Fix HGV driver issues or

[cav551]

The government then needs to provide the lorry parking facilities and to do that by over-riding local councils objections and demanding that the facilities are built in specific locations and to use this levy to at least partially fund it. Work has now started on a new industrial estate next to J8 M20 - an obvious location for lorry parking. The site is large enough to be a useful lorry park. Tonbridge and Malling Council recently rejected an application for one at the M26 M20 junction at Wrotham Heath. As sure as night follows day that location will end up as a far more lucrative build once the developers lawyers get involved. Govt must stop their friends the financial speculators from putting corporate profit ahead of the national interest. There are obviously similar situations around the rest of the country.

They must also put a stop to these lawyers’ ability to wriggle out of financial commitments by the developer, made at planning approval, to contribute to local infrastructure improvements . A large corporate name has recently been compensated (£100K +) by the council because the developer had done a new straffic survey during lockdown which concluded that a pedestrian crossing was not needed owing to ‘insufficient demand and traffic volume’.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
But that’s not the reality today is it? Most guys are not doing long hours on the road to Timbuktu. They’re doing long hours on the motorway carrying washing powder between warehouses.

This is what the government is trying to clamp down on, that the whole sector is organised around extreme working hours.

Even those parts of the sector (or perhaps especially those parts of the sector) that are carrying the most routine kinds of goods as part of regular flows.

It’s a 9 hour limit on driving time.With 6 hours added to that obviously to provide the scope for drivers to be used for ‘other duties’ .Unlike train drivers.
The government is obviously creating a false narrative, that distance work is the problem, to provide the pretext to clamp down on the miles actually run by trucks.
With the clear and stated intent to hand that work over to the rail sector.
Conservative and Labour policy being the same in that regard.
The truth is few enter the industry to drive a few miles a day serving the rail transport sector.The plan for rail turning truck drivers into local shunting drivers and warehouse operatives won’t make the job more attractive in fact the total opposite.

[jimmy_mcnulty]

Rjan:

the maoster:
^^^^ can’t argue with any of that. Also, what’s this crap about “shorter runs”? I’m probably living in the past but the whole attraction to the industry for me when I was young was the lure of thousands of miles travelling through distant places. Again I may be wrong but i figure that if you want to ■■■■ about on local work then maybe you’d be happier labouring on a building site! I certainly would, because at least it’s structured without all the crap on the roads we have to endure.

But that’s not the reality today is it? Most guys are not doing long hours on the road to Timbuktu. They’re doing long hours on the motorway carrying washing powder between warehouses.

This is what the government is trying to clamp down on, that the whole sector is organised around extreme working hours.

Even those parts of the sector (or perhaps especially those parts of the sector) that are carrying the most routine kinds of goods as part of regular flows.

Nail pretty much hit on the head here.

Distribution/store delivery type work seems to have a lot more younger drivers (let’s say under 40) than anywhere I have worked that have trampers or 60 hour work weeks. That job tends to be fairly well rewarded for 40-45 hours and grabbers can push their hours and earn a bit more.

The handful of younger trampers I have come across have ended up moving onto a day or night driver job.

The usual suspects expecting drivers away all week and possibly run in on a Saturday morning don’t seem to be able to see the wood for the trees that they are recruiting from the same pool of drivers on the merry go round that is only going to get smaller and throwing a pound or two at them is just spinning the merry go round.

The world of work and workers attitudes are changing across the board ‘the great resignation’ etc. Family’s now have two people going out to work, the costs of childcare are exorbitant. RHA are bleating on about facilities and all of that but what they need to be prioritising is making the job a realistic proposition for people in 2022, with shifts and work/life balance brought somewhere out of the dark ages.

London, Felixstowe, Glasgow or Bristol can be done from Yorkshire and the surrounding in a shift, there’s no need for people to be away all week moving washing powder between warehouses on UK work. Obviously some want that and each to their own but it’s not the future.

[carryfast]

cav551:
The government then needs to provide the lorry parking facilities and to do that by over-riding local councils objections and demanding that the facilities are built in specific locations and to use this levy to at least partially fund it. Work has now started on a new industrial estate next to J8 M20 - an obvious location for lorry parking. The site is large enough to be a useful lorry park. Tonbridge and Malling Council recently rejected an application for one at the M26 M20 junction at Wrotham Heath. As sure as night follows day that location will end up as a far more lucrative build once the developers lawyers get involved. Govt must stop their friends the financial speculators from putting corporate profit ahead of the national interest. There are obviously similar situations around the rest of the country.

