by Malcolm Bates
An ability to see into the future would be a very useful thing for a journalist. Just think of the advantages. Already knowing the final outcome of heated debates would prevent me being sidetracked by issues that, in the fullness of time, will turn out to be of no real value. In the context of product testing, I could concentrate all my efforts on following the development of sure-fire winners – without travelling the planet to see vehicles, equipment and systems that didn’t make the grade. If I really could go Back to the Future like Marty McFly in the well-known movie, I think I’d be more tempted to check out winning lottery numbers than to plot the course of the waste and recycling industry! But joking aside, our industry has an enormous responsibility to do the right thing to help safeguard and protect the environment for those who come after us. So in the real world – without the aid of science fiction – how can we hope to do that, while still meeting operational needs?
It might sound crazy, but often when looking at future requirements, we can learn from the past. For a start, ‘recycling’ isn’t new. The word itself might now be found in just about every TV news bulletin, business magazine or government policy study, but when I started my career in the waste industry (not that long ago!), recycling was called ‘salvage’ and baling waste paper was a well-paid Saturday morning job for a young, hard-up design student working for the local council during the summer holidays. The problem then – and now – is finding a market for the end product.
Looking back through my photographic archive of refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) built during the 1920s and 30s, it’s interesting to note the bold sign-written messages on the vehicles, aimed at local residents. One common message that often featured in the UK was ‘Burn More Refuse’ – the idea being that this helped to reduce the bulk of material needing disposal. While our attitude toward global warming might have changed today, one type of waste that was of special significance back then is enjoying a return to importance today – and that is food and organic waste.
Leaving aside the disturbing fact that half the world seems increasingly incapable of feeding itself without subsidies and aid, while the developed world throws away millions of tonnes of food, it’s quite clear that finding a use for food waste could help reduce the growing drain on world resources while making general waste collection easier – if not easing our guilt for being so wasteful in the first place.
Taking food-waste out of residual waste
Clearly, taking food waste out of the main waste stream seems to offer several advantages. The biggest challenge today is how to collect and dispose of food waste quickly and efficiently without inflicting unpleasant smells, flies and vermin on residents – the same issues as in the 1930s.
This is where an ability to see into the future would also help because there are different opinions of what the right way forward should be. Taking out food waste from the ‘residual’ waste bin can help reduce weight, liquid content and odours. In turn, that might help reduce the number of collections from each resident from, say, daily to weekly, or in more temperate climates, from weekly to fortnightly. Unfortunately though, such changes are increasing unpopular – especially where vandalism, the imposition of specific pay-by-weight charges, or increased regulation is involved.
The demand for food waste as part of a green waste ‘mix’ for in-vessel composting plants is certainly on the rise at present and could, therefore, have an effect on local politics. This is ‘new business’ which could radically alter waste collection fleet make-up in terms of vehicle size and specifications – partly because dedicated collections could easily be organized by commercial companies, or franchisees. Separation of food waste from residual waste is even more important because plants will require a constant supply of material.
Good news in store?
So what is the most likely design of vehicle suitable for dedicated food waste collections? For fleet managers used to the added complexity and costs of each successive new generation of truck, there’s good news in store. Just as one of the best units for the collection of green waste material – Rotopress manufactured by Faun in Germany – turned out to be ‘low tech’ (in that it doesn’t rely on advanced electronics), so the best unit for dedicated food waste collection seems to be the equally low-tech and cheap-to-buy satellite unit based on a light commercial chassis in the 5.5–7.5 tonne gross weight bracket.
Even without the benefit of time travel, the good news seems to be on more than one level. Firstly, as we detailed in the May–June issue of Waste Management World, production truck chassis in this weight range are now available in either entirely electric, or diesel/electric ‘hybrid’ form as well as diesel – whereas heavier alternative-fuelled trucks are still elusive, expensive and/or compromised in terms of payload, or operational range. And because at least three examples originate from Japan (Hino, Mitsubishi-Fuso and Isuzu), there’s a very good chance the ‘packaging’ will be acceptable in wider global markets.
The good news also covers the issue of size. In urban areas, the typical two-axle 18-tonne gross weight truck, or three or four-axle machine running at 26 to 32 tonnes or more, is increasingly seen as an ‘enemy’ to the environment. Despite the fact that heavier trucks are more economical on a tonne-per-kilometre basis, on the highway stuck in an urban traffic jam, they are increasingly seen as a problem. In contrast, a truck chassis up to 12–13 tonnes gross weight goes unnoticed and is more able to squeeze through narrow gaps in the traffic without hold-ups.
 The concept of a compact purpose-built refuse collector designed for urban use is not new – this SD Freighter was in operation in Rangoon, in the 1920s. |
In terms of waste and recyclable materials collection units, the ability to keep ‘on the move’ could more than offset the added cost of a numerically larger fleet employing more drivers – especially as a heavy truck caught in traffic is still burning diesel fuel and pumping exhaust gasses into the atmosphere.
