Carryfast:
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.
So much nonsense in this post that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But I’ll try with just these two points.
Firstly, my position would be constant whether I drove a truck, a train, piloted a ship or flipped burgers in McDonalds. Freight travels by the most efficient means for any given part of its journey according to distance, volume and terrain, and that is generally to most sensible option for fairly obvious reasons.
Secondly, a diesel train does not “burn its way through thousands of gallons of fossil fuel in a shift”. A Class 66 diesel-electric locomotive, the standard freight locomotive used to haul containers up and down the West Coast Main Line has a fuel capacity of 6,550 litres or 1,440 gallons and a range of upwards of 1,200 miles between refuelling, meaning that if it is pulling 70 containers then each container is being moved at a fuel consumption rate of upwards of 60mpg.
Carryfast:
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.
So much nonsense in this post that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But I’ll try with just these two points.
Firstly, my position would be constant whether I drove a truck, a train, piloted a ship or flipped burgers in McDonalds. Freight travels by the most efficient means for any given part of its journey according to distance, volume and terrain, and that is generally to most sensible option for fairly obvious reasons.
Secondly, a diesel train does not “burn its way through thousands of gallons of fossil fuel in a shift”. A Class 66 diesel-electric locomotive, the standard freight locomotive used to haul containers up and down the West Coast Main Line has a fuel capacity of 6,550 litres or 1,440 gallons and a range of upwards of 1,200 miles between refuelling, meaning that if it is pulling 70 containers then each container is being moved at a fuel consumption rate of upwards of 60mpg.
Harry, I’d add time sensitivity and flexibility into your list of considerations.
Carryfast:
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.
So much nonsense in this post that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But I’ll try with just these two points.
Firstly, my position would be constant whether I drove a truck, a train, piloted a ship or flipped burgers in McDonalds. Freight travels by the most efficient means for any given part of its journey according to distance, volume and terrain, and that is generally to most sensible option for fairly obvious reasons.
Secondly, a diesel train does not “burn its way through thousands of gallons of fossil fuel in a shift”. A Class 66 diesel-electric locomotive, the standard freight locomotive used to haul containers up and down the West Coast Main Line has a fuel capacity of 6,550 litres or 1,440 gallons and a range of upwards of 1,200 miles between refuelling, meaning that if it is pulling 70 containers then each container is being moved at a fuel consumption rate of upwards of 60mpg.
A roro ship can take 300 trailers each with obviously more payload capacity.than a container.It can also run 24/7 with no impact on passenger rail services and more fuel efficiently.
Your point being what.When we know that road crushed rail and absolutely beyond doubt given a level playing field on red diesel use and LHVs and the government and the rail freight lobby knows it.
You also didn’t answer the question regarding electric LHV’s v diesel trains if we’re playing the climate card.
You sound like a wannabee train driver Harry you’ve certainly got no loyalty to the road transport industry.
Star down under.:
Harry, I’d add time sensitivity and flexibility into your list of considerations.
I’d add the hypocrisy being shown by Harry.Who had a good living from the long haul road transport sector and who’s moaning about the lack/loss of opportunity for new drivers in the accelerating planned rundown of that sector, in favour of rail freight.
Obviously then being laughably supportive of that rundown.
Truck drivers being supportive of rail freight is the definition of turkeys voting for Christmas.
Star down under.:
Harry, I’d add time sensitivity and flexibility into your list of considerations.
I’d add the hypocrisy being shown by Harry.Who had a good living from the long haul road transport sector and who’s moaning about the lack/loss of opportunity for new drivers in the accelerating planned rundown of that sector, in favour of rail freight.
Obviously then being laughably supportive of that rundown.
Truck drivers being supportive of rail freight is the definition of turkeys voting for Christmas.
The decline of the British continental transport industry has nothing whatsoever do do with rail freight. It happened because of new opportunities afforded to hauliers from post-Communist economies which operate on a lower cost base.
And as to your point in the post above, what exactly do you mean by “loyalty to the road transport industry”? If you mean a belief that the planet’s finite resources should be needlessly wasted then I suppose I don’t.
Star down under.:
Harry, I’d add time sensitivity and flexibility into your list of considerations.
I’d add the hypocrisy being shown by Harry.Who had a good living from the long haul road transport sector and who’s moaning about the lack/loss of opportunity for new drivers in the accelerating planned rundown of that sector, in favour of rail freight.
Obviously then being laughably supportive of that rundown.
Truck drivers being supportive of rail freight is the definition of turkeys voting for Christmas.
The decline of the British continental transport industry has nothing whatsoever do do with rail freight. It happened because of new opportunities afforded to hauliers from post-Communist economies which operate on a lower cost base.
And as to your point in the post above, what exactly do you mean by “loyalty to the road transport industry”? If you mean a belief that the planet’s finite resources should be needlessly wasted then I suppose I don’t.
The UK continental transport industry was just a part of the the uk long haul sector of the road transport industry whether UK or international or the combination of both.