They must also put a stop to these lawyers’ ability to wriggle out of financial commitments by the developer, made at planning approval, to contribute to local infrastructure improvements . A large corporate name has recently been compensated (£100K +) by the council because the developer had done a new straffic survey during lockdown which concluded that a pedestrian crossing was not needed owing to ‘insufficient demand and traffic volume’.

Which seems to miss the point that the government’s intended ‘solution’, to this false flag manufactured problem (pretext), is to take the trucks off the road.Not to provide for them.

[theflyingtanker]

lancpudn:
…We’ll do it for you.

“A Transport Select Committee report has concluded that the freight sector must take responsibility for fixing issues with driver retention, recruitment and welfare.”
“Failure to do so should see the Government implement a Supply Chain Levy to assist in building facilities and training new drivers, conclude MPs. The Levy would require the parts of the supply chain where margins are greatest - such as large retailers, oil companies and online service giants - to deliver improved standards and resilience to the supply chain which they themselves require.”

““The long-term solution lies in moving more freight to rail and water. This will help decarbonise the sector and make it more attractive to drivers who want to operate over shorter distances; drivers who want to see their families at the end of a hard day rather than facing anti-social and dangerous nights sleeping in their cabs. In the near-term, we need better conditions to make moving essential goods a sound career choice.”
commercialfleet.org/news/tr … rger-taxes

Doesn’t look like they want truckers to be the driving future of logistics but a synergized approach?
Shorter runs? ■■■ that, I got into trucking as I like long haulage runs up and down and around. All that short range sht is strictly suited for the van-delivery and baby wagons (7.5ton etc).
Not liking the talk they are making about tramping. Anti-social and dangerous? Are we all supposed to be extrovert party-animals? Dangerous nights? It’s not exactly in a tent with bloodthirsty monsters stalking the night (fuel thieves excepted). Whoever was on that committee obviously wants all drivers to eventually be day or night drivers only! Do they think everyone wants to be tucked up in bed, many drivers want to tramp as it’s a better lifestyle, better money and experience than blitzing your fuel and health on the commuter run.

[winseer]

the maoster:
^^^^ can’t argue with any of that. Also, what’s this crap about “shorter runs”? I’m probably living in the past but the whole attraction to the industry for me when I was young was the lure of thousands of miles travelling through distant places. Again I may be wrong but i figure that if you want to ■■■■ about on local work then maybe you’d be happier labouring on a building site! I certainly would, because at least it’s structured without all the crap on the roads we have to endure.

“Shorter runs” ins’t any good in any case - if the time you spend between actual drives - gets taken up with chasing people to sign your paperwork, explaining to the yard marshall why you have not locked yourself out of your cab yet, or being put back into the cooler for 3+ hours whilst they argue over which person unloads your four pallets before they are due to knock off…

“Less driving” only pays if you get to spend that time on some kind of unofficial break, eg. a full restaurant, toilets, TV access and/or access to one’s own cab with your mess facilities there if you will…

[robroy]

TheFlyingTanker:

lancpudn:
…We’ll do it for you.

“A Transport Select Committee report has concluded that the freight sector must take responsibility for fixing issues with driver retention, recruitment and welfare.”
“Failure to do so should see the Government implement a Supply Chain Levy to assist in building facilities and training new drivers, conclude MPs. The Levy would require the parts of the supply chain where margins are greatest - such as large retailers, oil companies and online service giants - to deliver improved standards and resilience to the supply chain which they themselves require.”

““The long-term solution lies in moving more freight to rail and water. This will help decarbonise the sector and make it more attractive to drivers who want to operate over shorter distances; drivers who want to see their families at the end of a hard day rather than facing anti-social and dangerous nights sleeping in their cabs. In the near-term, we need better conditions to make moving essential goods a sound career choice.”
commercialfleet.org/news/tr … rger-taxes

Doesn’t look like they want truckers to be the driving future of logistics but a synergized approach?
Shorter runs? [zb] that, I got into trucking as I like long haulage runs up and down and around. All that short range sht is strictly suited for the van-delivery and baby wagons (7.5ton etc).
Not liking the talk they are making about tramping. Anti-social and dangerous? Are we all supposed to be extrovert party-animals? Dangerous nights? It’s not exactly in a tent with bloodthirsty monsters stalking the night (fuel thieves excepted). Whoever was on that committee obviously wants all drivers to eventually be day or night drivers only! Do they think everyone wants to be tucked up in bed, many drivers want to tramp as it’s a better lifestyle, better money and experience than blitzing your fuel and health on the commuter run.

