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

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

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.

"Brimstone" wrote:

Jeff York wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote:


"Jeff York" wrote in message
news "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! :-)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.