 Designs of RCVs suitable for food and greenwaste collection are not ‘new’ either - German manufacturer Faun introduced the ‘Rotapress’ in the 1930s. |
Could the past teach us anything here? One of the most cherished items in my waste industry archive collection is a restored Shelvoke & Drewry Freighter refuse collector. Manufactured in 1922, it features a transverse-mounted petrol (gasoline) engine and semi-automatic gearbox, a low loading height (thanks to small diameter solid tyres) and, unusually for the period, a hydraulic body tipping system. In the 1920s and 30s, many waste collection services were still horse-drawn, so any internal combustion-engined vehicle was a technical advance. But whereas horse-drawn wagons were able to negotiate narrow back lanes and were able to start and stop on command, early trucks were often unwieldy.
Unlike most trucks of the era, the SD Freighter (which was exported throughout the world), was specifically designed for short haul, stop/start duties in an urban environment – a direct contrast with today where most truck chassis are geared for normal highway operations. With the recent availability of hybrids – which are primarily of value in urban operations – could we see a return to this split in vehicle specifications? There are now specific designs of ‘city cars’ – so why not ‘city trucks’?
Going large
Clearly, the widespread change to smaller truck chassis in an industry that collects millions of tonnes of waste materials globally isn’t going to happen. But perhaps greater diversification and variety in the type of vehicles and body equipment we use is the answer?
As truck chassis used in waste collection in urban environments grow larger, more lift and/or steer axles become ever more essential. Unfortunately these often create as many operational problems as they solve. So it begs a rather obvious question – why hasn’t the concept of articulation taken off in waste collection? It is, after all, widely used with refuse bulker semi-trailers.
 Or is the introduction of articulated RCVs the way forward? Italian manufacturer Ecofar already has such units in operation |
This suggestion is not as odd as it might sound as articulated RCVs have been specified since the 1930s. The City of Westminster Council in London, UK, even ran battery electric-powered articulated units in the 1950s; Hong Kong used articulated Dennis RCVs in the 1970s; and, as we noted in last month’s issue of Waste Management World, Italian manufacturer Iride has recently delivered some 44-tonne gross, tri-axle articulated trailer units to a North African customer. Suddenly articulation is a hot topic once more.
Like multi-modal, or swap body systems, an articulated RCV trailer enables a high-powered truck to be specified to work at highway speeds, taking laden trailers to ever more distant MRFs or landfills, while enabling lower-geared, automatic gearbox tractor units to be used when collecting in urban areas. The collection tractor could be natural-gas-fuelled, or feature low-entry accommodation for the crew. Changing tractors and swapping laden trailers for empties is quick and easy. An articulated compaction-type RCV running at around 35–38 tonnes, featuring a rear-steer axle on the trailer would be as manoeuvrable as a typical 26-tonne three axle truck, yet it could have double the payload – thus making it an ideal ‘mother ship’ unit working with a number of smaller satellite vehicles. I’m informed a prototype is already being designed as you read this, so ‘the future’ could be here already!
Alternative thinking
Articulation is just one possible development. The true multi-modal, swap body system such as that already designed by German-based HN Logistic for the City of London in the UK, but still as yet, not actually ordered, has considerable merit. Waste Management World has been lucky enough to have tried the prototype trials unit, based on a 26-tonne gross weight 6x2 rear-steer Mercedes Econic, and found it to have potential for wider application in other major cities worldwide. Surprisingly, it is far less complex, and is lighter, than expected. Fitted with a typical binlifter, the modified HN Logistic City Loader compaction hopper unit is ‘unlocked’ from the actual body container by sliding it rearwards, allowing the body to be lifted clear. Surprisingly, the weight penalty of this extra equipment and the subframe to lock the body container to the chassis is only around 200 kg.
 German manufacturer HN Logistic has developed an alternative to the mother ship/satellite approach – maximizing the versatility of hooklift demountable bodies. |
How is this achieved? The body itself – which is unloaded from the front end and packed from the rear when loading – is effectively sealed during transfer and transportation. The whole design gets over the complexities of a traversing ‘ejector’ plate – which on most RCV designs is also used as a moving compaction plate while loading – by not having one! Instead, the compaction process is aided by a clever curved ‘flipper’ section inside the loading aperture that creates the right flow pattern inside the body to achieve even compaction ratios and completely fill the airspace. Not having an ejector plate – or a large hydraulic ram filled with oil – not only helps save unladen weight, it makes the whole system more reliable to operate.
So is the future lots of smaller satellite RCVs and dedicated food waste units? Some smaller units and a few much larger articulated ‘mother ships’? Or demountable ‘multi-modal’ collection vehicles, with hooklift demount truck/trailer bulkers; special liner trains; or canal barges taking containers of recyclable materials to ports for export, or residual waste to power generation plants? Or is it none of the above?
Waste Management World would love to hear your views. Not only on the future, but also the history of our industry. And wherever you’re located in the world, if you think your current method of operation is already showing the way ahead to meet future needs, we’d love to hear from you.
In the meantime, I’ll keep searching for a crystal ball...
Malcolm Bates is Transport Correspondent of Waste Management World
e-mail: wmw@pennwell.com
