NM wrote:
John B wrote:
On 28 Jun, 13:48, NM wrote:

Translation follows:

If you want to carry 20x lorryloads of freight 300 miles, you can
either:

a) send 20x lorries 300 miles, for a total of 120 hours of lorry
driving

Oh I see, the lorries average 60 mph and never have to return to the
start point, you have a never ending supply of trucks and drivers
exactly where you want them.

or

b) send 20x lorries 10 miles, one train 180 miles, and 20x other
lorries 10 miles, for a total of 20 hours of lorry driving and 4 hours
of train driving.

You are convieniently forgetting the 2 hours needed to load the truck
the 2 hours needed to unload it then the 2 hours needed to load the
train then the 2 hours needed to unload the train then the 2 hours
needed to load truck2 then the 2 hours needed to discharge at the final
destination. 2 hours being a very generous guess as I have waited over
eight hours on numerous occasions for a container to be lifted on.

Plus you are ignoring the increased opportunities for damage and
pilfering that break bulk invites.

And you are expecting a freight train to AVERAGE a totally unrealistic
45 mph

It's been tried and failed now it's being reintroduced for politically
correct reasons as a sop, only a token amount is shipped RCD to RCD by
rail.

Wow, look at them goalposts go! The question was about lorries on
roads. Lorries being loaded and unloaded are, last time I checked, not
on the roads. Certainly there are economic issues beyond the simple
time in transit, and clearly Eddie Stobart reckon they can make it pay
here. I'm not sure where your idea of having to unpack and repack comes
from, though, I thought all the transhipment involved swap-bodies, which
won't take 4 hours to get off a train and onto a truck. We aren't
living in the '50s any more, you know. What's unrealistic about a 45mph
average speed for a container train? They have a top speed of 75 (class
66, IIRC), and with a reasonable path, they won't be held much.

Robin