COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(90) 186 final 
Brussels, 11 May 1990 
INTEGRATED CONCEPT 
ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DIMENSIONS 
(Communication from the Commission) 
- -1 -
CONTENTS 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Reason for the paper 
1.2. Structure of the paper 
2. Efficiency of transport 
2.1. General 
2.2. Loading unit standards and standardization 
2.3. The influence of loading units on Community 
legislation 
2.4. Compatible systems of loading units 
3. Cabin dimensions 
3.1. Introduction 
3.2. Existing cabins and tendencies 
3.3. Legislation for better cabins 12 
12 
12 
13 
*• Environment and road safety 15 
4.1. General 15 
4.2. Specific road safety aspects of combined vehicles 16 
4.3. Conclusions on environment and safety 21 
5. Conclusions and guidelines as regards commercial 
vehicle dimensions 22 
Annex I : 
Annex II: 
Annex III: 
Annex IV: 
Annex V: 
Annex VI : 
Annex VII: 
Annex VIII 
Annex IX: Report on Loading units standards and 
standardization 
Distribution of articulated vehicles and 
road trains in the E.C. 
Dimensions of cabins as produced in the E.C 
Opinion of trade unions concerning top 
sleepers 
Swept circle of an articulated vehicle 
Turning around the corner of an articulated 
vehicle 
Normal couplings 
Short couplings 
Extendable couplings 

- 2 -
1. Introducti on 
1.1. Reason for the paper 
When Directive 89/461/EEC on the dimensions for 
articulated vehicles was adopted on 18 July 1989 by the 
Council of Transport, the following statement was entered 
in the minutes of the meeting: 
"The Council asks the Commission to develop an 
integrated concept covering the following areas : 
- commercial vehicle dimensions; 
- minimum dimensions for the cabins of combined 
vehicles; 
- load area dimensions; 
- dimensions of load units such as swap bodies and 
contai ners; 
- compatibility with existing infrastructure; 
- traffic safety; 
- efficiency of transport; 
- environmental protection; 
- reduction of road congestion; 
pneumatic suspension of vehicles and equivalent types 
of suspension less harmful to highways and bridges. 
- 3 -
For this purpose the Commission could usefully take 
account of the present discussions between the IRU 
(International Road Transport Union) and the automobile 
industry and of the work being carried out in the 
framework of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE, 
Geneva) on the dimensions of swap bodies and containers. 
Such an integrated concept should curb the constant 
increase in the dimensions of vehicles and load units and 
should avoid the need for individual decisions to be 
taken on the basis of de facto situations. It should also 
enable consideration to be had for the problems of 
developing European-wide combined transport, which failed 
to be resolved by increasing the maximum authorized 
length of articulated vehicles to 16.5 metres." 
This paper, together with the annexed reports, cover the 
subjects mentioned in the Council statement. It concludes 
with guidelines that should form the basis for a global 
policy. 
1.2. Structure of the paper 
The different items in the Council statement, such as 
safety and environment, cover wide areas which could be 
examined in great detail. 
It is obvious that for the purposes of this paper these 
areas should only be dealt with in so far that they are 
related to the other issues and in particular to the 
issje of commercial vehicle dimensions which was the 
basic reasojj for the Council request. 
- 4 -
Moreover the areas listed in the Council declaration do 
not all have the same character; some of them are 
rather general policy aims, others are more specific 
means to fulfill these aims. 
4 
In this paper the general political objectives will be 
considered one by one in their relation to dimensions 
of commercial vehicles. 
The issue of pneumatic suspension has less relationship 
with dimensions of vehicles but is important for the 
maximum permitted weights of axles and vehicles. Given 
the different character of this subject it will not be 
dealt with in this paper. However, the Commission will 
shortly submit a proposal in which the equivalence to 
air suspension systems is reflected in objective 
parameters. The possibility of a retroactive 
introduction of air suspension or equivalent systems to 
5 and 6 axle vehicles will also be considered in the 
proposal. The proposal should be seen as estaDiishing a 
firm base for future standards on "road friendly 
suspensions" for all heavy goods vehicles. 
- 5 -
2• Efficiency of Transport 
2.1. General 
Efficiency of transport in the purely internal economic 
sense means transport at the lowest cost. In relation 
to the means of transport this means that the quantity 
of transported goods should be as high as possible and 
the time and costs for the transport operations should 
be as low as possible. 
Therefore it is not difficult to estimate that in 
general, efficiency of transport requires the largest 
possible loading capacity. 
If the efficiency of loading and unloading is also 
considered, then the loading unit should be a function 
of the basic modular units such as pallets which can be 
handled automatically. 
In a combined transport operation the loading unit by 
itself should fit different modular systems and should 
be compatible with the physical limitations of the 
modes of transport involved. 
As regards the efficiency aspects of the new standards 
for maritime containers, the cost of new harbour 
installations, ships, railway infrastructure, vehicles 
and load units have to be compared with the benefits in 
loading capacity in order to assess the economical 
feasibility of a change. The ISO meeting on freight 
containers held in London in June 1989 has called for 
such a worldwide evaluation of all the economic aspects 
before a new standard for maritime containers can be 
established. 
This request was reinforced by the ECE seminar on 
increasing loading units on 13-16 November 1989 in 
Geneva. For these reasons the Commission has initiated 
a COST action in which these studies for EC and EFTA 
countries will be coordinated. 
- 6 -
2.2. Loading unit standards and standardization 
In the report of Annex I to this paper an extensive 
inventory is covering about the following issues: 
- the current state and decision making process of 
standardization of ISO maritime containers, 
- the development of domestic containers and swap 
bodies, 
- the modular systems of packaging and the current 
discrepancies between the modular dimensions and the 
dimensions of current ISO containers, 
- the psysical restrictions imposed on dimensions of 
loading units by 
* road infrastructure 
* railways 
* inland waterways 
* the Alpine north-south transit infrastructure. 
The main conclusions of the report are the following : 
- To date the dimensions of maritime containers were 
fixed following Américain domestic road legislation 
without taking into account compatibility with pallet 
systems or European domestic road legislation. 
At present, European road legislation is adapted to 
20 ft and 40 ft ISO containers (98 % of all maritime 
containers) but not to 45 ft (high cube) containers 
nor to any larger types which may come in the future. 
(According to replies given to a Commission inventory 
in 1989 the total number of 45 ft containers that 
entered European harbours in 1988 was approximately 
1000). 
In the current discussions for a new generation of 
sea containers the Community is playing a more active 
role and has made it clear that European 
infrastructure sets limits to dimensions of 
containers and that a new container should be 
compatible with modular pallet systems and the 
European inland container and swap body standards. 
- 7 -
The European inland containers and swap bodies have 
been developed taking into account the Community 
road legislation and the modular system of basic 
unit loads. Nevertheless, there seems to be a trend 
to increasing the width from 2,50m to 2,55m 
for non-refrigerated bodies in order to facilitate 
automatic loading of pallets (par. 4.3 and 4.4 of 
the Annex I). 
As regards length, 13,6 m for the long swap body and 
7,15; 7,42 and 7,82 m for the short type are now 
being considered but there is also a strong wish to 
standardize a swap body of more than 8 m. 
The long swap body of 13,6 m is fully compatible 
with standard pallet sizes and fits in with recently 
adopted European legislation (Directive 89/461/EEC) 
for articulated vehicles. 
Of the lengths of short swap bodies the 7,42 m has 
the preference if the modular palletizes and 
automatic loading systems are taken into account. 
It should be noted here that a swap body of more 
than 8 m (8,22 m) has advantages if 1000 x 1200 
pallets are transported but that only two swap bodies 
of such a length fit on a road train if very short 
cabins and couplings are used and/or the overall 
length of 18 m is exceeded by a metre or more. 
For the railways the dimensions of loading units are 
influenced by the gauges and the rolling stock. In 
some areas large investment will be needed to 
accomodate other dimensions than now. 
For the inland waterways the width especially is 
important. This mode of transport is better suited 
to the current ISO containers (2,44 m). 
- 8 -
2.3. The influence of loading units on Community legislation 
The described interaction between legislation on road 
vehicles and standard loading units makes clear that 
legislation for commercial vehicle dimensions plays a 
decisive role. 
The maximum authorized dimensions in the EC Directives 
set direct or indirect limits to the dimensions of 
loading units. 
However, as EC Directive 85/3 only applies to 
international traffic, different standards in national 
technical legislation and/or special permits lead to 
continuous pressure to adapt the EC legislation to 
newly developed loading unit standards. The most 
obvious example is the width of the vehicle, where in 
most national legislations a greater dimension is 
allowed because of the pressure from industry to 
facilitate the transport of two adjacent pallets which 
is the most efficient method (par 4.3 of Annex I). 
A second example is the 45 ft container a limited 
number of which are transported in national transport 
operations although in Directive 85/3 as amended by 
89/461 the maximum load length is fixed in such a way 
that 45 ft containers cannot be transported as it would 
necessitate an extra length of 0,50 m of the 
articulated vehicle. 
Similar problems can be expected when the Commission 
proposal on the maximum load length of the road train 
is adopted and Member States allow longer load lengths 
in their territory. 
Therefore it is essential that the maximum authorized 
dimensions as fixed for international traffic should 
also be applied for national transport. 
- 9 -
Agreement should be reached that special permits for 
exceptional transport are only issued to real 
indivisable loads and not to vehicles, such as car 
transporters and vehicles transporting oversized 
containers, whose contents can be carried in other 
vehicles with no difficulty. 
Finally it is necessary to develop common rules about 
the way loads should be allowed to project at the front 
or rear of a vehicle. Current interpretation of some 
Member States leads to 18 m long vehicles that 
including the cargo have a total length of 20 m (e.g. 
car transporters). 
It is clear that the load area dimensions of vehicles 
will only be stabilized when these are fixed in such a 
way that no local nor national variations are 
advantageous and/or permitted any more. 
2.4. Compatible systems of loading units 
An important question is how far legislation on vehicle 
dimensions should be adapted to the loading units in 
order to promote certain kinds of interchangability in 
combined transport. This case is of special importance 
when the load lengths of road trains and of articulated 
vehicles are fixed by legislation for reasons that will 
be explained in the following paragraphs. 
If these load lengths were fixed so that they were 
totally compatible, this would mean that it would be 
possible to transport the same two swap bodies on a 
road train or on a semi-trailer. Especially for 
transalpine combined transport it would be preferable 
that the same swap bodies be carried by both types of 
vehicle at both ends of the train journey. 
In order to make an assessment of the effect of such an 
approach it is necessary to consider the current 
situation. 
-10-
In Europe the two combined vehicle types, road train 
and articulated vehicle are not equally distributed. 
Annex II reflects the distribution in 1988. 
At present in virtually all international and national 
legislation the permitted overall length for road 
trains is longer than the total length for articulated 
vehicles. This difference results in a longer load area 
for the road train. 
