zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … ing-monday
Europe just pointed a loaded gun to her own head and told Russia: “Do as I say or I’ll shoot!”
that is what should happen here
fuse:
that is what should happen here
When I suggested that fuel taxation is the elephant in the room for the industry I was told that if it’s brought down or removed it would just lead to more rate slashing.Just pass it on to the customer they’ll pay it all no problem.
What changed.
While now the issue has moved on to the ‘climate’ scam with carbon taxes being added to that.
No problem the customer will supposedly pay it.
Until the switch to even more expensive electric and all moot anyway with a road transport industry based on a local delivery/collections only business model serving the rail freight sector.
Have these people been asleep over the brave new utopian ‘climate’ agenda which doesn’t include any large scale fuel requirement for truck road freight journeys.
All so that our fossil fuel resources can be exported.
Carryfast:
fuse:
that is what should happen hereWhen I suggested that fuel taxation is the elephant in the room for the industry I was told that if it’s brought down or removed it would just lead to more rate slashing.Just pass it on to the customer they’ll pay it all no problem.
What changed.
While now the issue has moved on to the ‘climate’ scam with carbon taxes being added to that.
No problem the customer will supposedly pay it.
Until the switch to even more expensive electric and all moot anyway with a road transport industry based on a local delivery/collections only business model serving the rail freight sector.
Have these people been asleep over the brave new utopian ‘climate’ agenda which doesn’t include any large scale fuel requirement for truck road freight journeys.
All so that our fossil fuel resources can be exported.
WOW! That has to be the most incoherent post I have ever fried my brain trying to make sense of. Well done Carryfast.
I do not think rail will ever beat road it would cost a fortune even if you got your goods .rail is unbeatable at bulk , when they do every thing the rail union holds every one to ransom when pay rates go up…see London now with the underground…mind you I wish trucks were that strong together
DGSA2:
Carryfast:
fuse:
that is what should happen hereWhen I suggested that fuel taxation is the elephant in the room for the industry I was told that if it’s brought down or removed it would just lead to more rate slashing.Just pass it on to the customer they’ll pay it all no problem.
What changed.
While now the issue has moved on to the ‘climate’ scam with carbon taxes being added to that.
No problem the customer will supposedly pay it.
Until the switch to even more expensive electric and all moot anyway with a road transport industry based on a local delivery/collections only business model serving the rail freight sector.
Have these people been asleep over the brave new utopian ‘climate’ agenda which doesn’t include any large scale fuel requirement for truck road freight journeys.
All so that our fossil fuel resources can be exported.WOW! That has to be the most incoherent post I have ever fried my brain trying to make sense of. Well done Carryfast.
I’ll try to make it simpler for you.
The stated aim of European governments is the use of punitive fuel pricing to meet ‘climate change’ policy and that’s what we’re seeing.Its got nothing to do with bs Ukraine.
They also see road transport as the problem and rail transport as the solution in that.
So trains can use as much red diesel as they want.
While according to the accepted wisdom of many on here, road transport can supposedly just pass whatever the costs of having to use white diesel, onto the customer who’ll be ecstatic to pay it with no problem.
While the ‘climate change’ agenda doesn’t actually mean that the oil will be left in the ground.It means that it will just be exported to ‘exempt’ countries like China.
It will all be fine nothing to see here.
Force majeure indeed.
fuse:
I do not think rail will ever beat road it would cost a fortune even if you got your goods .rail is unbeatable at bulk , when they do every thing the rail union holds every one to ransom when pay rates go up…see London now with the underground…mind you I wish trucks were that strong together
The choice between road at £2 per litre v rail using red is a no brainer and we’re already seeing truck freight journeys being replaced by rail with trucks just used for final mile shunting between rail heads and RDC where fuel costs are moot.Even electric at 30p per kWh.
Force majeure is bs.Its openly stated policy.
Carryfast:
I’ll try to make it simpler for you.
The stated aim of European governments is the use of punitive fuel pricing to meet ‘climate change’ policy and that’s what we’re seeing.Its got nothing to do with bs Ukraine.
They also see road transport as the problem and rail transport as the solution in that.
So trains can use as much red diesel as they want.
While according to the accepted wisdom of many on here, road transport can supposedly just pass whatever the costs of having to use white diesel, onto the customer who’ll be ecstatic to pay it with no problem.
While the ‘climate change’ agenda doesn’t actually mean that the oil will be left in the ground.It means that it will just be exported to ‘exempt’ countries like China.
