mickyblue:
Might as well lock this topic. I think Curryfart has ruined it and is on one with blah blah blah post’s 
Or maybe you could just put forward an intelligent argument as to why the status quo,regarding government transport policy,as it applies to road transport,which obviously includes the switch of loads of road freight journeys to rail,is a good thing for the road transport industry and evidence to show that policy played no part whatsoever in the loss of jobs in the road transport industry in this case.Which would obviously be in total contradiction to what seems like an accurate description provided in the news reports concerning the issue.
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Might as well lock this topic. I think Curryfart has ruined it and is on one with blah blah blah post’s
Or maybe you could just put forward an intelligent argument as to why the status quo,regarding government transport policy,as it applies to road transport,which obviously includes the switch of loads of road freight journeys to rail,is a good thing for the road transport industry and evidence to show that policy played no part whatsoever in the loss of jobs in the road transport industry in this case.Which would obviously be in total contradiction to what seems like an accurate description provided in the news reports concerning the issue.
I think if you asked a railista whether switching freight to rail instead of road was a good idea they would say yes, where there is still a railway to carry the freight. If you then said it wasn’t fair etc. as you constantly do, they would refer you back to just after WW2 when roadfreight ■■■■■■ up the railfreight industry by undercutting the rates. This time the boot is on the other foot. What goes around comes around.
Get over it.
Big Jon’s dad:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Might as well lock this topic. I think Curryfart has ruined it and is on one with blah blah blah post’s
Or maybe you could just put forward an intelligent argument as to why the status quo,regarding government transport policy,as it applies to road transport,which obviously includes the switch of loads of road freight journeys to rail,is a good thing for the road transport industry and evidence to show that policy played no part whatsoever in the loss of jobs in the road transport industry in this case.Which would obviously be in total contradiction to what seems like an accurate description provided in the news reports concerning the issue.
I think if you asked a railista whether switching freight to rail instead of road was a good idea they would say yes, where there is still a railway to carry the freight. If you then said it wasn’t fair etc. as you constantly do, they would refer you back to just after WW2 when roadfreight [zb] up the railfreight industry by undercutting the rates. This time the boot is on the other foot. What goes around comes around.
Get over it.
That would depend on wether your interests are with those of the long distance sector of the road transport industry or the rail transport industry.What actually happened after WW2 both here and in the States was that long haul road transport beat rail fair and square and the only way that rail will ever get back to where it was is by using government imposed rigging of the free transport market.Although anyone who’s got any interest in the rail freight industry,not the long distance sector of the road transport industry obviously wouldn’t see it that way.Which just leaves the question as to why you’ve taken the view of the situation which you seem to have done. 
vernonbish777:
Haha yes that’s apparent - make it up as you go along with no grounds for your argument and you can go on forever.
I’ll vote with Stringy here and STFU now as pointless typing is pointless.
Mr Carryfast I’ll concede defeat at this point - I’d happily explain it in person to you as, like Stringy, I have intimate knowledge and understanding of how the box business works when it comes to haulage tariffs versus door to door freight rates. To be fair, it’s pretty unfathomable to those of us that do it every day so it’s certainly un-explainable trying to do it on here !
As a former head of logstics with a major shipping line, I too am rather familiar with the dynamics of the container industry. However, I have seen how pea-brain has wrecked other threads, so I shan’t bother adding two-pennorth!
Not only was I a customer for Elite, but I subsequently did some work with them, and am sad to see their current plight.
240 Gardner:
vernonbish777:
Haha yes that’s apparent - make it up as you go along with no grounds for your argument and you can go on forever.
I’ll vote with Stringy here and STFU now as pointless typing is pointless.
Mr Carryfast I’ll concede defeat at this point - I’d happily explain it in person to you as, like Stringy, I have intimate knowledge and understanding of how the box business works when it comes to haulage tariffs versus door to door freight rates. To be fair, it’s pretty unfathomable to those of us that do it every day so it’s certainly un-explainable trying to do it on here !