The reason for this difference is the road performance 
of the two systems. The road train can better be turned 
around corners and the sweeping out of the back of a 
road train is less than that of an articulated vehicle 
of the same length. Therefore the latter in some cases 
must be equipped with steering axles on the 
semi-trailer. In addition the braking performance of a 
road train can be better than that of an articulated 
vehicle. These factors have been assessed by 
legislating authorities and have resulted in a greater 
admitted overall length for the road train than for 
articulated vehicles. 
In the recently adopted Directive 89/461/EEC, the total 
authorized length of an articulated vehicle is 16,5-G m. 
This length is the upper limit to which most govr.c-njf^nt 
experts and the Commission wish to go, taking into 
account the fact that longer vehicles would require in 
all cases steering axles on the semi-trailer and the 
manoeuvring of such longer vehicles in traffic would be 
detrimental to road safety. Self-steering axles are 
also considered to render this combination inherently 
unstable. * 
As a next step in Community legislation there is the 
proposal on the load length and overall length of the 
road train (1). The following two approaches were 
possible in this context. 
(1 ) COM (89)573. 
- 11 -
- Using the same philosophy as for the articulated 
vehicle means fixing the dimensions at the upper 
limits which are technically and politically feasible 
and leaving it to users to find the optimum 
dimensions for their purposes within these limits. 
- Fixing load areas on the road train which are 
compatible with the shorter load areas allowed for 
articulated vehicles in order to provide integrated 
combined transport. 
Although the promotion of combined transport is 
certainly one of the political priorities, the 
Commission has chosen the first of these two approaches 
for the following reasons: 
- It is unjustifiable and inefficient to limit the 
possibilities of many users of road trains who do not 
use combined transport. 
- If it is necessary to apply a fully compatible 
system, then the road train can be used with 
dimensions below the maximum admitted matching those 
of articulated vehicles. 
- It should be recognized that articulated vehicles and 
road trains are two different systems with different 
advantages and disadvantages that should not be 
harmonized along the lines of the most limited 
possibilities. 
- It is very possible to have two systems of combined 
transport co-existing, namely short swap bodies and 
20 ft containers along with long swap bodies and 40 
ft containers. 
Taking into account the high percentage of road 
trains both in the FRG and Italy the industry has 
already adapted to this situation. 
- 12 -
3. Cabin dimensions 
3.1. Introduction 
The concern about decreasing cabin dimensions caused by 
the tendency to make vehicles more productive, was the 
main reason why the Commission proposed amendments to 
Directive 85/3/EEC for the dimensions of articulated 
vehicles (adopted in Dir. 89/461/EEC) and for the road 
train (on the table of the Council). 
In order to clarify the situation on cabins the 
following should be examined: 
which types of existing cabins are now on the market 
and which are the current tendencies; 
what kind of cabins should be envisaged and how 
should the legislation on road vehicles be adapted 
in order to promote cabins which are socially 
acceptable. 
3.2. Existing cabins and tendencies 
In Annex III an overview is given of the cabins which 
are produced by the European truck manufacturers. These 
cabins can be classified into two types: 
A. Short cabinsf with or without a bed above the seats 
(top sleeper); r 
B. Long cabins with a bed behind the seats (back 
sleeper). 
Taking into account only the cabins that are considered 
to be economically and socially acceptable, the 
difference in length between short cabs and long cabs, 
which are currently on the market, is about 40 cm. 
- 13 -
However, also ultrashort cabins are produced by 
manufacturers and specialized firms in order to create 
additional load length. In these cases the difference 
between them and long cabins is certainly more than 
40 cm 
The general tendency for volume transport is certainly 
further to decrease the dimensions of cabins. 
Furthermore, manufacturers or transport operators that 
do not wish for these cabins are forced to use them for 
competitive reasons. 
3.3. Legislation for better cabins 
As regards the desired type of cabin, the discussions 
in special working groups of the social partners have 
until now not resulted in final conclusions. However, 
it was agreed that 1,60 m should be considered as a 
minimum for a cabin without a bed (the day cab). For 
the sleeping place the unions expressed the wish to 
have a width of 80 cm and to have this sleeping place 
behind the seats (back sleepers). The employers were of 
the opinion that also a sleeping place above the seats 
should be possible (top sleepers). 
The discussion concerning top sleepers is a difficult 
one. The unions have provided a list of arguments 
against the top sleeper (Annex IV) and a survey in the 
Netherlands of 400 drivers, has shown that about 50% of 
the drivers are of the opinion that the top sleeper, 
even if it fulfils all conditions on comfort, is still 
not acceptable and another 25% prefer a back sleeper. 
Employers, argue that in the future only a maximum of 9% 
of transport is high volume transport which may involve 
top sleepers and that only the drivers who accept 
top sleepers would drive with it. 
- 14 -
The outcome of the on-going discussions is not 
clear and economic interests will certainly influence 
the positions. 
The Commission has taken on safety and social grounds 
the view that enough space should be available for a 
drivers cabin with a bed behind the seats. An 
additional argument for this position is that future 
requirements on comfort and insulation may create 
problems for placing the engine in short cabins. 
The proposals made by the Commission for articulated 
vehicles (adopted June '89) and for road trains fix the 
load length of vehicles in order to guarantee enough 
space for a cabin of the long type. 
If short day cabs are fitted, this will not lead to 
increased productivity but to a shorter vehicle. 
It is also to be expected that if the Commission 
proposal for road trains is adopted the economic 
pressure for short cabins will be removed and a more 
fruitful discussion on the detailed specifications of 
different types of cabin can take place. 
In this context it may be useful to mention the 
experience in the USA where at the end of the seventies 
ultra short cabins gave rise to union actions and the 
establishment of a commission to study cabin 
dimensions. After several years of discussion without 
results the US authorities decided to fix the load 
length of vehicles and this resulted in the well known 
large and comfortable cabins on the American roads and 
the abolition of the cabin commission. 
Although the European situation makes it necessary to 
fix both the load length and the overall length of 
vehicles, it can be expected that the approach in the 
Commission proposal will lead to similar developments. 
- 15 -
4. Environment and road safety 
4.1. General 
For inland transport, any decision on dimensions of 
loading units and consequently on the dimensions of 
road vehicles has, as well as the economic 
implications, also to take account of the political 
aspects and the impact on environment and safety. 
For road transport these additional effects in fact set 
the real limits to the dimensions of vehicles bearing 
in mind the obvious economic advantages of greater 
vehicle dimensions for operators and the fact that 
infrastructure costs are paid by governments. 
A rather simple approach of the interested parties 
which are in favour of larger units is to point out 
that a larger volume of vehicles will reduce the number 
of vehicle trips and consequently will lead to less 
environmental pollution, fuel consumption, traffic 
congestion and accidents. In other words, a direct link 
is made Detween the effectiveness of transport and 
safety and environmental advantages. 
The conclusion of such a simplification is "the bigger 
the better" and this would lead to enormous dimensions 
of vehicles. Obviously the political and technical 
reality is different. 
Increased dimensions of load units and consequently 
vehicles, will reduce the number of trips for the same 
quantity of high volume goods. 
However, this reduction will only affect the fully 
laden trips of about 9% of the lorries and differs 
widely in its effect depending on the kind of cargo. 
For instance in the case of automatic loading 
of palletized goods the difference in loading capacity 
between 7,42 and 7,82 swap bodies is zero! (see fig. 4 
and 5 of Annex I). 
- 16 -
For palletized goods to have an advantage in loading 
capacity only the introduction of considerable 
differences in loading volume to coincide with the 
modular system of 800 x 1200 or 1000 x 1200 will make 
sense. 
The beneficial effects of less trips for certain types 
of vehicles with certain types of cargo may be reduced 
or even turned into disadvantages by the fact that less 
cargo is transported by means of combined rail/road 
transport. This may be caused by a more competitive 
position of road haulage if larger units are allowed or 
by the fact that certain loading units are not 
compatible with existing railwagons. 
4.2. Specific road safety aspects of combined vehicles 
Next to the influence of the number of vehicle trips 
tne configuration of the vehicle itself has an obvious 
effect on road safety. 
The most important aspects are: 
A. manoeuvrabi1i ty 
B. space occupied by the vehicle (length, width), 
C. driving performance such as braking, stability etc. 
Ad A In Directive 85/3/EEC lastly amended by 
89/461/EEC technical parameters are given in 
order to control the above-mentioned factors. 
All vehicles must be able to turn within a swept 
circle with an outer radius of 12,5m and an 
inner radius of 5,3m (see Annex V). This 
condition is an indication of the manoeuvrability 
of a vehicle. However, a vehicle that is able to 
turn within the swept circle cannot automatically 
be considered to fulfil all the essential 
requirements for manoeuvring safely in traffic. 
- 17 -
It is for instance important that the back of the 
vehicle, in a turn follows as far as possible the 
track of the steering axle. If this is not the 
case, street corners are cut or the back swings 
out and the vehicle can be considered to be 
unsafe for other road users. 
In some national legislation next to the swept 
circle the turning around a right angled corner 
in a narrow street is introduced as an additional 
requirement for manoeuvrability (see Annex VI). 
The EC swept circle, together with the length 
restriction for the different types of vehicles, 
provide a good and easy means of indicating 
vehicle performance. However, bearing in mind the 
above considerations, it is not realistic to 
isolate from these restrictions only the swept 
circle and conclude that any vehicle meeting the 
swept circle requirement should be' acceptable for 
EC traffic. Especially in the case of articulated 
vehicles it is, by fitting steering axles to the 
semi-trailers, possible to go further than the 
present length limit but safety will certainly 
decrease. 
Ad B As regards the width of vehicles, the width for 
which roads were designed is important taking 
into account the necessary space for other road 
users and overtaking manoeuvres. 
Present Community legislation allows 2,50m for 
normal vehicles and 2,60m for certain 
refrigerated vehicles. The latter dimension was 
introduced in order to facilitate the loading of 
two adjacent pallets in vehicles with insulated 
thick walls. It was acceptable on the assumption 
- 18 -
that this concerns only a small part of the 
vehicles which would limit the danger for other 
road users. 
In national legislation the dimensions allowed 
vary from 2,50 to*2,60 m (see Annex I). There is 
clear pressure to also increase the width for 
normal vehicles with rigid walls in order to 
facilitate automatic loading etc. 
Several Member States have indicated for road 
safety reasons that 2,55 m is really the upper 
limit that can be allowed taking into account the 
width of the roads. 
The most important influence of the length of a 
vehicle on road safety is obviously the longer 
overtaking time that is needed. It should be 
noted though that this time does not increase 
proportionally with the length. All overtaking 
vehicles use long distances before and after the 
vehicle that is to be overtaken. 
A traffic study was performed in Sweden by 
National Road & Traffic Research Institute in 
order to elucidate the effect of vehicle length 
on the accident risk when overtaking long 
"4 
vehicle combinations. Also the influence of a 
vehicle mounted sign indicating the length of 
the vehicle was investigated. The experiment was 
performed as a full scale test in a real traffic 
environment. Two test vehicles, 18 and 24 metres 
long respectively, were driven •simultaneaously 
along the test sections at a constant speed oi 
70 km/h and 10 km apart. Overtaking processes 
were recorded by means of film cameras on the 
roof of the test vehicles. The test vehicles 
covered a total mileage of 13.640 km during the 
test period of eight weeks. 
