Renew the rail network and save the planet

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
P

Peter

Guest
One freight train removes 40 HGVs from the road and consumes 20% of the
fuel.
Make long distance truck delivery (say over 50 miles) illegal and use road
vehicles for short drops from strategically placed new railheads built to
serve the public rather than the shareholders. It's so simple, the
government couldn't grasp it. The only people to disagree with this are the
road hauliers with their own pockets to line.
British rail was far more efficient on a tiny subsidy than the privatised
cowboys and they killed hundreds less passengers!
Peter


 
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:52:51 +0100, "Peter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>One freight train removes 40 HGVs from the road and consumes 20% of the
>fuel.
>Make long distance truck delivery (say over 50 miles) illegal and use road
>vehicles for short drops from strategically placed new railheads built to
>serve the public rather than the shareholders. It's so simple, the
>government couldn't grasp it. The only people to disagree with this are the
>road hauliers with their own pockets to line.

That argument has so many holes in it, it would sink in a small
puddle.

>British rail was far more efficient on a tiny subsidy than the privatised
>cowboys and they killed hundreds less passengers!

Rail transport was great when it was invented nearly 200 years ago. It
put the canals out of business as no government would subsidise them.
Rail would have died out 40 years ago if it were not for the huge
subsidies handed out to rail operators, public or private, willy
nilly.
It still can't compete with non-subsidised road haulage.

Why dont you go and troll elsewhere?

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/
 
1x employed train driver.
40x unemployed truck drivers!!!.
Abnormal loads on a train???!!!.
"You want 40 very important pallets delivered by 6am".
"We would do sir but you are more than 50 miles away and we would get a
hefty fine from the government.Have you tried british rail ?".

"They won't because they are on strike and there are leaves on the track and
a member of the public has thrown himself on the line"

If you have it,
A truck brought it.


 
This of course from a self serving truck driver. No harm in protecting your
corner even if it is to the detriment of everyone else.
The unemployed truck drivers could retrain as train drivers although the
many exams involved may prove too arduous for many!
Regardless of the selfish implications, if a properly run public transport
system was available the truck problem could be slashed dramatically along
with commodity costs.


 
Whoops!,
Judging by this childish reply(obviously a wannabe politician).I have
offended you Peter by being a mere truck driver who is destroying your
planet and every one and everything that lives on it.
Grow up and live with it,And take your Greenpeace views to a newsgroup where
someone might argue with you, as it seems i was the only one silly enough to
reply.


 
Peter wrote:
> One freight train removes 40 HGVs from the road and consumes 20% of
> the fuel.
> Make long distance truck delivery (say over 50 miles) illegal and use
> road vehicles for short drops from strategically placed new railheads
> built to serve the public rather than the shareholders. It's so
> simple, the government couldn't grasp it. The only people to disagree
> with this are the road hauliers with their own pockets to line.
> British rail was far more efficient on a tiny subsidy than the
> privatised cowboys and they killed hundreds less passengers!
> Peter
What a load of nonsense. Before I retired I worked for the government and we
were made to use the rail to send large items out. It was a disaster nobody
seemed to know when the stuff would arrive and weren't interested in
helping. We lost several items and in the end we had to revert back to
delivering it ourselves. Then at the very least it was possible to sort out
the driver if there were problems. I can remember when each railway station
had its own goods yard but that was stopped and the land sold off or
sometimes converted into a car park. If you have to load the vehicle to go
to the nearest station that will take freight, you might just as well
deliver it it yourself. Then you only have the driver to ask where it went
to if it went missing. It should also be remembered that most rail freight
is moved by diesel powered engines and if you want to see real pollution,
see them working hard. Say near White Waltham on the main line to the
south-east - you would they were steam engines sometimes!
Robert


 
On 2005-06-19, bones <[email protected]> wrote:

> Judging by this childish reply(obviously a wannabe politician).I
> have offended you Peter by being a mere truck driver who is
> destroying your planet and every one and everything that lives on
> it.

It would be interesting to see what would happen to the haulage
industry if they had to pay road tax in line with the road damage they
cause. The M6 toll road operators don't want trucks on it as they
cause too much damage to the roads as you can see from the state of
the slow lane on our motorways.

I'm not sure what effect removing trucks from the roads would have on
road safety, on the one hand they slow everyone else down to a crawl
so that helps, on the other they tailgate like crazy despite needing
huge distances to stop and most of the accidents I've seen on the A303
have involved a truck despite them not making up anywhere near the
majority of the traffic. I've had one lock up its wheels behind me
because the driver wasn't paying attention and didn't see the
stationary traffic, there are plenty of people who were less
fortunate.

