seeing the other's view
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Although railfreight has been growing for the last ten years mainly
due to the failure of the road system to deliver reliability. ASDA,
Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsburys have been turning to rail
increasingly for the long stuff.

Wrong.

EDDIE STOBART who runs the warehousing at either end on behalf of the
above has turned to railfreight because Stobarts have their own
railheads and goods trains. Sending loads to Scotch by rail allows
Stobarts to free up lorries to go do other work such as the new Tesco
white goods RDC they're opening up at Goole.

Believe me, lorry journeys haven't been reduced by Stobarts putting
stuff onto rail.

Er, what? If they hadn't put that stuff on rail, they would have had to
buy more lorries for this RDC thing etc. It's not a reduction, but it
is a smaller increase!

Hardly. Still needs to go on a lorry at either end.

Again - er, what? Are you telling me going from a 300 mile lorry journey
to a 280 mile rail journey and two 10 mile truck journeys isn't a
reduction?

tom

--
Interesting, but possibly aimed at madmen. -- Charlie Brooker, on
Torchwood

seeing the other's view
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, R.C. Payne wrote:

NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:

Railborne freight receives no subsidy, unlike lorries.

Where exactly do I apply for my lorry subsidy?

It's provided automatically, without application.
In your mind perhaps, dream on, don't let reality get in the way.

You've obviously forgotton about the rate of VED on lorries when the
present government came into power and what it is now?

No I havn't, I just realise thet the total amount collected by ved and fuel
tax is more than three times the amount spent on the roads.

I say the sooner we privatise the whole lot of the trunk road network
the better. We are not a communist state, there should not be thousands
of miles of highly expensive trunk road built and maintained out of
central government funds (taxes are not hypothecated in the UK)

Ironically, the US interstate highway network was built specifically to
prevent that country becoming a communist state, but i digress.

with zero accountability. Then the private owner can charge different
classes of vehicle a toll as appropriate to the cost to them to provide
the service to that class of vehicle.

Or alternatively, he can charge however much he can get away with. The
only way to get efficient pricing would be through competition, and if you
think having multiple competing motorways running along every corridor is
a good idea, i suggest you go to a doctor to get your head examined. You
might like to stop off at a library and look up 'natural monopoly' in an
economics textbook while you're out.

tom

--
Interesting, but possibly aimed at madmen. -- Charlie Brooker, on
Torchwood

seeing the other's view
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Although railfreight has been growing for the last ten years mainly
due to the failure of the road system to deliver reliability. ASDA,
Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsburys have been turning to rail
increasingly for the long stuff.

Wrong.

EDDIE STOBART who runs the warehousing at either end on behalf of
the above has turned to railfreight because Stobarts have their own
railheads and goods trains. Sending loads to Scotch by rail allows
Stobarts to free up lorries to go do other work such as the new
Tesco white goods RDC they're opening up at Goole.

Believe me, lorry journeys haven't been reduced by Stobarts putting
stuff onto rail.

Er, what? If they hadn't put that stuff on rail, they would have had
to buy more lorries for this RDC thing etc. It's not a reduction, but
it is a smaller increase!

Hardly. Still needs to go on a lorry at either end.

Again - er, what? Are you telling me going from a 300 mile lorry journey
to a 280 mile rail journey and two 10 mile truck journeys isn't a
reduction?

tom

It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as
against 1 driver and 1 truck.

seeing the other's view
 

"Brimstone" wrote:

Jeff York wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote:


"Jeff York" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" wrote:

NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:


You've been shown, you're already getting it. Unlike other
industries, road haulage is so cossetted it doesn't even have to
apply for subsidy, it gets it without having to ask.



So in fact there is no evidence, merely your groundless opinion
that trucks don't pay their way.

Taxation on lorries in particular and road vehicles in general has
been significantly reduced in recent years. That's subsidy by any
measure.

No. You've fallen into the "politician speak" trap where a "reduced
increase" == "a cut". Even *if* road vehicle taxation has reduced,
which is hasn't as far as I'm aware, it is still massively in excess
of the total road expenditure.

And you're confusing the total amount taken in tax revenue with the
amount of costs imposed on the system by any one vehicle and the
amount spent on highway maintenance and build.

The total tax revenue fluctuates according to the number of licenced
vehicles in use. That number can go down as well as up. We've been
told a number of time by Conor and possibly others that there are
now very many fewer lorries on the road than in the past.

It makes no difference. In terms of tax-take v expenditure on roads
and transport infrastructure, road transport gets back around 25% of
what it pays.

So what? This is about the income and expenditure derived from lorries. As I
said, the tax-take can go down as well as up .

Why should there be any relationship between the overall tax take for road
vehicles and the amount spen on road maintenance and building?

Agreed, we do not normally have hypothecated taxation in the UK, but
if you want to establish whether any form of road transport is
"subsidised" it's necessary to examine the real money "balance sheet"
for transport generally.

