Letter

The low-down on moving heavy containers
I refer to your article headlined ‘Hauliers get brief respite in heavy container dispute’ (FTW February 24, 2006). The two people quoted in your article were not present at the meeting held in Pietermaritzburg - as I believe they were unavailable - so they might have had to rely on second hand information. Minutes for the meeting were only finalised on Monday (February 27) and we would like to set the record straight as follows: The reason for the non issuing of abnormal load permits for overweight containers was raised because the TRH 11 – the Guideline to Abnormal Road Policy – states in the preamble, inter alia, the following : (i) No abnormal permit would be granted if the load was divisible. (ii) No abnormal load permit would be granted IF THE LOAD COULD BE MOVED ON A LEGALLY REGISTERED VEHICLE. Although a container is indivisible – in most cases the actual load is in fact divisible. Furthermore, if the heavy container could be moved by a vehicle so constructed as to render the load a normal legal load – then the load HAS to be moved on this vehicle and not a specialised abnormal load vehicle. A specialised abnormal vehicle has to be registered as such with the Authorities BEFORE any special dispensation in over mass can be allowed under cover of an abnormal permit. This is called a vehicle AV ( Abnormal Vehicle ). Standard constructed conventional vehicles are not normally permitted to be AV’d. Furthermore, as these types of vehicles are normally very ruggedly built – they are heavier than a normal vehicle - their normal legal payload is much less than a conventional vehicle. They would however be allowed to carry far heavier loads UNDER COVER OF THEIR ABNORMAL PERMIT. It is important to note that any mass load over its LEGAL limit up to the maximum legal limit of a conventional vehicle MUST be carried on the conventional vehicle and NOT the specialised vehicle – hence the refusal to issue an abnormal permit. For loads in excess of the legal load on a conventional vehicle an abnormal permit could be granted. It was pointed out at the meeting: • That a 25 kilometre radius was granted –from the Port of Durban only ( not Hazyview) for operators of AV’d vehicles only – in the interests of safety for the purposes of UNPACKING. This option would ALWAYS be the preferred option. • That containers being moved in bond – under custom seal – are for all intents and purposes indivisible. • That from time to time, certain cargoes within a container – due to their very nature or specialised packaging – could be classed as being indivisible. The 25 kilometre dispensation to registered operators (through having AV’d vehicles) – is reasonable, but must not apply to operators of conventional equipment. Containers under custom seal could be moved to a registered customs depot and unpacked to ensure the load is legal i.e. options are available to clients so these types of loads are not classed as being indivisible in a blanket manner. Each case would be judged on its merits. The bottom line? A permit can be applied for and motivated for an over-mass container – and each application will be treated on its merits whilst DOT takes all matters raised under advisement. That is the special respite given to transporters until finalisation – a vastly different impression was given by the article. In conclusion, may I place on record that transporters MUST look to the new designs (up to 33 tons legal) available and invest in upgrading their fleets to meet modern needs. Special dispensations should only be granted in the most genuine cases as overloading damage is costing tens of millions in road damage yearly and an abnormal permit is really legalised extra damage to the roadways (for which a fee is levied to pay for this extra damage). BUT these permits must only be issued as a LAST resort after all other options have been explored – after all it is the right thing to do! Kevin Martin, Freightliner Transport, Durban.