They’ve obviously been listening to the ‘‘I need to be in me own bed’’ crew.

Exactly, many of us see nights out as part and parcel of the job,.we don’t mind them!!
In fact wait for it…
Some of is have actually enjoyed them over the years …oh yes! … shock horror probe.

Some who have experienced a night out who are the most anti and the most vocal, have done maybe one in 10 years, will be heard to say ‘‘Never again’’, but that’s more than likely because it has been an unplanned one,.with a night in a strange , (more than likely dirty,) truck, with a Ginsters pie and a can of Pepsi for ‘‘evening meal’’ that they bought from last shop, before they lie on a bunk with a jacket over them,.and their hi viz vest as a pillow, being rocked to death in their lay by for 9 hours…so that is what they imagine when somebody says …‘‘Night out’’ in a truck.

I’m parked in a customer’s yard,.in small Devon village,.I planned to walk up to the village country pub for a meal, but it’s ■■■■■■■ down,.so I’ve had a home made Sheperd’s pie,.strawberries and fresh cream,.with a ice cold can of Coors.

Sat here in me undercrackers on the bunk, just about to watch tv…that beats a 15 hour shift on days, rushing my arse off to get home,.with only about 6 hours kip before next commute to enter the same ■■■■ rat race again…give me tramping any day.

(Just faired up, but I’ve shot myself in the foot …can’t get out of the yard to walk into town as I’ve snapped the ■■■■ padlock shut… Oh ■■■■ )

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

the maoster:
^^^^ can’t argue with any of that. Also, what’s this crap about “shorter runs”? I’m probably living in the past but the whole attraction to the industry for me when I was young was the lure of thousands of miles travelling through distant places.

^
As I’ve said in numerous posts usually flamed by those on here working in the industry for saying it.We generally do the job for the freedom of the open road.
Good luck with the rail head to RDC shunting job.
Its taken a long time for this rabidly anti road transport country to reach the end game.
This narrative was all too predictable being laughably obviously and specifically deliberately targetted at the long haul sector because that’s the traffic that the rail freight lobby wants to take.
All those drivers who bought into it have now got what they wished for.

Guys want the freedom of the open road, but not usually 15 hours a day or 6 days a week of it, starting at 4am, for 50 years.

It’s obviously not the 9 hours max of driving that’s creating the 15 hour shifts.

[harry_monk]

Carryfast:
The government is obviously creating a false narrative, that distance work is the problem, to provide the pretext to clamp down on the miles actually run by trucks.
With the clear and stated intent to hand that work over to the rail sector.
Conservative and Labour policy being the same in that regard.
The truth is few enter the industry to drive a few miles a day serving the rail transport sector.The plan for rail turning truck drivers into local shunting drivers and warehouse operatives won’t make the job more attractive in fact the total opposite.

This may come as a surprise to you Carryfast, but transport policy in any country you care to think of is not predicated on bringing happiness to truck drivers. Although I work in the road sector myself I completely agree that where movement by rail is more efficient, as I imagine it would be if 70 containers need moving from, say, Felixtowe to Trafford Park on the same day, then it is logical to use rail for this movement.

A diesel loco typically consumes fuel at around 1mpg. So if it is pulling the standard 70 container freight train then each container is being moved at a fuel cost of 70mpg, or about one-seventh of what would be used if that container was being moved individually by road.

[carryfast]

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
The government is obviously creating a false narrative, that distance work is the problem, to provide the pretext to clamp down on the miles actually run by trucks.
With the clear and stated intent to hand that work over to the rail sector.
Conservative and Labour policy being the same in that regard.
The truth is few enter the industry to drive a few miles a day serving the rail transport sector.The plan for rail turning truck drivers into local shunting drivers and warehouse operatives won’t make the job more attractive in fact the total opposite.

This may come as a surprise to you Carryfast, but transport policy in any country you care to think of is not predicated on bringing happiness to truck drivers. Although I work in the road sector myself I completely agree that where movement by rail is more efficient, as I imagine it would be if 70 containers need moving from, say, Felixtowe to Trafford Park on the same day, then it is logical to use rail for this movement.