The simple fact that only 25% of the total motoring tax take is spent
on roads etc tends to suggest that the general concept of "subsidised
road transport" is incorrect. To narrow the target to simply lorries,
I'd bet that at least 25% of total motoring taxes derive from them,
thus haulage is effectively paying the full cost of the complete road
system.

All the other "environmental costs" that are used in
order to "demonstrate" that road transport is subsidised are (a)
pulled out of someone's arse and (b) not balanced by the benefit side
of the cost/benefit equation.

No one has mentioned "environmental costs".

They are always trotted-out whenever "subsidised road transport" is
being debated. I thought I'd get my retaliation in first! :-)

seeing the other's view
 

NM wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

In article
.com, says...

Although railfreight has been growing for the last ten years
mainly due to the failure of the road system to deliver
reliability. ASDA, Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsburys have been
turning to rail increasingly for the long stuff.

Wrong.

EDDIE STOBART who runs the warehousing at either end on behalf of
the above has turned to railfreight because Stobarts have their
own railheads and goods trains. Sending loads to Scotch by rail
allows Stobarts to free up lorries to go do other work such as
the new Tesco white goods RDC they're opening up at Goole.

Believe me, lorry journeys haven't been reduced by Stobarts
putting stuff onto rail.

Er, what? If they hadn't put that stuff on rail, they would have
had to buy more lorries for this RDC thing etc. It's not a
reduction, but it is a smaller increase!

Hardly. Still needs to go on a lorry at either end.

Again - er, what? Are you telling me going from a 300 mile lorry
journey to a 280 mile rail journey and two 10 mile truck journeys
isn't a reduction?

tom

It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as
against 1 driver and 1 truck.

Only for that specific journey. Instead of the lorry doing the whole trip
it's doing work which would have needed additional vehicle/s to do.

seeing the other's view
 

It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as
against 1 driver and 1 truck.

Lets say 20 lorries

300 miles takes 6 hours for this

10 miles takes 1/2 hour

20 hours lorry driving
4 hours train driving

or

120 hours lorry drivng

This does not include handing

seeing the other's view
 

Martin wrote:
It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as
against 1 driver and 1 truck.

Lets say 20 lorries

300 miles takes 6 hours for this

10 miles takes 1/2 hour

20 hours lorry driving
4 hours train driving

or

120 hours lorry drivng

This does not include handing


This does not compute, care to expand it into something comprehensible.

seeing the other's view
 

On 28 Jun, 13:48, NM wrote:
It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as
against 1 driver and 1 truck.

Lets say 20 lorries

300 miles takes 6 hours for this

10 miles takes 1/2 hour

20 hours lorry driving
4 hours train driving

or

120 hours lorry drivng

This does not include handing

This does not compute, care to expand it into something comprehensible.

It's comprehensible to me, but then I'm not someone who blames the
railways for idiots who drive trucks into them. Translation follows:

If you want to carry 20x lorryloads of freight 300 miles, you can
either:

a) send 20x lorries 300 miles, for a total of 120 hours of lorry
driving

or

b) send 20x lorries 10 miles, one train 180 miles, and 20x other
lorries 10 miles, for a total of 20 hours of lorry driving and 4 hours
of train driving.

HTH, HAND.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

seeing the other's view
 

John B wrote:
On 28 Jun, 13:48, NM wrote:
It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as
against 1 driver and 1 truck.
Lets say 20 lorries
300 miles takes 6 hours for this
10 miles takes 1/2 hour
20 hours lorry driving
4 hours train driving
or
120 hours lorry drivng
This does not include handing
This does not compute, care to expand it into something comprehensible.

It's comprehensible to me, but then I'm not someone who blames the
railways for idiots who drive trucks into them.


What grounds do you have to suppose that's a view I hold.

Translation follows:

If you want to carry 20x lorryloads of freight 300 miles, you can
either:

a) send 20x lorries 300 miles, for a total of 120 hours of lorry
driving

Oh I see, the lorries average 60 mph and never have to return to the
start point, you have a never ending supply of trucks and drivers
exactly where you want them.

or

b) send 20x lorries 10 miles, one train 180 miles, and 20x other
lorries 10 miles, for a total of 20 hours of lorry driving and 4 hours
of train driving.

You are convieniently forgetting the 2 hours needed to load the truck
the 2 hours needed to unload it then the 2 hours needed to load the
train then the 2 hours needed to unload the train then the 2 hours
needed to load truck2 then the 2 hours needed to discharge at the final
destination. 2 hours being a very generous guess as I have waited over
eight hours on numerous occasions for a container to be lifted on.

Plus you are ignoring the increased opportunities for damage and
pilfering that break bulk invites.

