• Ingela Sundin and Anders Gunneriusson from STA welcome participants and open the meeting.
• Anders Gunneriusson reminds the contexts of this informal group on MVC, which is a continuation of the group on ACV (Automated Coupling between Vehicles).
• Terms of reference and rules of procedures of the ACV group are briefly reminded.
• Anders Gunneriusson informs participants that the name of the informal group will be changed from “ACV” to “MVC” in the UNECE web-site by the UN secretariat.

• Anders Gunneriusson calls for volunteers to chair this informal group
• The group elects Anders Gunneriusson as chairman of the MVC informal group.

The agenda is approved.

Background (extract from agenda):

• Vehicle combinations according to EMS system can already be accepted for international traffic, however different national requirements makes that difficult. The aim of the work should be to set a harmonized technical level so that countries that want to allow EMS vehicles can rely on harmonized technical requirements in the various regulation and not making national requirements.
• Other aims

• The chair presents GRRF informal document GRRF-76-29 and gives some background of EU 96/53 discussions, for information.
• Chair: the work now is not to find way to assess or to regulate combinations (as in the PBS approach), but to stick to the UNECE type approval approach addressing individual vehicles.
• Bolennarth Svensson (VBG and secretary of UN R55 informal group) agrees to make a status of the work of the Informal Group UN R55 on MVC, later during this meeting.
• Which regulation to be amended in our IG is a major question for this meeting: UN R13 and R55 and obviously affected.
• What about UN R79:
  • Looks not necessary for MAN.
  • Wabco raises the point of CLCCR proposal at GRRF around steering systems for trailers where electrical supply is provided by truck.
  • Chair raises the issue of dollies and steerable front axle of the dolly (required in Germany); an extensive discussion follows:
    • MAN: a dolly is a trailer
    • VBG: “turn table” mandatory in SWE, DK, NW, not steerable axle
    • NW: turn table is required due to risk of too high friction forces on the 5th wheel during winter time.
    • Many questions are raised:
      • Do we need to harmonize requirements on dollies?
      • Should a dolly be type approved to UN R79? Is it possible today?
      • What is a dolly: a centre-axle trailer, A device to convert a semi-trailer into a full-trailer (see CLEPA proposed definition GRRF-66-08), a tractor for semi-trailer?
    • DK believes a dolly is not a device to convert a semi-trailer into a full-trailer (unless it cannot be dismounted, but then the issue of what is a dolly remains, this approach is a dead-end)

What is relevant for a:
5.1 Truck intended for towing multiple trailers

• Volvo: we should avoid specific requirements for trucks, as far as possible; to avoid burden on truck driver (in-use requirements); It does not matter if the weight is distributed on one or two trailers, what matters for the truck is the weight (“60t on one or two trailers is still 60t”)
• DK does not agree; trucks able to tow several trailers should be safer than the ones able to tow only one trailer; e.g. EBS brakes, ESC, front under-run protection etc.
• Chair raises the question of a router on the trailer
• Knorr: should the truck display which trailer is failing, or only that one trailer behind is failing?
• Scania supports Volvo comment that total weight is the point, not how many trailers are behind (see Volvo comment above); it is not required that the truck shows which trailer is failing.
• BPW: are there any requirements regarding power supply dimensioning?
• Volvo: truck should warn that trailer braking is failing; no need to inform driver about which trailer is failing (this is diagnostics); “router” is a technical solution, UN R13 should express non-design restrictive requirements.
• NW believes it is of interest to differentiate which trailer is failing.
• NL: supports Volvo that what is important is the total weight, not the number of trailers; no need to know which trailer is failing; ideal solution is not to have a special tractor to tow several trailers.
• Reaction time is a question to be addressed.
• Wabco points out that “EBS” is used in the discussions, while this is not defined in UN R13. The real point is the “electric control line”.
• Scania: ESC is required by UN R13, not the electric control line; the electric control line could be required for towing trailers, not for trucks.
• Proposal from Wabco and FIN to get inspiration from other regulations: ADR in Australia, national regulations in EU, FMVSS etc.