A diesel loco typically consumes fuel at around 1mpg. So if it is pulling the standard 70 container freight train then each container is being moved at a fuel cost of 70mpg, or about one-seventh of what would be used if that container was being moved individually by road.

How could road transport possibly have been competitive with rail for long distance freight movements to the point where it crushed the rail freight industry.Even hampered by the road fuel duty disincentive and laughable productivety limits in the form of length and weight regs.Also bearing in mind that the rail freight industry obviously sees a threat from the increased efficiency of LHV’s which obviously means at least a 20ft and 40ft container load per truck.Also bearing in mind the tare weight inefficiency of rail rolling stock to be dragged around the country.
You’re not exactly being a great advocate for the industry ironically even though it’s treated you better than it did me.Maybe you should have applied to be a train driver in line with your views.

[stevieboy308]

Harry Monk:
Young people just don’t want to do the job any more. Technology has removed the freedom of the job to the point where on some firms you have to phone the office and obtain a reference number if you need to stop for a wizz. All of the long-haul continental work has gone. Cameras point at you in the cab so your every movement can be scrutinised.

On top of this wages are down by probably 30% compared to 20 years ago. I was 26 when I passed my Class 1, if I was 26 now I wouldn’t dream of doing it.

It’s a crazy small % that would need a ■■■■ reference

It’s not.

I’ve never had an in cab camera and I’d be surprised if the majority have.

I’m on over 3 times what I was 20 years ago, Google says £100 then is equivalent to £173 now

I’m happy enough!

[robroy]

stevieboy308:

Harry Monk:
Young people just don’t want to do the job any more. Technology has removed the freedom of the job to the point where on some firms you have to phone the office and obtain a reference number if you need to stop for a wizz. All of the long-haul continental work has gone. Cameras point at you in the cab so your every movement can be scrutinised.

On top of this wages are down by probably 30% compared to 20 years ago. I was 26 when I passed my Class 1, if I was 26 now I wouldn’t dream of doing it.

It’s a crazy small % that would need a ■■■■ reference

It’s not.

I’ve never had an in cab camera and I’d be surprised if the majority have.

I’m on over 3 times what I was 20 years ago, Google says £100 then is equivalent to £173 now

I’m happy enough!

I think the 'permission to stop for a ■■■■ thing is mostly on trunk parcel work, but it should have been nipped in the bud from day 1 by drivers imo, but there you go.

As for cameras, different types, I think the ones that go off on harsh braking are more common, the same type that are combined with an inward facing are getting more prevalent, the full on stazi constant surveillance once, not so prevalent.
Thing is the genie is out of the bottle, so lots of these firms that are ran by those who favour micro management, of which there are many will soon jump on the bandwagon, putting another nail in the coffin on the job,.and worsening the shortage of good drivers,.and increasing the number of drivers who will readily accept anything with no question.

I looked on an inflation site comparing 2002 to 2022,.I was on a much better rate in those days,.as I was on Essex wages outlbased in the North, doing Euro and working for a much better (and much more generous) firm to what I do now,.so although today I am on more money as such with inflation, , it is nowhere near 3x as much…if it was I’d be a very happy guy.

[star_down_under]

Carryfast:

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
The government is obviously creating a false narrative, that distance work is the problem, to provide the pretext to clamp down on the miles actually run by trucks.
With the clear and stated intent to hand that work over to the rail sector.
Conservative and Labour policy being the same in that regard.
The truth is few enter the industry to drive a few miles a day serving the rail transport sector.The plan for rail turning truck drivers into local shunting drivers and warehouse operatives won’t make the job more attractive in fact the total opposite.

This may come as a surprise to you Carryfast, but transport policy in any country you care to think of is not predicated on bringing happiness to truck drivers. Although I work in the road sector myself I completely agree that where movement by rail is more efficient, as I imagine it would be if 70 containers need moving from, say, Felixtowe to Trafford Park on the same day, then it is logical to use rail for this movement.

A diesel loco typically consumes fuel at around 1mpg. So if it is pulling the standard 70 container freight train then each container is being moved at a fuel cost of 70mpg, or about one-seventh of what would be used if that container was being moved individually by road.