The same long haul sector of the industry that you want to hand over to the rail freight interests. While then moaning about the resulting loss of opportunities for truck drivers.Bearing in mind that much of the reasoning for that decline and high cost base was/is the deliberate imposition of punitive fuel costs and other taxation and regulation on the industry to make rail more competitive.
As for your ideas about road transport supposedly ‘wasting the planet’s resources’ you obviously didn’t apply that thinking to your own career choice when it suited you.
It’s also strange that you seem to want to avoid the questions of coastal sea transport v rail, or LHVs running on renewable electric v diesel trains and air freight v road ‘if’ it’s supposedly all about ‘finite resources’ or is it climate change it can’t be both.
While either way the agenda obviously wouldn’t be replacing domestic oil and gas consumption with exports.
Nor the situation in which air freight and rail are given preferential status over more fuel efficient road and sea transport respectively.
Let alone electric trucks v diesel trains.
Like the government your whole argument is based on laughably biased anti road pro rail hypocrisy.
Carryfast:
It’s also strange that you seem to want to avoid the questions of coastal sea transport v rail, or LHVs running on renewable electric v diesel trains and air freight v road ‘if’ it’s supposedly all about ‘finite resources’ or is it climate change it can’t be both.
I just thought it was so nonsensical that it wasn’t worth my time replying but if you insist then coastal sea transport can only operate from one sea port to another and there would be absolutely no logic whatsoever in assembling a ship-load of freight in, say, Southampton in order to run it to, say, Liverpool. Or from any sea port to any other sea port. With the time taken and the enormous cost of the transhipments it would make absolutely no financial sense whatsoever.
If it did, then someone would be doing it.
Carryfast:
Like the government your whole argument is based on laughably biased anti road pro rail hypocrisy.
I think the Earth’s resources are finite and should be used in the most efficient way possible, for future generations to come. My guess would be that women have always tended to hold the same views at the thriving 1980’s British continental transport industry and considered that your face didn’t fit when it came to offering opportunities and your concerns with regard to future generations thus extend no further than your favourite friendship sock.
> Harry Monk: > I just thought it was so nonsensical that it wasn’t worth my time replying but if you insist then coastal sea transport can only operate from one sea port to another and there would be absolutely no logic whatsoever in assembling a ship-load of freight in, say, Southampton in order to run it to, say, Liverpool. Or from any sea port to any other sea port. With the time taken and the enormous cost of the transhipments it would make absolutely no financial sense whatsoever. > > If it did, then someone would be doing it.
Exactly Harry - in the dying days of coal shipments for domestic use in the UK around the late 1980s the freight moved from Sea to Road, the reason being the cost of handling each end at the ports and the final miles’ road delivery. It was much cheaper to send lorry loads direct as and when required.
Whereas in the case of Power Stations, rail delivery was far and away the cheapest and simplest, unless the Power Station had sea access when sea freight won.
Earth to Carryfast, Earth to Carryfast. Harry’s moved with the times. The way we did things in the twentieth century is not relivant in the twenty first, hell, some of it was pretty dodgy even then.
No industry on earth exists for workers’ jollies, particularly the one in which you failed so spectacularly.
Carryfast:
It’s also strange that you seem to want to avoid the questions of coastal sea transport v rail, or LHVs running on renewable electric v diesel trains and air freight v road ‘if’ it’s supposedly all about ‘finite resources’ or is it climate change it can’t be both.
I just thought it was so nonsensical that it wasn’t worth my time replying but if you insist then coastal sea transport can only operate from one sea port to another and there would be absolutely no logic whatsoever in assembling a ship-load of freight in, say, Southampton in order to run it to, say, Liverpool. Or from any sea port to any other sea port. With the time taken and the enormous cost of the transhipments it would make absolutely no financial sense whatsoever.
If it did, then someone would be doing it.
Carryfast:
Like the government your whole argument is based on laughably biased anti road pro rail hypocrisy.
I think the Earth’s resources are finite and should be used in the most efficient way possible, for future generations to come. My guess would be that women have always tended to hold the same views at the thriving 1980’s British continental transport industry and considered that your face didn’t fit when it came to offering opportunities and your concerns with regard to future generations thus extend no further than your favourite friendship sock.
Make your mind up according to the rail freight proponents it’s all about not cooking the planet with CO2.
Which obviously makes the case for nuke fuelled electric LHV’s instead of diesel trains.
Also road v air freight.
By your logic you’re just delaying the point when the oil runs out by a generation or two so what’s the point.
Consolidating a ship load of trailers from Southampton to Liverpool or Manchester etc just like a train load of piggy back trailers or containers between similar points.
For someone who supposedly cares so much about ‘future generations’ you obviously didn’t apply the same thinking when you were chucked the keys to drive a truck on distance work yourself.
Also doesn’t fit your comments related to lack of decent distance work jobs for new drivers now.
You’re talking in laughable contradictions.
Star down under.:
Earth to Carryfast, Earth to Carryfast. Harry’s moved with the times. The way we did things in the twentieth century is not relivant in the twenty first, hell, some of it was pretty dodgy even then.
No industry on earth exists for workers’ jollies, particularly the one in which you failed so spectacularly.