- 19 -
The time gap was used as a measure of accident 
risk, i.e. the number of seconds elapsing between 
the conclusion of an overtaking operation and the 
time when the overtaking vehicle meets or could 
have met an oncoming vehicle. The differences in 
mean values of time gaps between the two vehicle 
lengths were very small. There was a slight 
tendency for the 24 metre vehicle to induce a 
greater number of hazardous overtakings than the 
18 metre vehicle, but this difference has not 
been statistically proved. The signs mounted on 
the vehicle and indicating vehicle length were 
found to improve meeting margins. 
It is clear that the lengths used in Sweden are 
out of the question in Europe but the results of 
their study indicate that the real impact on road 
safety of an increased length is probably rather 
limited. 
At present the maximum permitted length in the 
Community is 18,00 m but many Member States allow 
a certain tolerance up to 18,35 m. 
This length seems to be at present a political 
limit and the current proposal of the Commission 
for the road train is based on this length. 
Ad C The driving performance of a vehicle related to 
safety concerns its stability when manoevring, 
braking etc. 
For vehicle combinations, the reliability and 
construction of the mechanical coupling systems 
and the stability against jack-knifing play an 
important role. 
As regards coupling systems, the demand for more 
load length has led to development of space saving 
systems especially for road trains. 
- 20 -
At present in principle three systems are used: 
- Normal coupling systems which require a distance 
of about 1,50 m between truck and trailer (Annex 
VII). 
- Short coupling systems where the coupling beam is 
fixed under the truck in order to increase the 
radius of turning of the trailer. For this system 
a minimum distance of 0,70 m is required and it 
can only be applied with a central axle trailer. 
These trailers are safe in so far as the load is 
well distributed (Annex VIII). 
- Extendable couplings which are systems where the 
distance between the truck and the trailer is 
automatically increased when necessary (Annex IX) 
This last system is a rather expensive device by 
which the distance between truck and trailer in 
stationary circumstances can be reduced to less 
than 10 cm. The only reason for operators to buy 
such an expensive system is that it reduces the 
overall length of the combination when measured in 
a stationary position. However, if the vehicle is 
driven around bends and on slopes, this overall 
length is increased by the extendable system. 
Apart from the question that such a system breaks 
the spirit of the law which is made for circulation 
and not for the parking place, there are doubts as 
to whether such systems will stay reliable in all 
circumstances on all roads. 
The risk of jack-knifing depends on the 
distribution of brake forces if a vehicle 
combination brakes. In general it could be said 
that articulated vehicles have more tendency to 
jack-knifing because of the relatively lower mass 
of the tractor unit compared with the semi-trailer. 
- 21 -
4.3. Conclusions on environment and safety 
The environmental performance of road vehicles is 
improving steadily but this effect is erased by the 
continuous growth of traffic. A change of the load 
length will have an effect on the number of trips needed 
but it could also influence competitiveness of rail 
transport. Moreover the effect of a changed load length 
should be seen in a realistic light. 
Assuming that 9% of road haulage concerns volume 
transport and assuming that an average change of load 
length is about 5%, that would mean in the worst case a 
change of trips of about 0,5%. This is probably an 
overestimate since on not all trips will the full load 
length be used. 
If a 0,5% change is considered in the context of the 
normal annual 4% increase of road haulage by economic 
growth, then it is clear that the solution to 
environment problems is not to allow larger volumes 
since they would only cover the normal economic growth 
of a few weeks. Environmental protection should be 
tackled by an improvement of vehicle conditions within 
the technical possibilities and a major promotion of 
combined transport. 
As regards the road safety aspects, it is clear that 
legislation should steer technology into safer 
developments. However even if a further increase of 
length and width may be possible on technical grounds, 
any proposed change must take account of the political 
will which is invariably based on public acceptances; it 
is clear that acceptance of greater dimensions becomes 
more and more difficult, whether or not this is based on 
economical arguments. 
- 22 -
5. Conclusions and guidelines as regards commercial vehicle 
dimensions 
Following the request of the Council, in this paper the 
issues related to commercial vehicle dimensions have been 
considered . The following conclusions summarize the 
contents of the paper. 
- Legislation is the main tool of governments to steer the 
process that should lead to the compatibility of transport 
systems. However, as argued above, the key role of 
legislation is in principle a restrictive one as, for 
efficiency reasons, there will be a continuous pressure 
for greater dimensions. In legislation the factors that 
set limits to this tendency, such as safety, 
infrastructure and social requirements are reflected. 
Current Community legislation has developed after long 
discussions and should be seen as compromises taking into 
account the factors described above. 
- Industry has always quickly adapted its vehicle types to 
the legal possibilities and legislation has also been 
amended in cases of structural problems where these could 
be solved within the limits set by the other factors.- ;;* 
Examples are the increased width for refrigerated vehicles 
and the recently fixed amended dimensions for articulated 
vehicles. 
Therefore, it would be a mistake to assume that the 
current situation is lacking in coherence. The 20 ft and 
40 ft -containers_can be transported by all modes and types 
of vehiclese swap*bodies are compatible with pallet sizes 
and combined transport systems etc. 
- 23 -
Interactive adaptation of industry and Community 
legislation has led to a certain integration of 
transport systems. However, it should be pointed out 
that at the same time tendencies towards divergences in 
this field are caused by the fact that Community 
legislation until now only concerns international 
transport and national authorities have laid <ôbwn ' 
different legislation which often gives relative 
advantages to their own industry, harbours, hauliers 
etc. The only way to stop this process and the 
consequent on-going pressure to change international 
legislation is to extend the scope of the Community 
Directives to national transport and to set clear 
standards for the issuing of special permits for 
exceptional transport. 
To force transport systems to become compatible by 
means of legislation would limit the possibilities of 
operators that use other systems. EC legislation on 
road vehicle dimensions should set realistic and fair 
limits and the industry should have the freedom to 
develop compatible systems within this framework. 
At present Community legislation is contained in six 
Directives (85/3/EEC and its amendments) and covers 
most characteristics of commercial road vehicles for 
the carriage of goods and passengers transport in 
international traffic. Furthermore, a proposal to fix 
the load length and the total length for road trains is 
on the table of the Council. 
It is important that thé missing elements in EC 
legislation are adopted as soon as possible in order to 
give clarity to the transport world. 
- 24 -
Bearing in mind the above considerations the following 
guidelines should be followed for the completion of the 
package of legislation and standards related to the 
dimensions of commercial vehicles. 
- Any standardization in the fields of maritime and 
inland containers should take into account the 
intermodal transport of the standardized loading 
units and the limits set by European road and rail 
regulations, 
- The sizes of European loading units to be considered 
in an intermodal concept should be based upon the 
basic modules 800 mm x 1000 mm and 1000 mm x 1200 mm; 
- The maximum vehicle dimensions and weight limits that 
have been secured for international transport in 
Directive 85/3/EEC should also apply to national 
operations; 
- The regular authorization by way of special permits 
for the movement of commercial vehicles with weights 
and dimensions above those contained within the 
Directives should be prohibited; 
V 
- Common rules should be developed on the limits of 
projecting cargo at front and rear of vehicles. 
- The standardization of containers should be endorsed 
and the negative effects of enlarging load volumes at 
the expense of drivers cabins or coupling systems-
should be avoided by fixing load lenths; 
- The setting of maximum authorised dimensions of 
vehicles should be based on the different technical 
possibilities of the different types of vehicle 
combinations. 

^s 
ANNEX I 
REPORT ON LOADING UNITS STANDARDS AND STANDARDIZATION 
<?<r 
PART A: Actual situation as reagards load unit standards 
1. World-wide standardization of maritime containers p. 1 
1.1. Standardization bodies p. 1 
1.2. Decision making structure p. 2 
1.3. Current state of standardization of ISO sries 1 cont. p. 3 
1.4. Standardization of a 2nd generation of maritime cont. p. 4 
1.5. The US viewpoint p. 6 
1.6..-European port competition p. 7 
2. Development of domestic containers p. 8 
2. t„, JSjpunomi^a questions of domestic containers p. 8 
2.2. Swap bodies and inland containers in Europe p. 9 
2.3. Domestic containers in USA p.10 
-* w%. - - » 
3. Modular concepts in transport and their impact on 
transport systems t i -*. p. 11 
3 » 1 .< Modular concepts in packaging and in É>alletizatic .i p. 11 
3.2. Loading volume of transport vehicles and modular concepts p.12 
PICTURES 1-8 
PART B: Impact of standardized load units in transport 
infrastructure 
4. Impact of container standardization on road vehicle design p.22 
4.1. General p.22 
4.2. ISO series 1 containers p.23 
4.3. ISO 2nd generation containers p.24 
4.4. European inland containers and swap bodies p.25 
5. Specific problems with regard to European Railways p.26 
5.1. General p.26 
5.2. Width and Height '• p.27 
5.3. Length p.29 
6. Specific problems with regard to Inland Waterway Transport p.30 
6.1.-General p.30 
6.2. Width of Containers p.30 
6.3. Length p.31 
6.4. Height p.31 
7. Implications of Alp north-south transit p.32 
A. Actual situation as regards loading unit standards 
1. World-wide standardisation of maritime containers 
1.1. Standardisation bodies 
International standardization of intermodal containers to be used 
in road, rail and sea transport is exclusively done by the 
Technical Committee 104 of International Standardisation 
Organization (ISO). ISO is an international private organisation 
with its head office in Geneva. Members of ISO are the national 
standardization bodies whether these national organizations are 
private industrial associations or governmental authorities. 
Technical Committee 104 (TC 104) "Freight Containers** deals since 
the early 1960s with the standardisation of freight containers. 
At present, TC 104 has the following structure: Sub-Committee 1 
(SC 1) deals with all matters concerning general-purpose con­
tainers, i. e. those containers having no special features to 
accommodate specialized cargo. Within SC 1, the Working-Group 1 
(WG 1) deals with dimensions, ratings, specifications and testing 
procedures of general purpose containers. As far as possible, 
these features are applied, as well, to all special purpose con­
tainers. This gives the decisions of TC 104/SC 1/WG 1 a far 
reaching impact. 
Within SC 1, Working-Group 2 (WG 2) is active in the standardiza­
tion of handling and securing of containers. 
Sub-Committee 2 (SC 2) deals with special-purm&se containers. 
Within that sub-committee, a working group works on the standard­
ization of thermal containers, i. e. containers with temperature-
isolation, with or without a machinery to produce cold (or hot) 
air. Another working group works on tank-containers for the 
intermodal transportation of liquids and gases, while a further 
working group works on tank-containers for the intermodal trans­
portation of liquids and gases, while a further working group 
works on special containers to transport materials such as 
granulate, powder or similar in bulk; these containers will be 
discharged by gravity. Finally, a working group has been install­
ed to standardize the interface of remote temperature control 
systems for refrigerated containers. 