How could road transport possibly have been competitive with rail for long distance freight movements to the point where it crushed the rail freight industry.Even hampered by the road fuel duty disincentive and laughable productivety limits in the form of length and weight regs.Also bearing in mind that the rail freight industry obviously sees a threat from the increased efficiency of LHV’s which obviously means at least a 20ft and 40ft container load per truck.Also bearing in mind the tare weight inefficiency of rail rolling stock to be dragged around the country.
You’re not exactly being a great advocate for the industry ironically even though **it’s treated you better than it did me.**Maybe you should have applied to be a train driver in line with your views.

You’re each reaping what you sowed.
Shock, gasp, horror, private enterprise exists wholly and solely th make a profit, not to provide a venue for lazy pricks to play with other boys big toys.

[carryfast]

Star down under.:

Carryfast:

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
The government is obviously creating a false narrative, that distance work is the problem, to provide the pretext to clamp down on the miles actually run by trucks.
With the clear and stated intent to hand that work over to the rail sector.
Conservative and Labour policy being the same in that regard.
The truth is few enter the industry to drive a few miles a day serving the rail transport sector.The plan for rail turning truck drivers into local shunting drivers and warehouse operatives won’t make the job more attractive in fact the total opposite.

This may come as a surprise to you Carryfast, but transport policy in any country you care to think of is not predicated on bringing happiness to truck drivers. Although I work in the road sector myself I completely agree that where movement by rail is more efficient, as I imagine it would be if 70 containers need moving from, say, Felixtowe to Trafford Park on the same day, then it is logical to use rail for this movement.

A diesel loco typically consumes fuel at around 1mpg. So if it is pulling the standard 70 container freight train then each container is being moved at a fuel cost of 70mpg, or about one-seventh of what would be used if that container was being moved individually by road.

How could road transport possibly have been competitive with rail for long distance freight movements to the point where it crushed the rail freight industry.Even hampered by the road fuel duty disincentive and laughable productivety limits in the form of length and weight regs.Also bearing in mind that the rail freight industry obviously sees a threat from the increased efficiency of LHV’s which obviously means at least a 20ft and 40ft container load per truck.Also bearing in mind the tare weight inefficiency of rail rolling stock to be dragged around the country.
You’re not exactly being a great advocate for the industry ironically even though **it’s treated you better than it did me.**Maybe you should have applied to be a train driver in line with your views.

You’re each reaping what you sowed.
Shock, gasp, horror, private enterprise exists wholly and solely th make a profit

Ironically in this case it’s all about the government running a command economy in favour of rail transport that Stalin would be proud of.
Then we’ve got truck drivers voting like turkeys for Christmas in favour of it.
While at the same time moaning about the lack of distance work opportunities in road transport.Which is about to get far worse.

[harry_monk]

Carryfast:
How could road transport possibly have been competitive with rail for long distance freight movements to the point where it crushed the rail freight industry.Even hampered by the road fuel duty disincentive and laughable productivety limits in the form of length and weight regs.

Because you are talking about a rail freight model which essentially involved a pick-up goods train coming to a halt at some bucolic country halt where a sprightly guard would load half-a-dozen milk churns and a basket of chickens into a goods van. Even a person of limited intelligence can probably see that moving 70 containers using one prime mover and one driver is going to be more efficient than using 70 prime movers and 70 drivers.

The same reason basically that container ships exist rather than British drivers nipping over to Wuhan to pick up a 40’ box.

[carryfast]

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
How could road transport possibly have been competitive with rail for long distance freight movements to the point where it crushed the rail freight industry.Even hampered by the road fuel duty disincentive and laughable productivety limits in the form of length and weight regs.

Because you are talking about a rail freight model which essentially involved a pick-up goods train coming to a halt at some bucolic country halt where a sprightly guard would load half-a-dozen milk churns and a basket of chickens into a goods van. Even a person of limited intelligence can probably see that moving 70 containers using one prime mover and one driver is going to be more efficient than using 70 prime movers and 70 drivers.

The same reason basically that container ships exist rather than British drivers nipping over to Wuhan to pick up a 40’ box.

Your described model sounds more like the late 19th century than this plan which is all about sending the road transport industry back to the 1930’s.
Your container reasoning can be applied to every aspect of the long haul road transport sector.Including piggy back trailer services.
The hypocrisy of drivers who’ve had a good time and a good living from long haul work making the case for rail is astounding.Let alone stating the lack of opportunities in that regard making the job unnatractive to new entrants.Youre talking in contradictions Harry.