Truck drivers making the case for rail transport.While moaning about the loss of long haul truck driving jobs.
Suggest you read the previous posts regarding same in that regard and direct your comments to them.You’re not making the job more attractive.
Although it’s difficult to believe the credibility of anyone supposedly linked to the Australian road transport industry making the case for rail over long haul road transport and who doesn’t seem to understand the difference between gross combination weights and gross train weights Or why two drive axles are better than one to pull either of them.
Carryfast:
For someone who supposedly cares so much about ‘future generations’ you obviously didn’t apply the same thinking when you were chucked the keys to drive a truck on distance work yourself.
A desire to do long-haul continental work was what me into the job and I started out at a time when anyone who wanted to do continental work could very easily get a job doing it. But if I hadn’t delivered a load to, say, Milan then someone else would have done that movement so my actions made no difference either way. However, even if that same situation still existed today I think younger people no longer have the desire to do it.
Carryfast:
For someone who supposedly cares so much about ‘future generations’ you obviously didn’t apply the same thinking when you were chucked the keys to drive a truck on distance work yourself.
A desire to do long-haul continental work was what me into the job and I started out at a time when anyone who wanted to do continental work could very easily get a job doing it. But if I hadn’t delivered a load to, say, Milan then someone else would have done that movement so my actions made no difference either way. However, even if that same situation still existed today I think younger people no longer have the desire to do it.
If your conscience was that great you could have at least turned the job down on principle.
I’m sure Merzario among others was doing Intermodal UK Milan by Rail then maybe you should have told the employer to give them the job and then gone on agency doing 7.5t local multi drop or even local Intermodal class 1 in line with your principles.
As I said you’re talking laughable contradictions.In the knowledge that every gallon you save will be exported.
The government and oil companies aren’t in the business of leaving the stuff in the ground.
Which still leaves the question of what’s wrong with electric LHVs v diesel trains by your own standards.In which case the rail industry will have no issues with having to use white diesel in view of its stated low fuel consumption and eco principles.
Carryfast:
Which still leaves the question of what’s wrong with electric LHVs v diesel trains by your own standards.
Mostly I guess because there’s no such thing as an electric LHV? But even if there was it would require 70 of them to replace a 70-container train.
Look, here’s a question for you. If your ideas are so great, why hasn’t anyone adopted them already? Let’s take your obsession about 6x4 tractor units. Families who have been running haulage companies for five generations don’t spec them. Why do you think that might be?
Carryfast:
Which still leaves the question of what’s wrong with electric LHVs v diesel trains by your own standards.
Mostly I guess because there’s no such thing as an electric LHV? But even if there was it would require 70 of them to replace a 70-container train.
Look, here’s a question for you. If your ideas are so great, why hasn’t anyone adopted them already? Let’s take your obsession about 6x4 tractor units. Families who have been running haulage companies for five generations don’t spec them. Why do you think that might be?
Electric trucks aren’t a factor yet.But by your own standards there’s no reason why the government wouldn’t want to incentivise such a change by allowing the NZ type LHV.It’s obvious that the artic configuration won’t provide the battery capacity.
A 6 or 8 wheeler rigid pulling a 5 or 6 axle 45 foot trailer will.In the interests of consistency and credibility of your supposed argument you’d then also want to impose the use of white diesel on diesel trains in that case.
Which proves that your laughably biased argument is all about anti truck pro rail.
You wouldn’t need to even go back 5 generations to reach a time when the 8x4 rigid was the mainstay of the UK haulage industry.
Just like it still is in NZ and double drive in general in the rest of the English speaking world.Because they don’t like smashing the roads with high drive axle weights.Especially in the case of the tractive effort needed to pull a 60 + tonner.
The governments ‘Future of Freight’ plan is unveiled today which lays out a strategy plan for the flow of freight across the UK’s roads, railways, seas, skies and canals.
It will be interesting to see the TV ad campaign to recruit new people into logistics. commercialfleet.org/news/la … n-unveiled
The link (thank you for putting it up) and found this line from Grant Shapps, ‘We are committed to working closely with the industry’. It was at that point my head hit the keyboard. Next thing I knew, two hours of my life had gone by as I slept.
As long as I can remember, politicians of all parties have used that line.
I’m an optimist, maybe this time it’s not just platitudes.
The link (thank you for putting it up) and found this line from Grant Shapps, ‘We are committed to working closely with the industry’. It was at that point my head hit the keyboard. Next thing I knew, two hours of my life had gone by as I slept.
As long as I can remember, politicians of all parties have used that line.
I’m an optimist, maybe this time it’s not just platitudes.
The same Grant Shapps that wants to ban the right of rail-workers to strike?
How will he feel about any drivers wanting to strike?
Doubtless he has/will be “working closely” with some in the transport industries. How could you possibly doubt that!
Will that be actual drivers and their representatives? Will it !!!
Several big trucking companies here in the US bought their own ‘intermodal’ containers and have their own day cabs at the rail yards to deliver them. These containers are owned by J B Hunt trucking on what’s called a stacker train on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line.