All these working groups report to the appropriate sub-committee. 
Two further working gt-pnçs have been set up which both report 
directly to the Technical Committee: Working Group 3 deals with 
marking and coding of containers; i. e. with all systems to 
identify the identity of a container, to name special features of 
this container and to transmit this information correctly to the 
interested parties. This working group has been transformed into 
a Sub-Committee and is named Sub-Committee 4. Finally, a Working 
Group 4 is elaborating the basic principles of future containers, 
i. e. of such containers that deviate from the containers in use 
today. 
- 2 _ ? 
Some years ago, a joint committee of ISO/TC 104 and ISO/TC 20 Air 
Transport had been established to work on a standard for an air/-
surface transport intermodal container. After the completion of 
this standard, the working group had been disbanded. 
Outside TC 104 some international standardization bodies work on 
containers that are outside the interest of this study; such 
containers have mainly the character of standard packages, air 
transport units or similar devices. 
On European level, a Technical Committee 119 of European 
Standardization Committee (CEN) works on the Standardization of 
European domestic cont*<ners for road and rail intermodal trans­
port. These containers .-;:fc*v* many, technical {?3.t\\~~.z :«ith ISO 
freight containers. A similar task is done in North America by a 
VS national standardization #roup. 
i.2. Decision making KC.ùclu.e 
All international standardization work is basée* on t**e establish-
in oui of an international c^"sensus as broad as possible. 
Decisions are taken in international meetings either by voting or 
in writing by a letter ballot. Most decisions are prepared in the 
appropriate working group. Members of those working groups are 
experts who are nominated by the national standardization com­
mittee dealing with containers. These experts are - of course 
within the limits of reasonable action - free to decide and 
suggest whatever they feel to be appropriate. They do not vote on 
behalf of a national standardization organization. 
In Sub-Committees and in the Technical Committee, the decision 
making is more formalized. In these bodies, the votes are given 
on behalf of a national standardization body.. 
Those national standardization bodies only that have been re­
gistered as "Participating Members'* (**P** members) of the 
Technical Committee may vote. Other member associations that have 
the status of an "Observing Member** ("0" member) may not vote. 
The membership of TC 104 is by no means closed. Any national 
standardization organisation that feels inclined to work on the 
international contai»»^** standardization can easily become a "P" 
member of TC 104. Just recently, e. g., the German Democratic 
Republic has announced its wish to participate in the work of TC 
104 as a **P" member. 
Some final observations have to be made: Since all experts or 
participants to the meetings of international container standard­
ization have to cater for their own travel expenses and costs of 
living during the meetings * these costs in most cases either 
being raised by their employers or by a national organization -, 
the attendance and influence capacity is limited to those that 
are capable to get the necessary funds. This might exclude some 
interested but financially weak parties from participation in the 
standardization work. 
All voting procedures try to arrive at a very high majority. In 
the field of containers, everybody knows that the vast majority 
of container ownership is concentrated within a few countries, i. 
e. USA, Japan and the EEC countries. So, any voting that does not 
- 3 -
•_ 
take into account vital interests of those countries will, most 
likely, lead to a standard that will finally not be used. In 
fact, up to now any standardization activity in the field of 
containers had been based on a compromise that included a positi­
ve spproach of these countries. 
1.3. Current state of standardisation of ISO series 1 containers 
In the 1960s, three series of ISO containers had been standardiz­
ed. Since only the large containers of "series 1** have been 
effectively used in international trade, the standards for 
smaller containers (series 2, series 3) have been dropped later 
on. 
From the very beginning, a constant trend to include larger and 
stronger containers into the ISO standards could be observed. 
This enlargement concentrated on height because the width and the 
length of the containers had been limited by legal limitations 
and by the- size of the cells ©f the container-ships. 
The width had been limited to 2438 mm (8 ft.) because at that 
time many countries including North America and a large part of 
the English speaking world allowed this width as a maximum in 
road traffic. 
The length had been standardized, finally, in a 10 ft. modular 
concept, arriving at a maximum of 40 ft. (12.2 m). This clearly 
exceeded the maximum length allowed for semi-trailers in many 
countries of Europe and some states of the USA at that time. So, 
smaller containers dominated in some trades, e. g. 30 ft. (9.1 m) 
in the trade between the European continent and Great Britain. 
In the early state of standardization, a height of 2438 mm (8 
ft.) had been standardized for all containers. But soon the 
transport industry deviated from this standard and introduced 
containers of 2591 mm (8 1/2 ft.) height. In the end, the vast 
majority of containers had been built to that height and did no 
longer comply in all details with the ISO standard. When the 
majority of the world container fleet had arrived at that height, 
ISO followed this development and included the 2591 mm high con­
tainer in its standards. 
This development created some problems to the road transport 
industry: The transport of a container of that height on a con­
tainer chassis within the common overall road vehicle height 
limitation of 4000 mm, made a goose neck construction for the 
semi-trailer that carried the container necessary. This added 
total length to the articulated vehicle, so that a 12.2 m long 
container of 2591 mm height would clearly exceed the 15 m length 
limit for articulated road vehicles being in force at that time. 
In consequence, a 12.2 m long and 2591 am high container had to 
be transported over the road by use of an extra permit. These 
extra permits were easily issued in most countries on the Europe­
an continent, because no authority wanted to exclude the traffic 
of 40 ft. containers from their national ports. 
Meanwhile, an increasing number of containers has a larger height 
than the current standard. These "high cubes** hsve an external 
height of 2900 mm (9 1/2 ft.). There had been, in the past, 
several attempts to include these containers into the ISO 
3 c> 
standards. Meanwhile, these containers have been included in the 
ISO standards at the last meeting of ISO/TC 104. 
Table 
DIMENSIONS AND RATINGS OF CURRENTLY MOST USED ISO-CONTAINERS 
Denomination 1AA IBB 1£C^ 
40 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 
Length outer 12 192 mm 9 125 mm 6 058 mm 
inner 11 998 mm 8 931 mm 5 867 mm 
Width outer 2 438 mm 2 438 mm 2 438 mm 
inner 2 330 mm 2 330 mm 2 330 mm 
Height outer 2 591 mm 2 591 mm 2 591 mm 
inner 2 350 mm 2 350 mm 2 350 mm 
Volume inner 65.7 cu.m 48.9 cu.m 32.1 cu.m 
rating/ _ . _rtA .^ 
gross mass 30 480 kg 25 400 kg 24 000 kg 
1.4. Standardization of a 2nd generation of maritime containers 
Since the basic outer dimensions of ISO containers had been fix­
ed, some important developments within the legal framework con­
cerning road vehicle dimensions have occurred. First of all, many 
countries using the imperial system of units switched over to the 
metric system. This resulted in most cases in a small increase oi 
vehicle'maximum width from 2438mm to 2500mm" 
The most important change could be observed in the USA. While in 
the past the regulations concerning dimension of road vehicles 
would vary from state to state, today a rather generous uniform 
size regulation is applied to the entire highway network through­
out the USA. The single states of the USA may allow larger 
dimensions, but the US-wide regulations have to be observed as 
the minimum to be allowed by state legislation on the highway in 
each state. According to these rules, the maximum width of road 
vehicles was increased to 2600 mm (8 ft. 6 1/2 in) and the 
length of a semi-trailer was increased at first to 13.7 m (45 
ft.), later to 14.6 m (48 ft.). 
As far as intermodal transport, was concerned, this had initially its 
main impact on TOFC (Trailer On Flat Car) transport, i. e. the US 
piggyback system in which two semi-trailers are transported on a 
platform rail-car with a loading length of 27.5 m. (90 ft). Even 
when containers were moved in intermodal transport, they often were 
first fixed on semi-trailers and then carried, together with the 
semi-trailers, on the rail-car. 
3 I 
-5 -
These transport patterns changed gradually in the 1980s. High 
capacity block trains moving containers in double stack were 
introduced. The economics of these double stack trains were so 
high, that most of the container moves from the Pacific sea ports 
into the US hinterland switched over to this technique of trans­
port. Some US railroad companies, such as the Santa Fe, combined 
the move of seaborne container traffic with domestic transport in 
double stack. In this endeavor, they designed the first US 
domestic containers according to US road regulations and no 
longer to ISO standards. 
At the same time, American President Lines purchased the first 
special containers of 13.7 m length for their maritime trade. 
These containers are transported on deck of the container ships 
while the cells of the ship continue to accommodate ISO con­
tainers. 
Being aware of this development, American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) called together a working party on the standard­
ization of US domestic containers. 
This had been the situation when in June 1987 ISO/TC 104 Plenary 
convened in Ottawa, Canada. The national delegations in this 
meeting were well aware of two facts: 
- At least in North America, some transport enterprises will 
continue to develop and to use containers larger than ISO. 
- If the standardization work on such units was set up early and 
progressed quickly, a proliferation of non-standard sizes could 
possibly be avoided. 
So, ISO/TC 104 decided to re-convene WG 4 "Future Containers'* and 
to allocate this standardization work to that group. 
The US standards association volunteered to take over the 
secretariat of this group. 
Meanwhile, three meetings of this Working Group 4 have been con­
vened. Up to now, these meetings did not result in compromise 
suggestions. Basically, the US delegation suggests the 
standardization of a container with the dimensions 
- 14,67 m length, 
- 2,60 m width, 
- 2,90 m height. 
- 6 _ 
The Commission of the European Communities has communicated that 
the member states of the Community do not intend to allow con­
tainers of these dimensions to be transported in road traffic. 
According to the Directives 85/3/EEC and 89/46YEEC the following 
dimensions are possible in road traffic: 
- 13.60 m length, 
2,50 m width. 
The Europeans have, on the other hand, asked for a concept for a 
future container that fits into the European distribution 
patterns, especially those using modular built unit loads with 
the basic dimensions of 800 x 1,200 .mm and 1,000 x 1,200 am. The 
width of 2.600 mm has been questioned in this context and the 
length has been judged as not useful. As far as length is concerned, 
some Europeans suggested a concept of 7.42 m + 7.42 m * 14,84 m 
(49 ft.). A combination of this length can be transported on a 
European road train. This suggestion was recently accepted by the 
USA delegation. 
1.5. The US viewpoint 
Containerization as a transport system has originated in the USA. 
A large part of the container vessels are under US steamship line 
management. More than 50 % of all containers existing in the 
world are owned by leasing companies, and almost all major leas­
ing companies are domiciling in the USA. 
This describes why, from the very beginning, the USA have in­
fluenced container technique development and standardisation, and 
why the USA continues to do so. 
A second item in this field is the size of the USA. Outside the 
trans-Sibirian rail link there is virtually no container inland 
link as long as the USA and Canada transcontinental trade. As a 
result of this, issues of transport economy in inland haulage are 
of high interest in the USA. This interest is growing since in 
the recent years some institutional barriers against the co­
operation of maritime and inland transport modes have been remov­
ed in USA. 