5.2 trailer to be type approved for towing other trailers
5.3 Dolly to become type approved

• BPW: dolly is required to provide 50% brake rate, while semi-trailer is only 45%
• The question of what is a dolly is coming back: it is a centre-axle trailer; a tractor for semi-trailer, the front axle of a full-trailer…?
• Volvo; should we limit the scope of our discussions to a max number of trailers to simplify the issue? (e.g. “only” two semi-trailers)
• The chair agrees to the proposal and remind the TOR mentions only current and emerging solutions should be covered, not unpredictable far future, thus considering 2 semi-trailers is enough at this point.
• MAN and FIN: we should at least try to regulate dollies, so that they are type approved; there is kind of common agreement on this point.
• VBG supports: dolly must be kept in the scope.
• The definition of a dolly in CLEPA UN R13 proposal (“A dolly” is deemed to have one or more axles and is used to convert a semi-trailer to a full trailer.) is maybe valid for braking, but not for couplings: hinge drawbar and rigid drawbar dollies are different things etc.

5.4 Braking, steering and coupling systems in multiple trailer combinations
5.5 Stability systems

• 1st day:
  • MAN: should we define/request ESC for dollies? Semi-trailer are required to have roll-over prevention; do we need directional control in a dolly?
  • Wabco believes roll-over on a dolly is enough; MAN agrees.
  • NL: should the towing trailer brake the trailer behind in case of ESC intervention?
  • No conclusion, this is an open issue to be dealt in the group.
• On 2nd day, the discussion goes further on the question of stability:
  • Some more background highlighted by the Chair (available on NVF web-site):
    • Presentation of John Aurell / Thomas Wadmann (Volvo trucks) study from 2007
    • DK mentions this study have been broadly used to set rules in DK for MVC
  • SWE gives some information about On-going work in Sweden
    • SWE mentions on-going work in Sweden to increase possible length above 25.25m, and possible weight as well.
    • Stability is a major item: the aim is to define a web-based tool to provide a calculation for stability; this is why it is interesting for SWE to look into different models existing; FIN would be ready to share some information on this particular item; However, stability of a complete combination does not fit in a type approval scheme for individual vehicles.
    • Discussions around requirements on ‘intrinsic stability vs stability systems”
  
  Conclusions: Keep the item open for further consideration by experts.

Extract from Agenda:

• Previous CLEPA document GRRF 66-08 will be a good base for brake issues.
• Work is going on in the R55 group on couplings

UN R13
Presentation by Christoph Adam (Wabco) of CLEPA proposal on UN R13

• The proposal GRRF-66-08 has been drafted in 2007/2008 in a group with Mercedes Trucks, Knorr, Haldex, Wabco and TUV Nord.
• Some basic requirements from the proposal (among a number of requirements):
  • A towing trailer shall be equipped with an electric control line
  • Motor vehicle Parking brake shall activate the trailers braking system
• Comments to Wabco presentation:
  • VBG: Proposal to amend Annex 2 with “Motor vehicle authorized to tow more than one trailer” is not sticking to the ambition that the truck should be independent from the number of trailers behind.
  • MAN: even if the electric control line is required on the truck, what would prevent from using a truck without electric control line to tow several trailers.
  • A general answer from the floor is that this is in-use requirement, not for type approval.
  • DK: if we want to convince that MVC is safe, we should not keep only the minimum requirements but try to enhance them to give confidence in that MVC is safe.
  • CLEPA clarifies that proposal “A towing trailer shall be equipped with an electric control line” does not apply to the towed trailer nor to motor vehicle.
  • DK in in favour of requesting it on all vehicles in the MVC.

UN R79: see notes from discussion under paragraph 4.
UN R55:
Presentation of work status of the UN R55 informal group on MVC (B.Svensson – VBG):

• Informal Group on UN R55 is including a number of items; one of them is clearly addressing Modular Vehicle Combinations; thus there is a clear link with the task of our IG group on MVC.
• A focus is done on performance and in-use requirements in UN R55, and why both are needed. UN R55 already include in-use requirements and the proposal is adding missing formulas to cover MVC cases not covered today; ISO 18888 is referred in a new Annex containing all existing and new in-use requirements.
• Discussion on the link between R55 and MVC informal group
  • Chair proposes MVC group to be an umbrella and could address new points to the R55 IG; the issue is then that the TOR of the R55 group are frozen.
  • Is R55 IG covering the complete MVC item in R55?: VBG believes some items like the approval of towing trailers are not addressed in the R55 group.
  • VBG agrees to take the task of identifying what is missing in UN R55 IG to fully address MVC in R55.
  • Based on this analysis, we could then define how to address the point.

General presentation on MVC (Lena Larsson – Volvo Group).