[harry_monk]

Carryfast:
The hypocrisy of drivers who’ve had a good time and a good living from long haul work making the case for rail is astounding.Let alone stating the lack of opportunities in that regard making the job unnatractive to new entrants.Youre talking in contradictions Harry.

I’m making the case for freight to be moved in the most efficient way for the volume involved and the distance travelled, whether that be by ship, rail or road. You’d advocate using 44 tonne trucks to do home deliveries of pizzas. Pulled by 6x4 conventionals obviously.

As I said earlier, transport policy is not predicated on providing a “good time” to potential new entrants.

For you alas, there wasn’t the chance to partake in these “good times” even back in the day when one could pass his HGV test in the morning and be on the way to Italy in the afternoon, as many, many did. That’s the trouble with “non face-fitting syndrome”.

[carryfast]

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
The hypocrisy of drivers who’ve had a good time and a good living from long haul work making the case for rail is astounding.Let alone stating the lack of opportunities in that regard making the job unnatractive to new entrants.Youre talking in contradictions Harry.

I’m making the case for freight to be moved in the most efficient way for the volume involved and the distance travelled, whether that be by ship, rail or road. You’d advocate using 44 tonne trucks to do home deliveries of pizzas. Pulled by 6x4 conventionals obviously.

As I said earlier, transport policy is not predicated on providing a “good time” to potential new entrants.

For you alas, there wasn’t the chance to partake in these “good times” even back in the day when one could pass his HGV test in the morning and be on the way to Italy in the afternoon, as many, many did. That’s the trouble with “non face-fitting syndrome”.

By your logic the most ‘efficient’ way to move a trailer or container load of freight is exactly the same by rail whether it’s from London to Leeds or Manchester to Milan.
The fact is we don’t hear pilots saying let’s ban air freight because road let alone rail is more fuel efficient.Or train drivers saying that we should send freight by sea because ships are more fuel efficient than trains.
Really don’t get your point.

[harry_monk]

Carryfast:
By your logic the most ‘efficient’ way to move a trailer or container load of freight is exactly the same by rail whether it’s from London to Leeds or Manchester to Milan.
The fact is we don’t hear pilots saying let’s ban air freight because road let alone rail is more fuel efficient.Or train drivers saying that we should send freight by sea because ships are more fuel efficient than trains.
Really don’t get your point.

The industry standard is that rail becomes more efficient than road for consignments of over 1,000 tonnes over a distance of over 100 miles.

Your point about train drivers is irrelevant because trains travel over land whereas ships travel by sea. Air freight which genuinely travels by air (and much air freight doesn’t) does so because of time constraints- green beans which travel overnight from Africa sort of thing.

[carryfast]

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
By your logic the most ‘efficient’ way to move a trailer or container load of freight is exactly the same by rail whether it’s from London to Leeds or Manchester to Milan.
The fact is we don’t hear pilots saying let’s ban air freight because road let alone rail is more fuel efficient.Or train drivers saying that we should send freight by sea because ships are more fuel efficient than trains.
Really don’t get your point.

The industry standard is that rail becomes more efficient than road for consignments of over 1,000 tonnes over a distance of over 100 miles.

Your point about train drivers is irrelevant because trains travel over land whereas ships travel by sea. Air freight which genuinely travels by air (and much air freight doesn’t) does so because of time constraints- green beans which travel overnight from Africa sort of thing.

Ironically I’ve got personal experience of seeing general freight which previously went by road successfully for decades being transferred to airfreight at the expense of what were obviously more fuel efficient international road trunk runs.
As for your 1,000 tonnes reference by definition a train load of containers or trailers which previously went by road is no different to a train load of bulk oil or iron ore etc etc.
Which is why the plan for rail is all about taking freight off the road and putting it on trains.
Why the double standards in that regard when coastal shipping can move a train load of containers or trailers from Southampton or Avonmouth or Purfleet to Manchester or Glasgow or Newcastle more fuel efficiently than a train.
As I said train drivers or pilots don’t seem to share your turkeys voting for Christmas ideas.Let alone contradict themselves by lamenting the resulting lack of opportunities in their respective industries.Assuming it’s supposedly all about fuel efficiency.
While surely the government would prefer electric LHV trucks than planes and diesel trains burning their way through thousands of gallons of fossil fuel in a shift.It’s supposedly all about global warming right.