So, the US experts participate in the discussion concerning 
larger containers taking the following viewpoints: 
Larger containers give so many economic benefits in the long 
US inland haulage that they even pay off if, on the other 
side of the Atlantic ocean, they are not permitted to move 
inland. 
In the past, many countries had difficulties to move ISO 
series I containers due to restrictions of their infra­
structure. Most of these countries meanwhile got accustomed 
to these containers. Today, ISO series 1 containers are 
operated in almost all industrialized countries without 
difficulty. The same may be predicted for future container 
sizes. 
In containerization - as in many other systems of advanced 
technology - the USA had taken the lead. The more conser­
vative Europeans often have complained at first, but later 
they had followed the US development. 
33 
Some figures show the estimated the use of containers larger than 
in ISO 668 standardized in the United States. 
At present, there is a limited number of two basic types in use: 
45 ft. narrow body, i. e. 45 ft. long, 8 ft. wide and 9 ft. 6 in. 
high. 
48 ft. wide body, i. e. 48 ft. long, 8 ft. 6 in. wide and 8 ft. 6 
in. high. 
Furthermore, a US steamship line has bought a limited number of 
containers 
53 ft. long, 8 ft. 6 in. wide and 9 ft. 6 in. high. 
All these oversized containers counted together give a number of 
approximately 10,000 - 20,000. 
Container types 
- 4 5 ft. wide body (i. e. 4 5 ft. long, 8 ft. 6. in. wide) and 
- 48 ft., narrow body ( 48 ft. long and 8 ft. wide) 
do virtually not exist. 
1.6. European port competition 
Since the report "Containerization - the key to low cost trans­
port" by Mc Kinsey a Co. had been published, the European sea­
ports are very sensitive in all questions concerning con­
tainerization. The report, elaborated in the 1960s, had predicted 
that only a small number of seaports will survive in the con­
tainer age - and no European seaport is willing to be the one 
that will die. 
In consequence, each minor change in competition arrangements 
creates hasty political counteraction. In this economic environ­
ment, it is most likely that one or the other seaport tries to 
gain a better position in competition by offering terminal 
facilities for larger containers and easy access to anextra 
license for its inland transport. Because in all European con­
tinental ports some liaison exists between port operators and 
political government, it is rather easy for the port re­
presentative to persuade the local politicians to change road 
regulations in favor of larger containers. 
This situation gets even more complicated as most ports serve 
different hinterland countries, while their political influence 
ends in most cases at the border of their own country. 
- 8-
V 
This port competition problem cannot be solved by actions that 
are aimed at international intra-European transport only. 
In the common market of 1992 this question gains additional pro­
blems. If the Netherlands grant road transport of larger con­
tainers for their national territory, these contsiners may move 
to a warehouse at for instance in Venlo or Maastrich - in short 
delivery distance of one of the largest German markets. Under 
these conditions, the German seaports will fiercely ask for the 
same possibility: The inland transport permit for larger con­
tainers at least to warehouses some 300 km south. If Federal 
Republic of Germany grants this for its inland transport, they 
will be asked: Why do they stop containers coming through Nether­
lands port at their border? 
Summing up, the development of larger containers will most likely 
become a problem of port competition. Any European approach to 
that problem must include national and international hinterland 
road transport. 
2. Development of domestic containers 
2.1. Economic questions of domestic containers 
When the ISO container standards had been finalized in the late 
1960s, a common view of many experts predicted that these con­
tainers were to become the basic psrt of a uniform world-wide 
standardized transport system. These containers were expected to 
come in use not only in maritime, but as well in inland and even 
in air transport. For many of these experts the development of 
domestic containers that deviated in some important features from 
ISO containers created a shock. The idea of a world-wide uni­
formity ended. 
To understand this development, one has to face the nature of an 
international standard: it is a compromise taking into account 
most of the serious restrictions of all environments where the 
standardized item will be used. 
In the case of the ISO container, the restrictions of road vehic­
le width were the limiting factor. As many countries at that time 
did not allow more than 2438 mm width for road vehicles, it was 
clear that the ISO container had to take this into account if it 
should move without serious restrictions. And the exclusion of 
road traffic operation in USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia 
etc. had been certainly such a serious restriction. 
On the other hand, Switzerland bad an even more restricted road 
vehicle width, i. e. 2300 mm, that had not been taken into 
account in container standards. In this case the experts in ISO/ 
TC 104 did not wish to restrict the economics of their new trans­
port system to the conditions of the most restrictive country in 
the industrialized world. Such a concept certainly would have 
hampered the overall economics of the ISO container transport 
system too far. 
So, the process of compromise in international standardization 
was the decision of wnich restrictions in the world transport 
infrast.ruct.ure had to be taken into account and which not. 
-9 - S J" 
The standardization of maximum length of ISO container did not 
take into account the legal restrictions of United Kingdom, 
Japan, and some states of the USA in that time. Similar aspects 
were true with the rating of the largest units. 
This was decided so expecting that some countries would adapt 
their infrastructure to the new values fixed. At least, where 
this could not be achieved, the use of smaller ISO containers 
could give these countries the benefit of participation in the 
world-wide transport system, even if their infrastructure had not 
been developed so far. 
Since the ISO container had to take into account almost any seri­
ous restriction, the ISO container is not competitive against 
specialized transport systems in their own environment. While the 
ISO container quickly took the lead in the door-to-door transport 
chains that included a deep sea link, it wa? net used inde­
pendently in such transport chains that were entirely inland. 
Because the ISO container had to bear the burden of the width 
restriction of the USA and the extra strength of the maritime 
transport mode, it could not compete against the more specialized 
road transport systems in Europe. When the European railways 
established their domestic container system they had to leave the 
ISO standards wherever these standards had taken account of 
special conditions of transport chains outside the European con­
tinent . 
2.2. Swap bodies and inland containers in Europe 
European railways very clearly identified the chance of a con­
tainer transport concept: pick-up and delivery via road trans­
port, line haul on rail. With regard to ISO containers, they had 
to face two shortcomings: strength and dimensions. 
The ISO container concept included a high racking strength for 
the container (needed to accommodate the forces induced by con­
tainers on deck where up to three containers overstack the bottom 
one and severe transverse and diagonal racking forces occur), and 
a high stacking capability (a container in a ship cell may be 
overstacked by 8 other containers; the forces induced by the 
movements of the ship on sea has to be added). Both strength 
features can be considerably lower in pure inland transport. This 
enables railways to usi a lighter construction - thus saving tare 
weight - and to add side doors to the container. The latter had 
been important because the railways often deliver the container 
through private sidings on a wagon. In this position, the con­
tainer cannot easily be loaded and discharged. So, the necessity 
for side doors emerged. (Side doors can be, as well, applied to 
containers built to ISO standard strength, but only with 
technical difficulties and at considerable additional costs.) 
The other feature was the dimension. The outer width of 2438 mm 
led to an inner width of 2330 mm which was not suitable to 
palletized traffic. In European inland transport, a growing pro­
portion of the shipments is palletized using standard pallets of 
800 x 1200 mm or 1000 x 1200 mm. (picture 1) 
So, the (European) International Union of Railways UIC, at fi^st, 
designed a so called **TM container, the "T" standin or 
- 10 -
H 
"terrestre". This container had the same dimensions as ISO 
standard but less strength. 
Some time later, Deutsche Bundesbahn added a revolutionary de­
viation of the ISO concept: They designed a container of 2500 mm 
outer width with an inner width of 2440 mm - just enough to ac­
commodate two 1200 mm wide pallets side by side. This container 
was included in the national German Standards (DIN 15190). Its 
length configuration followed the ISO system with 12.2 m and 6.05 
m. Later on, other railways followed this development. Today, 
this container type circulates throughout Europe in intermodal 
road/rail transport and forms the basis for the present European 
railway container pool, (picture 2) 
Road transport developed its own units that deviated even more 
from ISO standards. The basic width was 2500 mm outside. The 
length made full use of the dimensional patterns offered by the 
road train: 
18.0 m overall length 
•/. 2.2 m driver cabin 
./. 1.5 m coupling device 
= 14.3 m 
14.3 m made either a 2 x 7.15 m or a 6.05 + 8.20 m combination. 
Over the time, the 2 x 7.15 m combination dominated. These swap 
bodies had been, as well, nationally standardized in Germany in 
DIN 17013. (picture 3) 
To be competitive with transport offers of swap body users, Deut­
sche Bundesbahn finally designed domestic containers of 7.,15 m 
length and introduced these with great commercial success into 
the intermodal transport market. 
The swap body concept demonstrated to be the most successful 
transport technique in intra-European intermodal road/rail trans­
port. Meanwhile, more than 50 % of all piggyback consignments 
moved internationally by UIRR Companies and more than 30 % of all 
Intercontainer moves are executed by swap bodies. 
Since some years, CEN/TC 119 works on common European standards 
for swap bodies. In a first pre-decision, the following 
dimensions seem to be standardized most likely: 
width 2.500 mm 
height 2.670 mm 
lengths 7.150 mm, 7.420 mm, 7.820 mm. (pictures 4 and 5) 
length 13.600 mm (picture 6) 
CEN/TC 119 will, most likely, standardize only such swap body 
sizes that can be transported on road vehicles according to the 
maximum outer dimensions laid down in directives 85/3/EEC and 
89/461 /EEC. Larger dimensions, as width and length had been con­
cerned, were under discussion in CEN/TC 119 but have not been 
included into the European standards up to now. 
2.3. Domestic containers in USA 
Domestic containerization in USA is a considerable new develop­
ment. It followed the introduction of double stack container 
trains between US Pacific ports and the continental hinterland. 
- 11 -3-? 
All domestic containers that have been developed up to now make 
full use of the generous semi-trailer dimensions allowed in USA: 
2 600 mm width 
14 640 mm length 
up to 2 900 mm height. 
As some major states in the Western part of the USA allow mean­
while semi-trailers up to 53 ft. length, first domestic con­
tainers with this length (« 16.1 m) are built. 
The strength of the US domestic containers is lower as that of 
ISO maritime containers, this being quite similar to European 
inland containers. 
As corner fittings are concerned, the US development obviously 
goes the same way as the Europeans had gone: Bottom corner fitt­
ings are located at the same place as those of similar ISO con­
tainers, so that domestic units can be handled and transported 
with the same equipment as maritime containers. 
3. Modular concepts in transport and their impact on transport 
systems 
3. 1. Modular concepts in packaging and in palletization 
Before the container transport system emerged, intensive 
standardization work had been executed on palletization and 
packaging. In the 1950s the discussion on European pallet con­
centrated on two sizes: 800 x 1200 mm and 1000 x 1200 mm. In the 
following years, European industry decided to adapt both sizes: 
one part, e. g. the chemical industry, preferred the 1000 x 1200 
mm concept, while others, e. g. retail commerce, concentrated on 
800 x 1200 mm. The packaging industry finally developed a modular 
system of packages based on the module 400 x 600 mm. This module 
fitted in both standard pallet sizes. Meanwhile, the majority of 
warehousing and loading activities are based on palletized units, 
most of them using one of the two standard sizes. 