Volvo organized a visit of a duo-trailer combination (Semi + dolly + semi) at Schenker terminal, near Gothenburg:

• This vehicle is being driven every night between Gothenburg and Malmö
• This Swedish project involves several companies
• Participants are invited to send their question to Lena Larsson
• Comment from VBG: the results from this project will give good input for our group.
• Lennart Cider (Volvo) is giving some examples of what is monitored on the combination: coupling forces, stability parameters like lateral acceleration at different points of the combination, weight (from air bellows and police scales) etc.

Chair presents the approach in Sweden to deal with longer vehicles (74t project)

• Several items are under focus: braking, stability, mobility etc.
• Stability is one of the most difficult to address.

Presentation of several videos showing double lane change manoeuvres:

• 80km/h, with the duo trailer combination the group has seen at Schenker terminal.
• Triple center-axle trailer combination.

Presentation of Danish trial period on EMS started in 2008

• DK starts describing the different type of modular combinations they have in Denmark
• Then starts a discussion around different types of combination
  • ISO 18868 is proposed as a base for our technical discussions (paragraph 4. ISO vehicle combinations definition”).
  • VBG raises that these definitions of combinations are needed in UN R55 and will give some further explanation about it later in the meeting (see point 6. Above).
• DK paper includes some proposals for requirements: some are out of GRRF scope (front under-run protection); some are in-use-requirements; some are technical (EBS, router).
• Again an extensive discussion around definition and requirements for a dolly: this is an open issue to be addressed in the group

More technical background is proposed to be shared at next meeting:

• SWE and FIN agrees to present similar requirements in their own country at next meeting, focussing on technical requirements, rather than on in-use requirements.
• NW and NL are also invited to check if they can present some information at next meeting.
• BPW proposes to present results at next meeting from a project with Krone on “mega-trailers”.

A first draft TOR is issued, on the base of the ACV one.

Draft wording agreed during the meeting:

Objectives:
The objective of the group is to enable the approval of vehicles, with regards to braking, steering and couplings, which are a part of a modular vehicle combination.

Work program:
For that purpose the need of amending the following UN regulations have been identified: UN R13, UN R55, [UN R79].
The first step in the group will be to amend UN R13 and identify what changes are needed in UN R55, which are not addressed in the on-going Informal Group on UN R55.
In a second step, the group will address these missing items in UN R55.
[A third step will be to address UN R79].

Conclusions:
Chair will prepare and circulate a draft TOR within the informal group
The target is to present it as an informal document at next GRRF.

No other item discussed.

2nd meeting will take place on October 7-8 in Gothenburg.

The aim of our group is not to find way to assess or to regulate combinations (as in the PBS approach), but to stick to the UNECE type approval approach addressing individual vehicles.

Which regulations should be modified?

• UN R13: yes
• UN R55: yes
• UN R79: to be further discussed for decision
• No other regulation identified at the moment.

Link between R55 and MVC informal groups

• UN R55 informal group is already dealing with MVC; coordination needed between the two groups.
• Chair proposes MVC group to be an umbrella and could address new points to the R55 IG; the issue is then that the TOR of the R55 group are frozen.
• Is R55 IG covering the complete MVC item in R55? VBG believes some items like the approval of towing trailers are not addressed in the R55 group. VBG agrees to take the task of identifying what is missing in UN R55 IG to fully address MVC in R55.
• Based on this analysis, we could then define how to address the point (in R55 or in MVC group).

Technical issues:

• We need a definition of a dolly to be able to type approve it to UN R13 and R55:
  • What should be the requirements?
  • Where should the definition be? UN R13, RE3 etc.?
  • Should a dolly be type approved to UN R79 (e.g. in case of dolly with front steered axle)?
• Electric control line
• ESC and Stability
• Park brake functionality
• Warning to driver
• Communication between vehicles (ISO11992 and pin 5)
• Requirements for dollies (performance, compatibility etc.)
• CLEPA document GRRF-66-08 is a good base for discussion.

More technical background to be shared at next meeting

• Proposal to get inspiration from other regulations in the field of MVC: ADR in Australia, national regulations in EU, FMVSS etc.
• SWE and FIN agrees to present similar requirements in their own country at next meeting, focussing on technical requirements, rather than on in-use requirements.
li>NW and NL are also invited to check if they can present some information at next meeting.
• BPW proposes to present results at next meeting from a project with Krone on “mega-trailers”

ISO 18868 is proposed as a base for our technical discussions (paragraph 4. ISO vehicle combinations definition”).