And you are expecting a freight train to AVERAGE a totally unrealistic
45 mph

It's been tried and failed now it's being reintroduced for politically
correct reasons as a sop, only a token amount is shipped RCD to RCD by rail.

seeing the other's view
 

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, NM wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

Believe me, lorry journeys haven't been reduced by Stobarts putting
stuff onto rail.

Er, what? If they hadn't put that stuff on rail, they would have had
to buy more lorries for this RDC thing etc. It's not a reduction, but
it is a smaller increase!

Hardly. Still needs to go on a lorry at either end.

Again - er, what? Are you telling me going from a 300 mile lorry journey to
a 280 mile rail journey and two 10 mile truck journeys isn't a reduction?

It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as against
1 driver and 1 truck.

I was going to moan about these threads we have crossposted to
urd/uk.transport, because they basically act as a mechanism for the rapid
delivery of retards to my inbox. However, i'm now managing to look at it
from a lighter angle - this stuff is comedy gold!

tom

--
Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that wriggle.

seeing the other's view
 

NM wrote:
John B wrote:
On 28 Jun, 13:48, NM wrote:

Translation follows:

If you want to carry 20x lorryloads of freight 300 miles, you can
either:

a) send 20x lorries 300 miles, for a total of 120 hours of lorry
driving

Oh I see, the lorries average 60 mph and never have to return to the
start point, you have a never ending supply of trucks and drivers
exactly where you want them.

or

b) send 20x lorries 10 miles, one train 180 miles, and 20x other
lorries 10 miles, for a total of 20 hours of lorry driving and 4 hours
of train driving.

You are convieniently forgetting the 2 hours needed to load the truck
the 2 hours needed to unload it then the 2 hours needed to load the
train then the 2 hours needed to unload the train then the 2 hours
needed to load truck2 then the 2 hours needed to discharge at the final
destination. 2 hours being a very generous guess as I have waited over
eight hours on numerous occasions for a container to be lifted on.

Plus you are ignoring the increased opportunities for damage and
pilfering that break bulk invites.

And you are expecting a freight train to AVERAGE a totally unrealistic
45 mph

It's been tried and failed now it's being reintroduced for politically
correct reasons as a sop, only a token amount is shipped RCD to RCD by
rail.

Wow, look at them goalposts go! The question was about lorries on
roads. Lorries being loaded and unloaded are, last time I checked, not
on the roads. Certainly there are economic issues beyond the simple
time in transit, and clearly Eddie Stobart reckon they can make it pay
here. I'm not sure where your idea of having to unpack and repack comes
from, though, I thought all the transhipment involved swap-bodies, which
won't take 4 hours to get off a train and onto a truck. We aren't
living in the '50s any more, you know. What's unrealistic about a 45mph
average speed for a container train? They have a top speed of 75 (class
66, IIRC), and with a reasonable path, they won't be held much.

Robin

seeing the other's view
 

On 26 Jun, 10:42, "Brimstone" wrote:
About time too!! It's not just cyclists who can benefit from this
opportunity, other road users should take the chance to have a look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6240140.stm

Lorries highlight cycling danger

The dangers posed by lorries to cyclists and pedestrians are to be
highlighted in a road safety event.

Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to allow
other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry driver's vision is.

Metropolitan Police figures show that in 2006 nine cyclists were killed in
London in accidents involving lorries.

The two-day event this week follows a campaign launched in March urging
lorry drivers to look out for cyclists.

Ch Insp Mark Bird said: "Lots of people cycle in London and I'd encourage
people to come along and see first hand just how easy the cause of these
types of collisions can be and how easily avoidable they are.

"I have witnessed first hand the devastating affects that losing a loved one
or family member can have, and we are determined to do all we can to reduce
the risks to cyclists, and all road users."

In 2006 19 cyclists were killed in collisions - nine of which involved a
goods vehicle.

The year before 21 cyclists were killed, nine involved lorries and in 2004
four of eight accidents in which cyclists were killed involved lorries.

What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's safety is another man's killer.

seeing the other's view
 

Doug wrote:
On 26 Jun, 10:42, "Brimstone" wrote:
About time too!! It's not just cyclists who can benefit from this
opportunity, other road users should take the chance to have a look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6240140.stm

Lorries highlight cycling danger

The dangers posed by lorries to cyclists and pedestrians are to be
highlighted in a road safety event.

Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to
allow other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry
driver's vision is.

Metropolitan Police figures show that in 2006 nine cyclists were
killed in London in accidents involving lorries.

The two-day event this week follows a campaign launched in March
urging lorry drivers to look out for cyclists.

Ch Insp Mark Bird said: "Lots of people cycle in London and I'd
encourage people to come along and see first hand just how easy the
cause of these types of collisions can be and how easily avoidable
they are.

"I have witnessed first hand the devastating affects that losing a
loved one or family member can have, and we are determined to do all
we can to reduce the risks to cyclists, and all road users."