It will all be fine nothing to see here.
Force majeure indeed.
Thank you Carryfast.
So first off, can you provide any evidence where any European Government wants dependence on oil? Germany practically zero oil. France, good luck with that… Holland. Not that much Spain? All of that makes no sense. The best thing (and I admit I have doubts) is to make electrcity. Denmark has wind farms, so does the UK.
Actually you are arguing against yourself. China has oil? No. If China had oil it would tell every other nation in the world to go [zb] off.
I think you are confusing oil with energy.
The ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) and the diesel engine does have a lot of importance in sustaining the economy of any nation.
I will leave you with this thought. If a nation state has lots of oil under the ground, that other nations want, I as the leader of the nation that has lots of oil is going to keep it in the ground and buy oil.
Carryfast:
fuse:
I do not think rail will ever beat road it would cost a fortune even if you got your goods .rail is unbeatable at bulk , when they do every thing the rail union holds every one to ransom when pay rates go up…see London now with the underground…mind you I wish trucks were that strong togetherThe choice between road at £2 per litre v rail using red is a no brainer and we’re already seeing truck freight journeys being replaced by rail with trucks just used for final mile shunting between rail heads and RDC where fuel costs are moot.Even electric at 30p per kWh.
Force majeure is bs.Its openly stated policy.
Again, you state things that are not true.
Most locomotive engines use the things above or beneath the tracks. It is called electricity. The big problem to solve is how to store the electricity. I suspect your Big Brain Carryfast cannot understand my point.
I know, I shouldn’t debate with an idiot. Sometimes it is fun.
DGSA2:
Carryfast:
I’ll try to make it simpler for you.
The stated aim of European governments is the use of punitive fuel pricing to meet ‘climate change’ policy and that’s what we’re seeing.Its got nothing to do with bs Ukraine.
They also see road transport as the problem and rail transport as the solution in that.
So trains can use as much red diesel as they want.
While according to the accepted wisdom of many on here, road transport can supposedly just pass whatever the costs of having to use white diesel, onto the customer who’ll be ecstatic to pay it with no problem.
While the ‘climate change’ agenda doesn’t actually mean that the oil will be left in the ground.It means that it will just be exported to ‘exempt’ countries like China.
It will all be fine nothing to see here.
Force majeure indeed.Thank you Carryfast.
So first off, can you provide any evidence where any European Government wants dependence on oil? Germany practically zero oil. France, good luck with that… Holland. Not that much Spain? All of that makes no sense. The best thing (and I admit I have doubts) is to make electrcity. Denmark has wind farms, so does the UK.
Actually you are arguing against yourself. China has oil? No. If China had oil it would tell every other nation in the world to go f off.
I think you are confusing oil with energy.
The ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) and the diesel engine does have a lot of importance in sustaining the economy of any nation.
I will leave you with this thought. If a nation state has lots of oil under the ground, that other nations want, I as the leader of the nation that has lots of oil is going to keep it in the ground and buy oil.
It’s you that’s arguing against yourself.
We have loads of oil and gas.
Our government’s policy is to flog it all off to Communist China etc while making us dependent on dangerous nuke electric at 30p per kWh.
But rail can use red diesel.
As for Europe it’s sitting on a mountain of coal like we are which can be turned into liquid fuel.
As opposed to dependence on dangerous unaffordable nuke electric.Which still means dependence on not only uranium but also lithium.
While all European governments have stated that there is no place for a long haul road transport sector in this nuke fuelled utopia.Its going by rail and trucks are only for local final miles movements which obviously makes protesting over fuel costs moot.
DGSA2:
Carryfast:
fuse:
I do not think rail will ever beat road it would cost a fortune even if you got your goods .rail is unbeatable at bulk , when they do every thing the rail union holds every one to ransom when pay rates go up…see London now with the underground…mind you I wish trucks were that strong togetherThe choice between road at £2 per litre v rail using red is a no brainer and we’re already seeing truck freight journeys being replaced by rail with trucks just used for final mile shunting between rail heads and RDC where fuel costs are moot.Even electric at 30p per kWh.
Force majeure is bs.Its openly stated policy.Again, you state things that are not true.
Most locomotive engines use the things above or beneath the tracks. It is called electricity. The big problem to solve is how to store the electricity. I suspect your Big Brain Carryfast cannot understand my point.
Ironically the rail freight industry is using diesel ICE powered locomotives because it’s cheaper to use red diesel to generate the electricity than paying for the mains electric under or over the tracks.