As a former head of logstics with a major shipping line, I too am rather familiar with the dynamics of the container industry. However, I have seen how pea-brain has wrecked other threads, so I shan’t bother adding two-pennorth!
Blimey I’d have thought that with such high up knowledge of running trucks on long haul container haulage you could easily explain as to how the loss of thousands of tonne/miles of freight journeys from road to rail,by way of government rigging of the market in the sense of not allowing trucks to use red diesel and LHV’s,is a good thing from the point of view of anyone involved with the long haul sector of the road transport industry.
Carryfast:
As a former head of logstics with a major shipping line, I too am rather familiar with the dynamics of the container industry. However, I have seen how pea-brain has wrecked other threads, so I shan’t bother adding two-pennorth!
Blimey I’d have thought that with such high up knowledge of running trucks on long haul container haulage you could easily explain as to how the loss of thousands of tonne/miles of freight journeys from road to rail,by way of government rigging of the market in the sense of not allowing trucks to use red diesel and LHV’s,is a good thing from the point of view of anyone involved with the long haul sector of the road transport industry.
[/quote]
Yes, but not to you.
240 Gardner:
Carryfast:
As a former head of logstics with a major shipping line, I too am rather familiar with the dynamics of the container industry. However, I have seen how pea-brain has wrecked other threads, so I shan’t bother adding two-pennorth!
Blimey I’d have thought that with such high up knowledge of running trucks on long haul container haulage you could easily explain as to how the loss of thousands of tonne/miles of freight journeys from road to rail,by way of government rigging of the market in the sense of not allowing trucks to use red diesel and LHV’s,is a good thing from the point of view of anyone involved with the long haul sector of the road transport industry.
Yes, but not to you.
[/quote]
It’s not my personal forum it’s open for all to see and use so please tell everyone as you seem to know so much about how this is all such a good thing for anyone who runs a wagon hauling containers over long distances rather than just up the road.
If anyone has just watched the programme about railways on BBC2, you have nothing to worry about, they have their fair share of “failures.” Some of them caused by driver shortages, many caused by trains running out of fuel.
Carryfast:
Big Jon’s dad:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Might as well lock this topic. I think Curryfart has ruined it and is on one with blah blah blah post’s
Or maybe you could just put forward an intelligent argument as to why the status quo,regarding government transport policy,as it applies to road transport,which obviously includes the switch of loads of road freight journeys to rail,is a good thing for the road transport industry and evidence to show that policy played no part whatsoever in the loss of jobs in the road transport industry in this case.Which would obviously be in total contradiction to what seems like an accurate description provided in the news reports concerning the issue.
I think if you asked a railista whether switching freight to rail instead of road was a good idea they would say yes, where there is still a railway to carry the freight. If you then said it wasn’t fair etc. as you constantly do, they would refer you back to just after WW2 when roadfreight [zb] up the railfreight industry by undercutting the rates. This time the boot is on the other foot. What goes around comes around.
Get over it.
That would depend on wether your interests are with those of the long distance sector of the road transport industry or the rail transport industry.What actually happened after WW2 both here and in the States was that long haul road transport beat rail fair and square and the only way that rail will ever get back to where it was is by using government imposed rigging of the free transport market.Although anyone who’s got any interest in the rail freight industry,not the long distance sector of the road transport industry obviously wouldn’t see it that way.Which just leaves the question as to why you’ve taken the view of the situation which you seem to have done.
Well Geoffrey, as you may be aware, I’m not a truck driver. I have an interest in trucks as I held a C + E licence until recently although my working life didn’t take me down the truck driving path. I also have an interest in railed transport, without ever having worked on railways either, so I can see both sides without your bias. Incidently the railways lost out to truck drivers buying up war surplus trucks while the railways were worn out by the war effort. As the trucks were sold off at a below cost price you could argue that trucking was given an unfair subsidy at that time.