In 2006 19 cyclists were killed in collisions - nine of which
involved a goods vehicle.

The year before 21 cyclists were killed, nine involved lorries and
in 2004 four of eight accidents in which cyclists were killed
involved lorries.

What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.

Probably because that's not what the subject is about.

seeing the other's view
 

R.C. Payne wrote:
NM wrote:
John B wrote:
On 28 Jun, 13:48, NM wrote:

Translation follows:

If you want to carry 20x lorryloads of freight 300 miles, you can
either:

a) send 20x lorries 300 miles, for a total of 120 hours of lorry
driving

Oh I see, the lorries average 60 mph and never have to return to the
start point, you have a never ending supply of trucks and drivers
exactly where you want them.

or

b) send 20x lorries 10 miles, one train 180 miles, and 20x other
lorries 10 miles, for a total of 20 hours of lorry driving and 4 hours
of train driving.

You are convieniently forgetting the 2 hours needed to load the truck
the 2 hours needed to unload it then the 2 hours needed to load the
train then the 2 hours needed to unload the train then the 2 hours
needed to load truck2 then the 2 hours needed to discharge at the
final destination. 2 hours being a very generous guess as I have
waited over eight hours on numerous occasions for a container to be
lifted on.

Plus you are ignoring the increased opportunities for damage and
pilfering that break bulk invites.

And you are expecting a freight train to AVERAGE a totally unrealistic
45 mph

It's been tried and failed now it's being reintroduced for politically
correct reasons as a sop, only a token amount is shipped RCD to RCD by
rail.

Wow, look at them goalposts go! The question was about lorries on
roads. Lorries being loaded and unloaded are, last time I checked, not
on the roads.

And therefore convieniently ignored because this small reality dilutes
your already weak argument.

Certainly there are economic issues beyond the simple
time in transit, and clearly Eddie Stobart reckon they can make it pay
here.

That I question, Stobart group owns the terminls on both ends of the
route and are doing this to gain credibility and green bonus point
benefits, all very politically correct, it's workinf for them as
Stobarts image glows as far as cretins like you are concerned, the
reality is a tiny miniscule percentage of the traffic is sent by rail,
it's just a PR gesture and you are too stupid to see it.

I'm not sure where your idea of having to unpack and repack comes
from, though, I thought all the transhipment involved swap-bodies, which
won't take 4 hours to get off a train and onto a truck.

It can take up to eight hours, occasionally longer to get a container
lifted at freightliners (that was earlier this year, my own experience).

We aren't
living in the '50s any more, you know.

Freightliners are.

What's unrealistic about a 45mph
average speed for a container train? They have a top speed of 75 (class
66, IIRC), and with a reasonable path, they won't be held much.

"and with a reasonable path" is the give away here, the pigs fuelled up
and waiting at the end of the runway.

Robin

The dreamer.

seeing the other's view
 

Doug wrote:



What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.


That must be why the pavement barriers are constructed in either mesh or
bars, the crushed cyclist mush will have room to escape harmlessly on
to the pavement without leaving the road slippery for legitimate paying
users.

seeing the other's view
 

In message .com, Doug
writes
What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.
Fault of the cyclist for undertaking, (pun?)
--
Clive.

seeing the other's view
 

Clive. wrote:
In message .com, Doug
writes
What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.
Fault of the cyclist for undertaking, (pun?)

Why weren't they safely on the pavement like usual?

seeing the other's view
 

In article , Tom
Anderson says...

Again - er, what? Are you telling me going from a 300 mile lorry journey
to a 280 mile rail journey and two 10 mile truck journeys isn't a
reduction?

It isn't 10 miles though. The stuff still needs to travel dozens or
hundreds of miles from the supplier to the railhead at DART and once
it's up in Scotland, travels dozens or hundreds of miles to the end
locations.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

seeing the other's view
 

In article , Martin says...
It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as
against 1 driver and 1 truck.

Lets say 20 lorries

300 miles takes 6 hours for this

10 miles takes 1/2 hour

20 hours lorry driving
4 hours train driving

or

120 hours lorry drivng

This does not include handing

Which is several hours at each railhead as opposed to an hour at each
end for a lorry.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

seeing the other's view
 

In article , NM says...


It can take up to eight hours, occasionally longer to get a container
lifted at freightliners (that was earlier this year, my own experience).

We aren't
living in the '50s any more, you know.

Freightliners are.

And then there's Felixstowe where a 24hr wait isn't unheard of.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

seeing the other's view
 

In message , NM
writes
Why weren't they safely on the pavement like usual?
Perhaps because the pavements are for peds, not bikers.
--
Clive.

seeing the other's view
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Brimstone) wrote:

Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to
allow other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry
driver's vision is.

If their vision is that limited, why are they allowed on the roads?

If their vision is that limited, why aren't they forced to have more
mirrors, or even periscopes?