In this context, the arrival of a standard container with a load­
ing width of 2330 mm created major concern, because this 
dimension did not at all fit into any of these modular systems 
(picture 1). A lot of debates followed the ISO decision. 
In the packaging and unit load standardization activities, a new 
modular concept was suggested. This concept was based on the 
internal dimensions of the ISO container. The majority of 
European countries fiercely opposed such ideas, taking account of 
the billions of ECU invested in automated warehouse systems, 
material flow installations and handling equipment based on the 
modular system and its standard pallets. 
In the end, the ISO Technical Committee dealing with unit loads 
and packaging standardized a unit load of 1000 x 1200 mm inter­
nationally. 
The discrepancies between these modular dimensions and the 
internal width of ISO containers did not come out as disastrous 
as it had been expected. In international maritime trade, the 
vast majority of containers are loaded with mixed consignments, 
3 y 
so that a uniform pallet system is not existing anyway. Some 
containers go out fully packed by unitized packages with consumer 
goods or spare parts of the automobile industry. In these cases, 
the exporters have made the necessary arrangements to alter their 
packages in a way that they fit into the ISO container. Today, 
only a few problems remain as result of the discrepancies between 
ISO container standardization and modular unit load dimensions. 
An important impact to the solution of this problem had been the 
design of the domestic units with 2500 mm outer and 2440 mm inner 
width (pictures 2, 3). They are able to accommodate standard unit 
loads, but only with certain restrictions. Two unit loads of 1200 
mm width each leave a nominal space of 40 mm for maneuvering -
and this has to be divided by three. If the pallet has only a 
small plus tolerance, or if the load on the pallet is stowed with 
a small overhang, this concept does no longer work. 
For the time being, unit loads are transported in domestic units 
side by side. But they need to be adequately stowed - e. g. by 
shrink wrapping - to fit into the system. 
As result of this development, the ISO container could not 
operate commercially competitive in the European inland transport 
market. Some operations may occur, when an ISO container takes 
cargo on a pure inland movement on an otherwise empty positioning 
run, but it never played a role as a competitive means of trans­
port compared to conventional wagon or truck, or to inland con­
tainers and swap bodies. 
3.2. Loading volume of transport vehicles and modular concepts 
To understand the development in the field of container 
standards, and to be well aware of the future desires concerning 
transport systems, some ideas have to be mentioned as far the 
optimum dimensional configuration of a container is concerned. 
First of all it has to be stated that the internal volume of a 
container does give some information, but by far not all for its 
capacity to accommodate cargo. 
If, e. g., the trade offers only palletized unit loads to be 
transported, the load carrying capacity can only be counted in 
pallet accommodation places. Any additional space that does not 
give enough stowage possibility for an additional pallet is wast­
ed and will not count commercially. 
The next item is the loading height: Some items or some unit 
loads may be stacked above each other. Some may be not. If the 
trade offers only non stackable items of, say, 1.80 m height, any 
loading capacity in height above these 1.80 m to 2.00 m is wasted 
space and does not count commercially. 
Another value that influences these loading patterns is the mass-
/volume ratio. If this ratio is, say, in the area of 1, this will 
lead to a situation where the container arrives at its weight 
limit before it is fully loaded. 
Finally, all these calculations have to take into account the 
question how much labor and efforts the consignor of the con­
tainer will take to load the container. If this loading is ex-
- 13 -
ecuted very carefully and done by skilled personal, many more 
items will go into the container than in the case of a hasty 
loading. So, another question has to ask: Is there a transport 
price arrangement that gives a bonus to the shipper if he loads 
the container so careful that it takes more cargo? Generally 
speaking, one can assume that the longer the transport distance, 
the more care is taken for loading. This is because the loading 
(and unloading) cost is not dependent from the distance which the 
container moves, while the transport cost depend from the trans­
port distsnce. So, at a smaller distance it is more important so 
save costs on loading and discharging, even if the transport 
costs are higher, while in longer distances the additional costs 
for careful stowage easier can be offset by the benefits of the 
additional cargo accommodated in the container and transported 
over a larger distance. For European transport practice, these 
theoretical deliberations may lead to the following principles: 
- Since a large proportion of European transport volume is 
palletized, any dimension characteristic of containers has to 
be made up in standard pallet accommodations, i. e. in 
squares of 800 x 1200 mm or 1000 x 1200 mm plus 10 to 20 mm 
intermediate maneuvering space between each unit load and 
between the cargo and the inner walls of the container. 
Since the loading height of European unit loads is in 
general 1.10 m for the normal item and 1.80 m for the extra 
high loaded one, an internal height of 2.40 m (2 normal 
units either stacked onto each other or with intermediate 
deck) for the container will be sufficient for general cargo 
trade. 
In the case of liquids and other materials to be transported 
in bulk, and in the case of many items in the family of 
semi-finished iron and steel products, the question for 
additional loading volume does not make sense. But in the 
majority of the cargo items being subject to European trade 
flows a constant desire xor additional volume exists. 
As European transport flows are moved over relatively small 
distances compared to overseas trade, the question of easy 
and efficient loading and discharging of containers is far 
more important than in maritime trade. 
I 
I 
I 
—ft 
I 
I 
o 
I 
I 
—ft 
I 
I 
—ft 00 
I 



- 22 -V* 
B. Impact of standardized load units on transport infrastructures 
4. Impact of container standardisation on road vehicle design 
4.1. General 
Road vehicle design is a most important issue for all de­
liberations concerning container standardisation. Maritime 
transport grants a rather wide freedom with regard to the 
dimensions of a container. Whether the ships cell is built for a 
container of 14,670 mm x 2,600 mm basic dimension or for a con­
tainer with 12,192 mm x 2,438 mm, is no matter of principle. 
The only mode that gives severe dimensional restrictions on the 
one hand, and, on the other hand, ia an indispensable part of 
almost any door-to-door transport chain, is road transport. So 
the influence of road vehicle design on containers is a most 
serious matter. 
The influence between road vehicle design and container 
dimensions is indirect. In most cases, the limits of road infra­
structure and the national legislation give an outline that de­
scribes the overall length, height and width of a road vehicle, 
its turning circles and axle load configurations. Now the de­
signer must decide what part of that space is needed for the 
technical system "road vehicle" and what can be granted to the 
cargo carrying device, i. e. the container. If tires of large 
diameter are used together with a spacious suspension system, a 
larger part of the overall vehicle height is used for the running 
gear and a smaller part can be given to the container. The 
similar applies to the length. 
The relation between a container and the road vehicle design will 
be, thus, influenced by two main factors: 
the national legislation concerning road vehicles 
the state of the art of road vehicle e*»»1™*^'*: *[ thC 
.pace which the road vehicle designer uses *°r technical 
features and the space he can leave for the containers 
carried. 
This has led to the proliferation of short,end in «ose «ses excessively 
short, drivers cabins and, «or the road train extremely close coupled 
motor vehicles and trailers. The directive for articulated vehicle length. 
(Directive 89/461/EEC) and the proposal for drawbars in restricting load 
length to 15,3 m recognises the need to provide 
ergonomie condition for the driver without necessitating 
irrealistic vehicle lengths. 
•- 23 - y g 
4.2. ISO series 1 containers 
W1 DTH 
ISO series 1 containers took over the widths limitation for road 
vehicles existing in many countries at that time, i. e. in the 
late 1960s. So, the 2 438 mm width of the container did not 
create any difficulties for road vehicle design. The only ex­
emption has been some parts of the Swiss road network. 
HEIGHT 
The height of 2591 mm for a standard ISO container does no longer 
create difficulties for road vehicles with an overall height 
limit of 4000 mm. In the past, when tires of larger diameter had 
been used, some difficulties existed with regard to the trans­
portation of these containers on semi-trailers; these 
difficulties mainly arrived with 12,191 mm long containers. 
LENGTH 
Since the EEC allows today articulated vehicles of 16,500 mm 
overall length, containers of 2591 mm height and 12,191 mm length 
can be carried within the legal limit, especially when using a 
goose-neck chassis. 
In the early time of containerization, when many countries limit­
ed the overall length of an articulated road vehicle to 15,000 mm 
or the length of a semi-trailer to 12,000 mm, the 12,191 mm long 
container created difficulties. This is, even today, in many 
countries outside the EEC the case. These containers needed at 
that time an extra permit, which was granted after a while with­
out greater bureaucratic problems. 
TURNING CIRCLE 
Articulated vehicles with 12,191 mm long containers have no 
difficulties to manage the turning circle as described by 
legislation. They need partly special features in the rear axle 
combination which might add in cost. 
WEIGHT/MASS 
Taking into account the limit of 40,000 kg gross mass for a road 
vehicle circulating within EEC, the largest ISO container when 
fully loaded would have difficulties, because some 8,000 kg for 
the truck and some 3,000 kg for container chassis have to be 
added to the gross weight of the container of 30,480 kg. The EEC 
regulation allowing 44,000 kg gross weight for road vehicles when 
carrying containers in intermodal runs caters for this problem 
meanwhile. Only the restrictions in North-South transit - 28,000 
kg max. gross weight in Switzerland, 38,000 kg max. gross in 
regular transit through Austria, 40,000 kg upon payment of a 
"penalty*' - applied by the non-EEC countries create problems. But 
these restrictions do not hamper the traffic very much because 
Intercontainer and UIRR piggy-back companies provide at present a 
very competitive intermodal link between Italy and the North of 
Europe without such weight restrictions. 
- 24 -
4.3. ISO 2nd generation containers 
WIDTH 
The planned width of 2600 mm for ISO future containers clearly 
goes beyond the limit of EEC directive. Few EEC and non EEC 
European countries allow today an outer width of 2600 mm. 
Nevertheless. such a width is allowed for ctctain temperature-
insulated vehicles and containers fulfilling the conditions of ATP. 
Table 
max width for road vehicles 
Country sax width remarks 
Austria 2.5 m 
Finland 2.6 m 
Norway 2.5 m 
Sweden 2.6m 
Switzerland 2.5 m on main transit roads 
Belgium 2.6 m 
Denmark 2.55 m 
France 2.5 m 2.55 m on superstructure 
2.6 m on reefer 
FR Germany 2.5 m 2.6 m on reefer 
Great Britain 2.5 m 2.6 m on reefer 
Italy 2.5 m 2.6 m on reefer 
Luxemburg 2.5 m 2.6 m on reefer 
Netherlands 2.6 m 
HEIGHT 
The height of 2900 mm for some present ISO containers and for 
future containers can be included in road vehicle design with a 
limit of the overall height of 4000 mm, when using small diameter 
tires. This has some disadvantages: Either the total gross weight 
of the road vehicle is further limited, or a costly double tire 
arrangement has to be used. The pressure of these tires towards 
the road surface might increase, causing increased road main­
tenance costs. 