I'm ambivalent about trucks. One the one hand I don't know what
effect restricting them would have as I don't have enough data to make
a proper decision and don't like guessing at it, but on the other hand
I see the mess they leave behind and the chaos they cause and can't
help but think that the rail network, if properly run (fat chance)
would take a lot of the load of the truck network. Sadly given the
state of the rail network I doubt that'll ever happen.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
Ian Rawlings wrote:

> On 2005-06-19, bones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Judging by this childish reply(obviously a wannabe politician).I
>> have offended you Peter by being a mere truck driver who is
>> destroying your planet and every one and everything that lives on
>> it.
>
> It would be interesting to see what would happen to the haulage
> industry if they had to pay road tax in line with the road damage they
> cause. The M6 toll road operators don't want trucks on it as they
> cause too much damage to the roads as you can see from the state of
> the slow lane on our motorways.
>
They do already pay 10x the roadtax of a PLG vehicle - how much more damage
do they do?

The main reason the inside lane on motorways is so damn trashed is that
*every* truck spends most of its life there, whereas cars all tend to be in
the outer lanes - It's relatively little to do with the individual vehicles
and more to do with the sheer concentration.

P.
 
On or around Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:20:43 +0100, Paul Brown
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>They do already pay 10x the roadtax of a PLG vehicle - how much more damage
>do they do?
>
>The main reason the inside lane on motorways is so damn trashed is that
>*every* truck spends most of its life there, whereas cars all tend to be in
>the outer lanes - It's relatively little to do with the individual vehicles
>and more to do with the sheer concentration.

However, there's a worrying trend to fit the semi-trailers with super-single
tyres. These are about 14" wide or more compared with 11" for "normal"
ones, but of course there are only half as many; the weight is thus
concentrated on a smaller area of the road. I see the widest tyre
Bridgestone offer is 445mm, about 17", in fact. Still, 6 of them gives you
102 sq.in. per inch of contact patch - compare this with for example 8x11"
ones, which would be 88, on a tandem axle trailer with twin wheels, it's not
that much better - a twin-wheel tri-axle has an area of 132, so you've lost
30" of area by swapping to super-singes, and that's if you buy the ginormous
ones - if you have the ones that are 14" wide, or thereabouts, you've got
less area from your 6 super-singles than the twin-tandem. Yet the tri-axle
trailer gets you a significant reduction in road fund licence.

They're even worse on narrow roads, as not only is the weight more
concentrated, but it's concentrated right at the edge of the road, where
it's not so strong. The twin-wheel configuration has an overall width of
about 24", with a couple of inches in between the 2 tyres, and spreads the
weight more onto the middle of the road, which ordinarily gets less use.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
On 2005-06-20, Paul Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

> They do already pay 10x the roadtax of a PLG vehicle - how much more
> damage do they do?

Well a quick google with the words "damage road truck car tax" gives a
range of figures for how many cars worth of damage one truck does,
with the figures ranging between 2,000 and 9,600 cars. The figures
are coming from road transport research institutes and local councils
from around the world, and include rolling tests in labs using
stretches of tarmac and car/truck load simulators. Metrics are kind
of hard to judge as the size and type of the road surfaces, cars and
trucks aren't given but it's certainly going to be a whole lot more
than 10x no matter how you paint it.

> The main reason the inside lane on motorways is so damn trashed is
> that *every* truck spends most of its life there, whereas cars all
> tend to be in the outer lanes - It's relatively little to do with
> the individual vehicles and more to do with the sheer concentration.

No, it's to do with the huge amount of damage trucks do to the road.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:34:47 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2005-06-19, bones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Judging by this childish reply(obviously a wannabe politician).I
>> have offended you Peter by being a mere truck driver who is
>> destroying your planet and every one and everything that lives on
>> it.
>
>It would be interesting to see what would happen to the haulage
>industry if they had to pay road tax in line with the road damage they
>cause.

It would be even more interesting to see how the rail industry would
cope with paying the same rate for diesel fuel as the haulage industry
has to.
Diesel rail locos use red diesel.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/
 
Colonel Tupperware wrote:

> It would be even more interesting to see how the rail industry would
> cope with paying the same rate for diesel fuel as the haulage industry
> has to.

How many diesel locos are fitted with catalytic wotsits ? Surely they
ought to comply with modern standards ?