Interesting that you support the idea of a free transport market (so long as it is in your favour) while you oppose a free global market (because you don’t like the idea that someone else can do your job either better than you or cheaper than you). What happens when two of your views on utopia conflict with each other?
I must say you sound very bitter and twisted in many of your posts. Do you suffer a medical problem?
Big Jon’s dad:
Carryfast:
Big Jon’s dad:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Might as well lock this topic. I think Curryfart has ruined it and is on one with blah blah blah post’s
Or maybe you could just put forward an intelligent argument as to why the status quo,regarding government transport policy,as it applies to road transport,which obviously includes the switch of loads of road freight journeys to rail,is a good thing for the road transport industry and evidence to show that policy played no part whatsoever in the loss of jobs in the road transport industry in this case.Which would obviously be in total contradiction to what seems like an accurate description provided in the news reports concerning the issue.
I think if you asked a railista whether switching freight to rail instead of road was a good idea they would say yes, where there is still a railway to carry the freight. If you then said it wasn’t fair etc. as you constantly do, they would refer you back to just after WW2 when roadfreight [zb] up the railfreight industry by undercutting the rates. This time the boot is on the other foot. What goes around comes around.
Get over it.
That would depend on wether your interests are with those of the long distance sector of the road transport industry or the rail transport industry.What actually happened after WW2 both here and in the States was that long haul road transport beat rail fair and square and the only way that rail will ever get back to where it was is by using government imposed rigging of the free transport market.Although anyone who’s got any interest in the rail freight industry,not the long distance sector of the road transport industry obviously wouldn’t see it that way.Which just leaves the question as to why you’ve taken the view of the situation which you seem to have done.
Well Geoffrey, as you may be aware, I’m not a truck driver. I have an interest in trucks as I held a C + E licence until recently although my working life didn’t take me down the truck driving path. I also have an interest in railed transport, without ever having worked on railways either, so I can see both sides without your bias. Incidently the railways lost out to truck drivers buying up war surplus trucks while the railways were worn out by the war effort. As the trucks were sold off at a below cost price you could argue that trucking was given an unfair subsidy at that time.
Interesting that you support the idea of a free transport market (so long as it is in your favour) while you oppose a free global market (because you don’t like the idea that someone else can do your job either better than you or cheaper than you). What happens when two of your views on utopia conflict with each other?
I must say you sound very bitter and twisted in many of your posts. Do you suffer a medical problem?
Blimey so you can’t even understand the difference between the global free market economy v just an internal domestic one.
No trucking was never given an unfair subsidy considering how long it’s been subject to bs policies like the DERV taxation system amongst other protectionist measures in favour of rail freight.Many of which held back British truck development compared to other countries with more relaxed regulations concerning weights and truck dimensions.So why would the road transport industry being able to use red diesel and LHV’s be a so called biased market in favour of trucks.As for war surplus trucks I don’t think that the average war surplus wagon wasn’t also worn out by war service nor were they often suited to the type of work which presented much of a threat to the rail freight industry.For those types the haulage industry had to pay for it’s wagons just,as ever,like it’s over priced fuel subject to DERV taxation.Although that taxation, together with the VAT levied on it,has now reached unviable levels
However I can’t understand the sanity of anyone who’s got any interest in the continuing fortunes of the long haul sector of the road tranport industry ‘also’ having equal interests in the continuing fortunes of the rail freight industry.At least in regards to those journeys which can be done by road transport.
Curryfart i just looked at your posts and can confirm your repeating what you say in everytime. Deep down i think you need to google more often.
mickyblue:
Curryfart i just looked at your posts and can confirm your repeating what you say in everytime. Deep down i think you need to google more often.
So another intelligent argument in favour of supporting the status quo of the present government transport policy which seems to be the real cause of the loss of jobs in this case and obviously more to follow.
