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

On 26 Jun, 10:42, "Brimstone" wrote:
About time too!! It's not just cyclists who can benefit from this
opportunity, other road users should take the chance to have a look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6240140.stm

Lorries highlight cycling danger

The dangers posed by lorries to cyclists and pedestrians are to be
highlighted in a road safety event.

Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to allow
other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry driver's vision is.

Metropolitan Police figures show that in 2006 nine cyclists were killed in
London in accidents involving lorries.

The two-day event this week follows a campaign launched in March urging
lorry drivers to look out for cyclists.

Ch Insp Mark Bird said: "Lots of people cycle in London and I'd encourage
people to come along and see first hand just how easy the cause of these
types of collisions can be and how easily avoidable they are.

"I have witnessed first hand the devastating affects that losing a loved one
or family member can have, and we are determined to do all we can to reduce
the risks to cyclists, and all road users."

In 2006 19 cyclists were killed in collisions - nine of which involved a
goods vehicle.

The year before 21 cyclists were killed, nine involved lorries and in 2004
four of eight accidents in which cyclists were killed involved lorries.

What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's safety is another man's killer.

Doug wrote:
On 26 Jun, 10:42, "Brimstone" wrote:
About time too!! It's not just cyclists who can benefit from this
opportunity, other road users should take the chance to have a look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6240140.stm

Lorries highlight cycling danger

The dangers posed by lorries to cyclists and pedestrians are to be
highlighted in a road safety event.

Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to
allow other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry
driver's vision is.

Metropolitan Police figures show that in 2006 nine cyclists were
killed in London in accidents involving lorries.

The two-day event this week follows a campaign launched in March
urging lorry drivers to look out for cyclists.

Ch Insp Mark Bird said: "Lots of people cycle in London and I'd
encourage people to come along and see first hand just how easy the
cause of these types of collisions can be and how easily avoidable
they are.

"I have witnessed first hand the devastating affects that losing a
loved one or family member can have, and we are determined to do all
we can to reduce the risks to cyclists, and all road users."

In 2006 19 cyclists were killed in collisions - nine of which
involved a goods vehicle.

The year before 21 cyclists were killed, nine involved lorries and
in 2004 four of eight accidents in which cyclists were killed
involved lorries.

What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.

Probably because that's not what the subject is about.

R.C. Payne wrote:
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.

And therefore convieniently ignored because this small reality dilutes
your already weak argument.

Certainly there are economic issues beyond the simple
time in transit, and clearly Eddie Stobart reckon they can make it pay
here.

That I question, Stobart group owns the terminls on both ends of the
route and are doing this to gain credibility and green bonus point
benefits, all very politically correct, it's workinf for them as
Stobarts image glows as far as cretins like you are concerned, the
reality is a tiny miniscule percentage of the traffic is sent by rail,
it's just a PR gesture and you are too stupid to see it.

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.

It can take up to eight hours, occasionally longer to get a container
lifted at freightliners (that was earlier this year, my own experience).

We aren't
living in the '50s any more, you know.

Freightliners are.

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.

"and with a reasonable path" is the give away here, the pigs fuelled up
and waiting at the end of the runway.

Robin

The dreamer.

Doug wrote:



What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.


That must be why the pavement barriers are constructed in either mesh or
bars, the crushed cyclist mush will have room to escape harmlessly on
to the pavement without leaving the road slippery for legitimate paying
users.

In message .com, Doug
writes
What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.
Fault of the cyclist for undertaking, (pun?)
--
Clive.

Clive. wrote:
In message .com, Doug
writes
What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.
Fault of the cyclist for undertaking, (pun?)

Why weren't they safely on the pavement like usual?

In article , Tom
Anderson says...

Again - er, what? Are you telling me going from a 300 mile lorry journey
to a 280 mile rail journey and two 10 mile truck journeys isn't a
reduction?

It isn't 10 miles though. The stuff still needs to travel dozens or
hundreds of miles from the supplier to the railhead at DART and once
it's up in Scotland, travels dozens or hundreds of miles to the end
locations.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

In article , Martin says...
It's an increase, minimum 3 drivers minimum 2 lorries and a train, as
against 1 driver and 1 truck.

Lets say 20 lorries

300 miles takes 6 hours for this

10 miles takes 1/2 hour

20 hours lorry driving
4 hours train driving

or

120 hours lorry drivng

This does not include handing

Which is several hours at each railhead as opposed to an hour at each
end for a lorry.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

In article , NM says...


It can take up to eight hours, occasionally longer to get a container
lifted at freightliners (that was earlier this year, my own experience).

We aren't
living in the '50s any more, you know.

Freightliners are.

And then there's Felixstowe where a 24hr wait isn't unheard of.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........