Steve
 
On 2005-06-20, Colonel Tupperware <[email protected]> wrote:

> It would be even more interesting to see how the rail industry would
> cope with paying the same rate for diesel fuel as the haulage industry
> has to.

Given that the rail industry can't cope as it is, I doubt they'd do
very well! It's in a shameful state, so shameful that the government
has to try to scare us or force us to use trains by caning us for
using cars.

As for fuel, I thought trucks pay less for fuel as well. They
certainly pay about 200 times less than they should for road tax,
taking the 10x tax they currently pay combined with the most
conservative estimate of how much more damage trucks do than cars
(estimates range from 2,000 times to 9,600 times).

Trains however keep getting handouts from the government despite being
private companies who were supposed to be taking the risk of running
the trains on board.

Basically it's all a friggin' mess!

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On or around Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:19:56 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2005-06-20, Colonel Tupperware <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It would be even more interesting to see how the rail industry would
>> cope with paying the same rate for diesel fuel as the haulage industry
>> has to.
>
>Given that the rail industry can't cope as it is, I doubt they'd do
>very well! It's in a shameful state, so shameful that the government
>has to try to scare us or force us to use trains by caning us for
>using cars.
>
>As for fuel, I thought trucks pay less for fuel as well. They
>certainly pay about 200 times less than they should for road tax,
>taking the 10x tax they currently pay combined with the most
>conservative estimate of how much more damage trucks do than cars
>(estimates range from 2,000 times to 9,600 times).

While you're taking a pop at the trucks for not paying enough Road Fund
duty, you might consider the effect on prices for everything of making
transport of goods cost considerably more: your "200 times" would end up
with the costs of keeping a 38T truck (say) licensed for a year costing
130,000 quid for the most-favourable (6-axle) up to 370,000 for the
least-favourable combination. Which probably ups the cost by at least a
pound a mile, maybe double that.

And no, trucks don't get to use rebated diesel, and consider that even the
best of the modern 38T artics are lucky if they're doing much over 10 mpg.
Service buses get to use rebated diesel.


>Trains however keep getting handouts from the government despite being
>private companies who were supposed to be taking the risk of running
>the trains on board.
>
>Basically it's all a friggin' mess!

ah, now there I agree with you.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
On 2005-06-21, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> While you're taking a pop at the trucks for not paying enough Road Fund
> duty, you might consider the effect on prices for everything of making
> transport of goods cost considerably more

As I said in an earlier post, I have considered it and think that I
don't know enough to figure out how it would affect us and what could
be done about it. I'm the same as pretty much everyone else in that
respect.

The only reason I had a pop at the truck drivers is because they tend
to talk like we all owe them, which I don't feel we do. After all, if
there was no demand for something it wouldn't have "came on a truck".

> your "200 times" would end up with the costs of keeping a 38T truck
> (say) licensed for a year costing 130,000 quid for the
> most-favourable (6-axle) up to 370,000 for the least-favourable
> combination. Which probably ups the cost by at least a pound a
> mile, maybe double that.

Just pointing out that trucks are heavily subsidised, which is an
argument used against trains, thanks for doing the maths for me,
helps prove my point ;-)

> ah, now there I agree with you.

One thing that puzzled me is how come they are supposed to cause the
same damage as 2,000 to 9,600 cars (depending on estimates)? I knew
from memory that the damage caused was way above the 10x guessed by
the resident truck driver but 2,000 to 9,600 seems extremely high.
Given that the figures are from road transport research labs and local
authority research programmes though I can't disagree, just wonder how
come it comes up that high.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On or around Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:11:45 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>The only reason I had a pop at the truck drivers is because they tend
>to talk like we all owe them, which I don't feel we do. After all, if
>there was no demand for something it wouldn't have "came on a truck".

hard to make judgements like that about food, though.