DGSA2:
I know, I shouldn’t debate with an idiot. Sometimes it is fun.
But who’s the idiot.
Carryfast:
fuse:
I do not think rail will ever beat road it would cost a fortune even if you got your goods .rail is unbeatable at bulk , when they do every thing the rail union holds every one to ransom when pay rates go up…see London now with the underground…mind you I wish trucks were that strong togetherThe choice between road at £2 per litre v rail using red is a no brainer and we’re already seeing truck freight journeys being replaced by rail with trucks just used for final mile shunting between rail heads and RDC where fuel costs are moot.Even electric at 30p per kWh.
Force majeure is bs.Its openly stated policy.
Shifting goods by railway is only economical either in bulk or long distances. It does not make sense to collect goods from say the South East, bring it to a train distribution depot, unload the goods onto a train, bring it to Manchester then having to distribute the goods regionally
Did they not try having intermodal trains to Glasgow using euro tunnel type trains form the South East in the late 90s but the experiment failed , (might be wrong but sure it was tryed)
Macski:
Shifting goods by railway is only economical either in bulk or long distances. It does not make sense to collect goods from say the South East, bring it to a train distribution depot, unload the goods onto a train, bring it to Manchester then having to distribute the goods regionallyDid they not try having intermodal trains to Glasgow using euro tunnel type trains form the South East in the late 90s but the experiment failed , (might be wrong but sure it was tryed)
The South East to Manchester fits the definition of ‘long distance’.
Government policy is for such freight journeys to be carried out by intermodal rail freight wherever possible and it’s going to apply punitive measures against road transport to enforce it.
Which obviously includes road fuel pricing v red diesel use for trains.
It’s all there in the plan for rail and in the example of Tesco trunking operations being moved from road to rail.
Euroland is now moving towards a similar policy.
Sigh, you really don’t understand Carryfast.
Lots of people/companies who have Red Diesel will not be able to use it (legally) soon. So, what do you do? Sell it, fire sale prices. There are some, a few people/companies who can use it and use it all (the Red Diesel) before they cannot use it legally. (That would be the train companies).
That is why the train companies are buying red diesel.
“Vehicles used on railways” keep the right to use rebated fuel after 1st April.
CLICKY
(I’ve just written a feature on this very subject… 
)
DGSA2:
Sigh, you really don’t understand Carryfast.Lots of people/companies who have Red Diesel will not be able to use it (legally) soon. So, what do you do? Sell it, fire sale prices. There are some, a few people/companies who can use it and use it all (the Red Diesel) before they cannot use it legally. (That would be the train companies).
That is why the train companies are buying red diesel.
Train operators are clearly using red diesel because 1 it’s much cheaper than nuclear etc generated mains electricity an 2 they could always and still can in the future use it for as long as they like.
Unlike road transport among others.
So why would Tesco etc etc want to trunk trailers by road when they can put them on piggy back freight trains or just tranship containers or loads at rail distribution terminals.The same applies in Euroland even if electric is more expensive the ecomies of scale still trashes road transport ( unfortunately).
Carryfast:
Macski:
Shifting goods by railway is only economical either in bulk or long distances. It does not make sense to collect goods from say the South East, bring it to a train distribution depot, unload the goods onto a train, bring it to Manchester then having to distribute the goods regionallyDid they not try having intermodal trains to Glasgow using euro tunnel type trains form the South East in the late 90s but the experiment failed , (might be wrong but sure it was tryed)
The South East to Manchester fits the definition of ‘long distance’.
Government policy is for such freight journeys to be carried out by intermodal rail freight wherever possible and it’s going to apply punitive measures against road transport to enforce it.
Which obviously includes road fuel pricing v red diesel use for trains.
It’s all there in the plan for rail and in the example of Tesco trunking operations being moved from road to rail.
Euroland is now moving towards a similar policy.
It might be a government defenition but this does not make distribution of goods efficient and if you make delivery of goods more expensive then you will get price increases, neither will it cut the need for truck in any significant way because trucks will still be needed to get the goods to the railway depot and then from the depot to its destination. In any case is there the facilities to move so much freight onto rails?
Using coastal waters would be more ecconomical
Lucy:
“Vehicles used on railways” keep the right to use rebated fuel after 1st April.
CLICKY(I’ve just written a feature on this very subject…
I don’t understand why this will make a difference as railways were already allowed to run red diesel and road vehicles were not?
This rule will hit farmers more then hauliers
or am I wrong and missing something?