parts	What spare parts only required for LSTs need to be held and where?	SS/CS
ROI	d) Flexibility	If LSTs can only be repaired and maintained at a subset of sites in a larger organisation, what operational constraints does this impose?	ALL

Example management actions:

• review of current and future requirements for specific LST designs
• business decision on whether to upgrade all or existing facilities to accept LSTs
• amend existing processes, training, spares holdings and spares purchasing
• if LSTs are only to be maintained at limited sites, consider business constraints and plans for the event of an LST becoming immobilised at a non-designated site

E) Depot infrastructure

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
– ROI – Safety / Damage	LST bays	It may be necessary to direct LSTs to a designated group of bays: i) which have special adjustments (as listed below) ii) to avoid shorter trailers having to pull out between LSTs	ALL
– ROI – Safety / Damage	Additional Space	LSTs may require additional space to manoeuvre onto and away from the bay, or at depot entry and exit points, or parking areas	SS/CS
– ROI – Safety / Damage	Canopies	May be designed around 13.6m trailers leaving exposed section of LST during loading (such as in rain) affecting safety and working conditions of loading teams as well as potential damage to cargo.	ALL
– ROI – Safety / Damage	Yard markings: vehicle	Some yards provide turning markings for vehicles based on a 13.6m trailer. Alternative markings needed for each LST design.	SS/CS
– ROI – Safety / Damage	Yard markings: pedestrian	Other safety features – notably walkway markings – may need to be painted or re-painted to accommodate LSTs of specific lengths.	ALL
ROI	Leg landing points	Leg landing plates need may need to be moved or duplicated to accommodate 13.6m trailers and one or more LST length.	ALL
Safety / Damage	Levels and gradients	Significant changes in level or gradient, especially on turns, could affect behaviour of trailers or steering axles (for example, because of the increased axle spacing compared with standard triaxle trailers).	ALL

Example management actions:

• review of current/future requirements to accommodate relevant LST designs
• forward plan for LSTs in:
  • immediate changes that can be made to facilities at minimal cost
  • medium-term plans for more major changes to existing facilities
  • long-term planning for future depots to be built, leased or purchased
• industry response – discussion of issues with warehouse and site designers or architects, and those commissioning or purchasing new developments.

F) Specifying LSTs – design choices

Benefit or risk	Area or issue	Description	Axle type
– Safety / Damage – ROI – Efficiency (journey savings) / Emissions	Which length?	Almost 80% of all LSTs commissioned during the trial were at or close to the maximum length permitted (15.65m) to allow the maximum potential saving in journeys. Operators choosing shorter LSTs stated it was because either: i) they already knew longer LSTs would not fit their sites ii) they doubted they would fill the longer option enough of the time to justify the expense iii) they saw the shorter LST as being easier to integrate into their existing fleet for use on a wide range of routes Some use extendable trailers, with set stops at LST lengths.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – ROI	Which steering?	The common choice on the trial was between self-steer (SS) or command-steer (CS) and, for a few companies, single vs dual CS. Active-steer (AS) options were available from axle manufacturers, but no operator or trailer builder chose this option during the trial. A number of factors (listed below – including some conflicting perceptions) influenced the choices operators made. In addition to these issues, operators also stated that they were influenced as much by ‘what my usual trailer supplier offered me’ as by any formal assessment of pros and cons. This information is taken from operator one-to-one interviews in early 2019 – not from the November 2019 workshop. These are a mix of experience and perceptions that influenced operator design choices.	ALL
– Safety / Damage – ROI	Self (SS)	Pros: – lighter than CS – cheaper upfront cost than CS (though not always reflected directly in overall trailer cost) – smaller measured tail kick-out than CS – perception (by some) of being simpler to run and maintain than CS – can be locked at speed (optional) Cons: – must lock to reverse – requires space and does not have benefit of steering in reverse. – experience of (a few) additional maintenance frequency as axles age.	SS
– Safety / Damage – ROI	Command (CS)	Pros: – added manoeuvrability when reversing – perception (by some) of being simpler to run and maintain than SS Cons: – heavier than SS – more expensive upfront cost than SS (though this may not always be reflected in overall trailer price). – larger measured tail kick-out than SS – cannot be locked at speed	CS
– Safety / Damage – ROI	Active (AS)	Perceived pros: – better corner tracking and smaller kick-out than SS or CS – added manoeuvrability when reversing Perceived cons: – significantly more expensive upfront cost than SS/CS – more complexity, leading to unknown reliability and maintenance implications – unfamiliarity – not offered by supplier This information is based on interviews with operators, few of whom had any experience of active steering systems in their fleets.	AS

Example management actions:

• before purchasing – review the pros and cons of each design in relation to the nature of the work anticipated for the LSTs; consider consulting with industry peers re: their experience
• consider monitoring whole-life costs of chosen designs to inform future decisions
• industry response – consider how sector-wide experience of whole-life costs and performance of different designs could be collated to inform future designs