>> your "200 times" would end up with the costs of keeping a 38T truck
>> (say) licensed for a year costing 130,000 quid for the
>> most-favourable (6-axle) up to 370,000 for the least-favourable
>> combination. Which probably ups the cost by at least a pound a
>> mile, maybe double that.
>
>Just pointing out that trucks are heavily subsidised, which is an
>argument used against trains, thanks for doing the maths for me,
>helps prove my point ;-)
>
>> ah, now there I agree with you.
>
>One thing that puzzled me is how come they are supposed to cause the
>same damage as 2,000 to 9,600 cars (depending on estimates)? I knew
>from memory that the damage caused was way above the 10x guessed by
>the resident truck driver but 2,000 to 9,600 seems extremely high.
>Given that the figures are from road transport research labs and local
>authority research programmes though I can't disagree, just wonder how
>come it comes up that high.

probably 'cos their research is flawed. Lets try some more maths...

typical car: 1.3 tonnes, sitting on 4 wheels, each tyre is about 185mm wide
and to maybe has a contact patch of 150mm long. So we have 111000 mm² with
1.3t sitting on it. 1300Kg, that is. hmmm. mm are silly-small for this.
18.5*15 cm, then I'll get kg/cm² which is a legit pressure unit. 1110 cm²,
so we get 1.17kg/cm² for the pressure imparted on the road.

typical artic: 38t, sitting on 5 axles. front axle and drive axle are
6*29.5cm wide tyre, with a contact patch probably about 30cm, for an area of
5310cm². trailer on 6*385 wide super-singles, contact patch 30cm as before,
area 6930cm². total area 12240, pressure 3.10Kg/cm². About 3 times as
much... and that's not the most favourable configuration: replace that 4x2
tractor with a 6x4, you have now 10x29.5x30 for an area of 8850, and put the
trailer on dual wheels not super singles and that has 12*29.5*30=10620,
total area 19470, pressure 1.95Kg/cm², not even double the average car.

OK, there are lighter cars, but they sit on narrower rubber, and smaller
wheels, mostly, which reduces the contact patch length as well.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
On 2005-06-21, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> probably 'cos their research is flawed. Lets try some more maths...

Have a google around, I doubt very much that people who spend their
time researching roads and the effects of vehicles on them are likely
to be wrong, not when they're independent from each other, coming out
with broadly similar results and are spread out over a few continents.
While your maths is all well and good, I think we have to believe the
people who do this kind of thing for a living. You might think that
you can do better than them with a bit of back-of-the-envelope
scratching, but I don't think that's realistic.

What I was trying to figure out was that given that a truck doesn't
put 2,000 times the ground pressure of a car (which is what your maths
states), what could it be that leads to the enormous disparity between
the two?

I suppose that the closeness of the axles could be one thing, I've
seen a road compress like a wet sponge under an artic truck wheel, at
speed it might not have enough time to recover before the next wheel
hits. Also it could be that the road damage goes up dramatically once
a certain PSI rating is achieved. Also your maths assumes that the
load is spread out equally over all tyres, which plainly isn't the
case, especially when the effects of cornering and braking are taken
into account, braking for example would add a tearing force on the
tarmac as the tyres try to pull the tarmac with them. These are
guesses, and neither you nor I can say what's right on this as we've
not done any research on it at all.

I don't know what it is that produces the large damage figures but the
damage to motorways and the independent research performed by
professionals even using strips of road and wheels on test rigs has
shown that the damage is very large. I'd just like to know why! Over
2,000 times seems enormous and the pressure per inch doesn't seem to
justify it. I'd be interested to know how come the figures are so
large, but I don't think that just labelling all the research as
"flawed" is justifiable.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On or around Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:17:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>These are
>guesses, and neither you nor I can say what's right on this as we've
>not done any research on it at all.

true, and I make no claim to expertise. One of the most obvious things is
tyre scrub, on sharp corners. I don't think the static loads are really a
problem when the road is in good condition.

Another aspect is the fact that the local authorities persist in applying an
obviously-inferior tar-and-chippings surface to main roads. They've just
been doing this near me, and the corners are already half-trashed after
about a month. Mind, I suspect the newfangled tar emulsion that they use is
not as sticky as the tar used to be, and I'm also convinced that the
chippings they use now are too large.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
On or around Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:17:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I don't know what it is that produces the large damage figures but the
>damage to motorways and the independent research performed by
>professionals even using strips of road and wheels on test rigs has
>shown that the damage is very large. I'd just like to know why! Over
>2,000 times seems enormous and the pressure per inch doesn't seem to
>justify it. I'd be interested to know how come the figures are so
>large, but I don't think that just labelling all the research as
>"flawed" is justifiable.

I suppose one has to study the research results in more detail. On
motorways, you don't get high cornering loads and tyre scrub...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
On 2005-06-22, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> I suppose one has to study the research results in more detail. On
> motorways, you don't get high cornering loads and tyre scrub...

Indeed, given the difficulties of getting hold of the research and
what a boring read it's likely to be I think I'll just continue to
wallow in ignorance, it is bliss after all ;-)

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top