LENGTH 
As lengths are concerned, two concepts for the future ISO con­
tainer are under discussion. 
14,640 mm (48 ft.) 
14,950 mm (49 ft.), eventually divided into 2 modular half 
units. 
Both length dimensions when not divided clearly go beyond any­
thing that can be accommodated within the legal frame of 16,500 
mm for an articulated vehicle. 
The 14,950 mm length, when divided into 2 modular half units, 
would fit on a European road train, even if the envisaged 
limitation of the total loading length of 15,000 mm will be de­
cided by the Council. 
- 25 -
SA 
TURNING CIRCLE 
Experts from the road vehicle building industry have given the 
view, that an articulated road vehicle can be built to any length 
up to 18 000 mm in a way that it fits into the present turning 
circle. 
This would not include the ability of such vehicles to maneuver 
round rectangular bends in narrow streets in towns. 
WEIGHT/MASS 
No severe increase of maximum gross mass for future containers 
has been seriously suggested up to now, so that at present one 
can assume that these containers will have the same rating as the 
ISO 12,191 mm length container. 
4.4. European inland containers and swap bodies 
WIDTH 
European inland containers are built to a width of 2500 mm taking 
fully into account the EEC regulations. 
The same applies to the state of the discussions in CEN/TC 119 
"Swap bcdies" as f*r as the width is concerned. But in this 
standardization body the question has been raised, whether a 
small increase in width (possibly up to 2550 mm without plus 
tolerance) would result in a swap body with better pallet loading 
features. This discussion is well aware of the fact that some 
European Countries allow 2600 mm width, while others give an 
interpretation of the legal 2500 mm as being "a plus tolerance of 
up to 2 % to be added" which would equal a regulation "2550 mm 
without plus tolerance". 
The formula for such a scheme could be as such: 
unit loads accommodated: 2 x 1.200 or 3 x 800 mm * 2.400 mm 
maneuvring space min. 3 x 10 mm = 30 mm 
maneuvring space max. 4 x 20 mm s 80 mm 
2 side-walls 30 mm each « 60 mm 
design tolerance 10 mm 
total outer width including plus tolerance 2.550 mm 
HEIGHT 
In practice and in standardization process, all units are design­
ed at a maximum height of 2670 mm. This should not create 
difficulties in road vehicle overall height limited to 4000 mm. 
- 26 -
LENGTH 
Inland containers are standardized—at lengths of •-_.._ 
6 050 mm, 
7 150 mm, 
12 191 mm. 
All these lengths do not create any difficulties as EEC 
regulations are concerned. 
In swap body standardization, the following lengths are under discussion: 
7,150 mm, 
7,420 mm, 
7,820 mm. 
All three lengths fit into the concept of a road train of 18,000 
mm total length, where two swap bodies of identical length are 
transported. 
The 7,420 mm length, and especially the 7,820 mm length assume 
that the road train is equipped with a short coupling device and 
a rather short driver cabin. This would mean a coupling distance 
between motor vehicle and trailer of less than 1,000 mm length. 
If the total loading length of road trains would be limited to 15,300 
mm, the transport of 2 swap bodies of 7,820 mm each will no 
longer possible. If such swap bodies are used, they can only be 
transported together with a unit of 7,150 mm length. But the 
transport of two units of different length creates organizational 
and technical problems in operations and is not a desirable 
feature. 
A query to include swap bodies with a length of more than 8000 mm 
into the work has been postponed. 
For the articulated vehicle, the discussion about swap body 
length has been postponed as well, expecting the results of ISO 
work on future containers and the recent EEC decision on 
articulated vehicle lengths. 
TURNING CIRCLE 
No problem. 
5. Specific Problems with Regard to European Railways 
5.1. General 
European railway networks have, in some countries, a major market 
share in the hinterland transportation of maritime containers. 
This applies mainly to France, Federal Republic of Germany, Great 
Britain and the container traffic flows between North Italy and 
the North Sea ports. 
S3 
Furthermore, railway has gained a major share of the high-value 
goods transport market by its offers in road-rail intermodal 
transport services. Intermodal transport traffic today counts for 
less than 10 % of the tonnage carried by Deutsche Bundesbahn 
(German Federal Rail), this transport market is quickly growing 
in volume compared to most other market sectors of rail which are 
declining. The US rail-road Atchinson, Topeka ft Santa Fe reports 
that their intermodal operations have meanwhile arrived at a 
total share of 40 % of their tonnage carried. 
The issue of intermodal road-rail operations are politically very 
sensitive, bearing in mind the following facts: 
1. 
Rail transport is generally regarded to be not to the same extent 
detrimental regarding the environment than road transport. 
2. 
Rail transport relies to a much smaller degree on energy based on 
mineral oil than road transport; it can produce transport 
services with lower energy consumption than road transport, if 
well organized. 
3. 
Almost all railway networks are owned by the EEC member States. 
These States are interested, amongst others, for fiscal reasons 
in a larger transport volume of their railways generating ad­
ditional income and reducing the present deficit of the railways. 
4. 
Many railway lines are not at their capacity limits, while the 
highway network is in many parts overcrowded. So, a shift of 
transport volume from road to rail can improve the overall 
traffic situation. 
The capacity argument could, in future, aggravate if new high 
speed passenger rail lines are built, and, as a consequence, a 
large part of present express passenger services is transferred 
to the new lines thus creating additional capacity possibilities 
in the traditional rail network. 
5. 
Rail transport is regarded as safer than road transport. 
At least the States whose railways have today a major intermodal 
traffic volume will avoid any development toward intermodal load­
ing units (ISO containers, non-ISO maritime containers, domestic 
containers, swap bodies) that are disadvantageous for their rail­
way systems. 
5.2. Width and Height 
The possibilities of European Railway to carry containers of 
extended height and width are influenced by a number of factors. 
So, a very differing picture must be drawn with regard to that 
question. 
Generally speaking, all railway networks have an infrastructure 
limit set by the tunnel gauge. Since this is a semi-circ * 
- 28 -
limitation line formed like an arch, it gives a joint limit to 
the width and the height of the upper corner of any item carried 
over the rail. 
It depends on the degree of the angle of this arch, whether the 
limitation is more serious with respect to the height or to the 
width. 
To make matters more complicated: Each railway administration has 
its own "standard" tunnel gauge differing of the others, and 
almost all railways have, within their networks, lines with a 
tunnel gauge more generous than the general standard, and some 
lines with further limitations. Lines with increased tunnel gauge 
may or may not be of some importance for container movements. 
To bring some order into that puzzle, the following basic state­
ments can give a general guidance: 
1. 
If a gauge limit is desired that allows absolute free movement 
within all EEC countries, Switzerland and Austria, one would 
arrive at a very low limit that would seriously affect rail 
transport efficiency. 
2. 
British rail has the smallest tunnel gauge in West Europe. 
France, parts of Belgium, Italy and most Alp crossing lines have 
a medium size tunnel gauge. Germany, Denmark, Netherland, parts 
of Switzerland and Austria have a generous tunnel profile. 
3. 
In all networks, those lines that have been electrified in the 
years after 1950 offer mostly an improved tunnel profile. 
For the further discussion of the possible height and width ex­
tension of intermodal loading units, another feature has to be 
taken into account as well: the platform height of rail wagons 
that carry such units. 
To bring order into the various relations between this factor and 
the tunnel gauge, again some thesis are compiled: 
1. 
If rather high and/or wide unit have to be transported in railway 
systems with limited tunnel gauge, the design of low platform 
wagons can give improved possibilities. 
2. 
The offer of a very low platform comes soon to a limit, partly 
commercially partly technical. 
Low platform wagon can be designed by use of very small wheels. 
This results in a multi-axle wagon, costly to build and to main­
tain. 
Alternatively, low platforms can be achieved by accommodating the 
load carrying platform between the bogies, i. e. to form a 
"well". This results in train configurations with a greater 
length. In all cases, where train length is the limiting factor 
of rail lines, this will result in reduced capacity use. *T< 
- 29 - ss 
3. 
Whatever design is made, no wagon can be created that allows in 
any European rail network a double stack container trans­
portation. 
4. 
Commercial road vehicles making full use of Directive 85/3/EEC, 
i. e. having a height of 4.000 mm and a width of 2.500 mm, can be 
transported in piggyback mode only on selected main lines of the 
German, Netherlands, Danish and Austrian network. They cannot 
pass the Alp crossing lines. 
5. 
Containers of 2900 mm height and 2440 mm width will need 
specialized wagons in France, Italy, South Belgium and very 
specialized low platform wagons in Great Britain. The same 
applies for Alp crossings. When containers of 2900 mm height have 
an external width of 2600 mm, these problems are aggravated. 
"Specialized rail wagons" mean that the railway administration is 
forced to invest in new rolling stock - which might create pro­
blems since the investment budget of most railways is limited. 
Furthermore, this will result in a mixed rolling stock for rail­
ways with additional costs for control, positioning and main­
tenance. 
5.3. Length 
Wagons used in intermodal transport have differing loading 
lengths. Generally speaking, the following types occur mostly: 
12.2 m loading length (40 ft.), 2 axles 
- 14.3 m and more loading length (1 aemi-trailer or 2 swap 
bodies), 4 axles 
- 18.3 m loading length (60 ft.), 4 axles 
18.5 m very low platform, 8 axles ("Rollende Landstrasse"). 
From the point of view of most efficient use of rail intermodal 
transport capacity, a limited number of modular lengths for 
intermodal units is desirable. Furthermore, utmost stability in 
the development of length standards over the time is desirable, 
since rail wagons often are depreciated over a period of 30 
years; wagons are in service over a long time period. Any basic 
change in length of intermodal units to be carried by rail could 
result in premature obsolescence of rolling stock. 
The total loading length of 18,3 m offered today by standard 
container wagons is rather the length limit for a non-articulated 
unit. So, as regards length, all present or future containers can be, from a 
technical point of view, transported by rail mode without 
technical difficulties. However, length is critical as far as economic 
utilization of the railwagon is concerned. 
Fixing the loading length (in place of or additional to the total 
length) of commercial road vehicles would add to the economics of 
intermodal road-rail transport, because this would add to the 
stability in length of the units in commercial road transport and 
hamper a development where these unit grows millimeter by milli­
meter over the years according to technical progress in design of 
shorter driver's cabins or coupling systems. The same applies to 
- 30 -
•*€ 
different loading lengths of articulated road vehicles and road 
trains. These differences lead to intermodal loading units of 
differing sizes creating additional problems for intermodal 
operations. From the point of view of combined transport, a 
unique loading length for both articulated road vehicles and for 
road trains is desirable. It must be pointed out, though, that 
this argument applies only to the economic features of intermodal 
transport. 