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Curryfart i just looked at your posts and can confirm your repeating what you say in everytime. Deep down i think you need to google more often.
So another intelligent argument in favour of supporting the status quo of the present government transport policy which seems to be the real cause of the loss of jobs in this case and obviously more to follow.
But do you not think that the majority of the public would want more freight off the roads and onto the tracks when it’s sensible to do so? I think the majority would, So the government are doing what the public want, as I’ve said to you before.
I’ve also said to you before that subsidies go on all over the place, creating an unlevel playing field. Until the people paying the subsidies achieves what they want to achieve. So don’t worry the trucking industry isn’t being singled out.
stevieboy308:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Curryfart i just looked at your posts and can confirm your repeating what you say in everytime. Deep down i think you need to google more often.
So another intelligent argument in favour of supporting the status quo of the present government transport policy which seems to be the real cause of the loss of jobs in this case and obviously more to follow.
But do you not think that the majority of the public would want more freight off the roads and onto the tracks when it’s sensible to do so? I think the majority would, So the government are doing what the public want, as I’ve said to you before.
I’ve also said to you before that subsidies go on all over the place, creating an unlevel playing field. Until the people paying the subsidies achieves what they want to achieve. So don’t worry the trucking industry isn’t being singled out.
I think that Thatcher also had an electoral mandate to close down the British coal mining industry and put loads of miners out of work.That doesn’t make it right though.While the difference is that at least they had the bottle put up a fight to save their jobs both at political level and on the ground.In this case even just putting up a fight at the political level seems too much for the gutless zb’s in the road transport industry from the top levels like the RHA to the bottom amongst the drivers.The result obviously being to allow the gradual wiping out of at least around 60 years of progress in the industry from it being just mainly seen as local delivery service for the convenience of the rail freight companies.
However in this case you’d need to differentiate the public attitude towards road transport as it has historically applied specifically in this country compared to others where there’s often been a much more road transport friendly attitude by the public towards it.No suprise that the switch to rail from road is also taking place in those places.Which seems to suggest that it’s all about big business rail freight interests v small/er business road haulage not any bs about what ‘the people want’.Especially when it’s more likely that ‘the people’ are more likely to have an interest in the job opportunities provided by the road transport industry than the rail transport industry,such as in the case of drivers amongst others. 
Carryfast:
Especially when it’s more likely that ‘the people’ are more likely to have an interest in the job opportunities provided by the road transport industry than the rail transport industry,such as in the case of drivers amongst others.
I have news for you: Most of “the people” have no interest what so ever in truck driving or railfreight. For most people trucks are a pain in the arse even when they do understand that tonights dinner is in the back of some of them. Rail transport seems more attractive to most people because it doesn’t impact on their daily lives. They don’t seem to be able to grasp that the local Tesco hasn’t got a rail siding out the back. They do see lots of little Transit type home delivery vans tatting about so naturally think these same vans can collect their cans of lager/bottle of wine minced horse flesh etc from the vanished goods yard at the station. Most of “the people” are not even workers either.
Good to see the RHA is standing against those that renege on their debts by entering a pre pack or CVA
commercialmotor.com/latest-n … RvvYhEgGSM
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
I think that Thatcher also had an electoral mandate to close down the British coal mining industry and put loads of miners out of work.That doesn’t make it right though.
Ok, lock the thread he has mentioned the name 
No not yet, we’ve got him going now. This is good for a few more pages yet. How many more times will he mention Mrs Thatcher and the down trodden working class victims before he runs out of steam?
Big Jon’s dad:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
I think that Thatcher also had an electoral mandate to close down the British coal mining industry and put loads of miners out of work.That doesn’t make it right though.
Ok, lock the thread he has mentioned the name
No not yet, we’ve got him going now. This is good for a few more pages yet. How many more times will he mention Mrs Thatcher and the down trodden working class victims before he runs out of steam?
trust me, this eeeejit has got more steam than The Mallard