6. Specific Problems with Regard to Inland Waterway Transport 
6.1. General 
Inland waterway transport of containers plays a major role in the 
Rhine valley. Traffic flows between the highly industrialized 
areas in the Rhine valley (Ruhrgebiet, Cologne-Bonn, Rhein-Main, 
Rhein-Neckar, Strasbourg, Basel) and the seaports Amsterdam, 
Antwerpen and Rotterdam are very large. Inland waterway of con­
tainers contributes in this traffic flow very much to a well 
balanced transport scheme, since both rail and road networks 
parallel to the Rhine valley are very heavily used and partly at 
the end of their capacity limits. 
Furthermore, inland waterway transport of containers is a rather 
agreeable from a point of view of environmental protection: The 
noise level of inland waterway motor vessels is, at least in the 
towns on the riverside, rather low. The pollution level -
emission of noxious gases per ton-km produced - is equally low. 
The cost of infrastructure maintenance in the Rhine river is very 
low. The energy consumption is very low, as well. So, all 
political indicators show the political important position of 
inland waterway transport of containers in the Rhine valley. 
Outside this area, some transport lines have been established, as 
well. The major of these combine Bremen and Bremerhaven or 
Rotterdam and Antwerpen, mostly for re-positioning of containers. 
Some transports of minor importance are observed on the rivers 
Seine, Rhone and in the Central European canal network. 
6.2. Width of Containers 
Inland waterway vessels may not exceed a total outer width of 
10,000 mm. This is due to the width of most locks and ship lift­
ing installations in the inland waterway network. Only on the 
middle and lower part of the river Rhine, a passage without locks 
is possible. If ships are built wider than 10,000 mm, their 
operations will be definitely limited to this considerable small 
part of the Central European inland waterway network. 
An outer width of 10,000 mm results in an internal space that can 
accommodate up to 4 rows of ISO Containers side by side, as long 
as their width remains at the standardized figure of 2,440 mm. If 
the width of containers is enlarged beyond this limit - may it be 
up to 2,500 mm or 2,600 mm - only three rows of containers can be 
accommodated per ship. This would result in a capacity loss of 25 
X per ship, and increase the transportation costs per container 
carried by the similar value, thus affecting seriously the com­
petitiveness of inland waterway transport mode. 
s-* 
6.3. Length 
Present inland waterway vessels are built according to the 20 ft. 
length module of ISO containers. If containers with a greater 
length come into operation, this modular optimum will be affected 
to a degree that will vary according to the future mix of con­
tainer sizes. 
Anyway, the consequences of longer containers would not be as 
serious as those of wider containers with regard to the future 
economics of inland waterway transport of containers. 
6.4. Height 
Normally, containers are stacked 3 to 4 high on board of an in­
land waterway vessel. The total height is limited by factors of 
the ship stability. Further limits are set by the height of 
passages underneath bridges crossing inland waterways. 
Since the pilot's cabin is normally situated in the rear of an 
inland waterway vessel, it has to be built in a way that it can 
be lifted such as to give a free view forward over the top of the 
container stacks. In modern purpose built containerships, the 
pilot's cabin is built in a way that it can be lowered and 
elevated to meet differing situations. 
If the height of containers in increased over the today figure of 
2,591 mm, and if new containers with a greater height form a 
large part of the container population, there might arrive a 
limit in the stacking possibilities compared to the situation 
today. 
7. Implications of Alp north-south transit 
In some major European trade routes, a transit through one of the 
non-EEC countries Switzerland or Austria is implied. Both 
countries argue that road transit is detrimental to their 
nstional welfare and try to limit such activities. The most 
successful limitation is executed by the Swiss authorities: With 
its limit of 27,000 kg for gross mass of road vehicles, Switzer­
land shifts a potential road transit volume of estimated 10 
million tons from its roads to those of Austria. 
Success invites for imitation: All transit countries have learnt 
that the easiest way to limit unwanted transit traffic flows is a 
legislation that sets narrow limits for road vehicle dimensions 
and total mass. The first lesson of this kind has been told by 
Austria when this country refused to join EEC regulation to allow 
40,000 kg gross weight for road vehicles. If the EEC allows any­
thing larger than today on its roads, it might easily be predict­
ed that these non-EEC transit countries will not follow. Any of 
these larger vehicles carrying larger containers will not be 
silowed to operate into Italy and Greece by road. 
The piggyback service between Italy and North Europe is an im­
portant trade link between Italy and its EEC partners because 
- Swiss road transit is limited to a 28,000 kg maximum gross 
weight for road vehicles 
- - Austrian road transit is subject to major limitations, 
- conventional rail transport often does not fit into quality 
needs of modern transport and distribution systems. 
The Swiss piggyback transit would be subject to serious diffi­
culties if road trains larger than today come into service. At 
present, the total fleet of wagons for the transport of road 
trains crossing the Alp in Swiss transit is built to accommodate 
rod trains of 
- 18.3 m length, partly 18.0 m length, 
- 40,000 kg total gross mass. 
The following routes are linked by daily block trains using these 
wagons: 
Freiburg - Milano (b) 
Freiburg - Lugano (a) 
Rielasingen - Milano (b) 
Basel - Lugano (a) 
All roues designated (a) allow for a road vehicle corner height 
of 3,800 mm, all designated (b) for 3,600 mm. 
For swap bodies, a corner height of 2,900 mm and more would 
create difficulties, as far as present rolling stock is concern­
ed. A limited number of "jumbo" wagons is in preparation; these 
will allow for an combined transport unit corner height up to 
3,000 mm in Swiss piggyback transit. s 
ANNEX II 5 5 
DISTRIBUTION OF ARTICULATED VEHICLES AND ROAD TRAINS IN THE E.C, 
26°/c 
74°/c 
DIMENSIONS OF CABINS AS PRODUCED IN THE E.C. ANNEX III 
Cc 
CONSTRUCTEUR TYPE DE CABINE COTE A LA TOLE 
(mm) 
Courte Longue ENTREE DE CAISSE 
(Porteurs) (nun) 
Courte | Longue OBSERVATIONS 
VOLVO 
SCANIA FL Courte 
FL Profonde 
F Courte 
F Profonde 1.680 
1.720 1.827 
2.180 
2.045 1.900 (i) 2.327 
2.215 Too Sleeper*' 
(i)1.765 en version 
grana volume 
CG Courte 
CP Courte 
CP Courte 
CP Profonde 
CR Courte 
CR Courte 
CR Profonde 1.630 
1.630 
1.630 
1.630 
1.630 2.200 
2.200 1.670 
1.670 
1.650 
1.960 
1.700 2.210 
2.250 Grand volume 
Grand volume 
i MERCEDES NG 72 Courte 
Moyenne 
Profonde 
Esoace 1.570 I 1.670' 
2.060 
2.170 
2.170 2.260* 
2.260 •1.770 
2.125 
2.305 en version 
Power liner 
MAN NF Grd volume 
F 90 Courte 
F 90 Longue (1.370) 
1.715 (1.430) 
2.1 MO 
2.165 2.250 19.331 ULL 
• Ultra courte 
DAF F 220 Courte 
F 220 Profonde 
F 241 Courte 
F 241 Profonde 
F 249 Courte 
F 249 Profonde 1.615 
(2) 
1.615 
1.620 2.045 
2.045 
2.000 1.730 
1.800 
1.750 2.120 
2.170 
2.190 F 249 • Gamme 95 
(2)1.595 pour l'ootlon 
grand volume 
IVECO Cargo 
Tyoe 2 Courte 
Tyoe 2 Profonde 
Turoostar 1.595 
1.780 1.965'3' 
1.980 
2.140 
2.140 2.350 
2.350 (3) 1.765 pour option 
grand volume 
RVI G 875 
R 2480 Courte 
Profonde 
Courte 
Profonde 1.590 
1.750 2.140 
2.065 '1.760 
\l.680 
T2.150 
11.800-2.350 
2.150 Standard Grand volume 
Standard 
Grand volume 
2.12.86 
ANNEX IV 
•SI 
Joint Committee for Road Transport, Working Party on 
"dimensions of the drivers cabin" Meeting of 22 May 1989 
list of Trade-Union Arguments against the Top-sleeper 
1. Access to the top-sleeper is through a hatch in the roof of 
the cab and this presents additional risk of accidents when 
climbing up and down. 
2. Lighter-than-air fumes can rise-and collect in the top-
sleeper and are a threat to health. 
3. Top-sleepers are not properly ventilated and this is a 
threat to health. 
4. If the occupant of the top-sleeper is incapacitated, it 
could be impossible for another person to enter and rescue 
him as the occupant may be lying on top of the hatch. 
5. If there is a fire in the cab there is no escape for the 
top-sleeper occupant. It has been suggested that an escape 
hatch be fitted at the side, but how does the occupant get 
out ? Head first and fracture his skull on the road or feet 
first and break his legs or back ? 
6. Top-sleepers are not tested to the impact-resistance 
standards for cabs laid down in ECE Regulation 29 and almost 
certainly do not meet these standards. 
7. Where a top-sleeper is fitted afterwards as a conversion of 
a standard cab, this involves cutting a hole in the roof of 
the cab and almost certainly means that the structural 
integrity, and therefore impact-resistance, of the cab is 
diminished. 
3. Where a lorry is double- or triple-manned it is common for a 
driver who is not driving to rest on the bunk. If the 
vehicle is involved in an accident when the top-sleeper is 
occupied, there is a greater risk of the anchorages which 
hold a cab - designed to tip forward for access to the 
engine - breaking as an occupied top-sleeper raises the 
centre of gravity to a considerable degree. The raising of 
the centre of gravity also increases the risk of the cab 
anchorages breaking if the load is projected forward under 
rapid deceleration and hits the rear of the cab. 
9. Research has shown that roll-over accidents place nuch 
greater stress on the cab than was assumed when ECE 
Regulation 29 was drawn up. Roll-over accidents cause a 
relatively high proportion of deaths among occupants of 
standard cabs. Any occupant of a top-sleeper involved in a 
roll-over accident is at great risk of being crushed. 
Swept circle for 
Articulated vehicle according to 89/461/EEC 
(no steeri ng ax les) ANNEX V 
e 
!*X& 
16.5 m 
«.«• 
S.fta 
18 t 22 t X 40 t 
M 1:100 
ANNEX VI 
TURNING AROUND THE CORNER OF THE ARTICULATED VEHICLE £j 
ZZZZZD 
NORMAL COUPLING ANNEX VII 
- 2 -
Draft proposal of the ISO-Subcommittee 15, Working group 4 
"Mechanical couplings" 
Subject: Truck with conventional trailer (normal coupling) GS 
^ 
1500 4-
1400 + 
1300 
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 12C0 1300 1400 1500 1600 y 
ANNEX VIII 
SHORT COUPLING 
Drs-** proposal of the ISO-Subcommittee 15, Working group 4 
"Mechanical couplings" 
Subject: Truck with central axle trailer (short coupling) 2. 
600 -h 
553 
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800' 20C0 ??00 A E \ Z / T E 2 6 .1 C . B; 
ANNEX IX 
EXAMPLES OF EXTENDABLE COUPLINGS Gff 
- 2 -
- 3 -

in 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(90) 186 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 07 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-90-179-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-59729-1 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg