|
Post by JohnV on Feb 12, 2020 8:45:53 GMT
I think both of you are right to a certain degree.
Availability of cheap surplus vehicles plus a sudden increase in people who ha been trained to drive them added to a massively subsidised road building program gave road transport a huge boost against both waterborne and rail goods carriage.
A bulk trade that almost disappeared overnight during the war was the refined oil trade due to the construction of the incredible network of pipelines. The success of these and the ease and cheapness of handling got rid of a very large proportion of the long distance bulk carriage by both rail and canal.
It's far, far more complex and you need to also look at the thing that destroyed the traditional port system which was containerisation.
Also limited access to large areas by reliable large scale waterborne transport necessitated a good road transport system for those areas and it is only natural for them to "poach" from the other methods, after all their bread and butter is assured by the areas without waterways anything they steal from the canals is "jam"
|
|
|
Post by bills on Feb 12, 2020 8:52:32 GMT
waistline wapentake warehouse warrantee washhouse watchable watchcase waterline waterside waveguide waveshape wearisome weighable whalebone whalelike wheelbase wherefore whetstone whinstone whiteface wholesale wholesome wideawake willemite winterize witchlike witherite woebegone wolfsbane wolverine womanlike woodstove workforce workhorse workhouse workpiece workplace worktable worldwide worrisome wulfenite wyandotte woodville wikiquote
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 9:14:25 GMT
'Waterborne' has got 10 letters...I'll get my coat..
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 12, 2020 9:36:31 GMT
As JohnV has said, the reasons for first the railways and then the roads gaining over inland waterway transport are many and complex, but if they have to be distilled down to one overriding cause it was first the railways and then the roads greater facility to go directly to the good's 'end user' and eliminate transshipping.
Having said that of course, there was still scope for bulk stock cargoes to continue going by water, but thanks to this country's sad inability, along with some contributors to this forum, to make the best of that precious commodity called 'joined up thinking', all those long established traffics, along with many potential new ones, were consigned to history.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 12, 2020 9:40:26 GMT
I'm not a wise enough man to know if HS2 will ultimately be beneficial to the WHOLE country. It's just a rip-off. Brown envelopes stuffed with cash and wink-wink contracts dished out to chums at the golf club. And everyone knows it. If you want to get to Birmingham 20 minutes earlier, catch an earlier train! I don't buy Johnv's claim that it will free up old track for more freight - the railways are mostly unoccupied by trains. Anyway, shouldn't we be asking for LESS goods trains in the interest of consuming less and saving the planet? HS2 is a scam.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 12, 2020 9:45:06 GMT
A level playing field would have helped as well Tony. For years the Road network has had massive government subsidies when compared to both water and rail
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 9:52:18 GMT
I spend most of my life on canals that were the HS2 of their day when constructed.
I have no issues with development of the rail network, and accept I do not understand all the arguments.
But it is a VAST sum of money that could do a lot of good for a lot of different targets .
I am at least pleased that the groundworks already progressing will not be wasted.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 9:57:01 GMT
I'm not a wise enough man to know if HS2 will ultimately be beneficial to the WHOLE country. If you want to get to Birmingham 20 minutes earlier, catch an earlier train! Quicker, not earlier..
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 12, 2020 9:57:50 GMT
There has been no referendum on HS2.
Why not?
It's our money!
It will be built using tax payers' money and then someone like Tax-Haven Beardie Branson will get to run his toy trains on it and suck up the profits.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 12, 2020 9:59:18 GMT
I'm not a wise enough man to know if HS2 will ultimately be beneficial to the WHOLE country. It's just a rip-off. Brown envelopes stuffed with cash and wink-wink contracts dished out to chums at the golf club. And everyone knows it. If you want to get to Birmingham 20 minutes earlier, catch an earlier train! I don't buy Johnv's claim that it will free up old track for more freight - the railways are mostly unoccupied by trains. Anyway, shouldn't we be asking for LESS goods trains in the interest of consuming less and saving the planet? HS2 is a scam. a little bit of light reading for you orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/467/skm-capacity-utilisation-aug-2012.pdflong and complex document (I'll be honest I only skimmed it, but found bits interesting)
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 12, 2020 10:00:10 GMT
If you want to get to Birmingham 20 minutes earlier, catch an earlier train! Quicker, not earlier.. Earlier. If I want to be there at 0900 instead of 0920. 0900 is earlier than 0920, not 'quicker'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 10:05:18 GMT
quicker = leaving at the same time but arriving earlier
go stand in the corner.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 12, 2020 12:07:37 GMT
quicker = leaving at the same time but arriving earlier go stand in the corner. Leaving at 0900 instead of 0920 is not 'leaving at the same time'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 12:09:57 GMT
quicker = leaving at the same time but arriving earlier go stand in the corner. Leaving at 0900 instead of 0920 is not 'leaving at the same time'. Depends whether Northern Trains are the operator of the train...
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 12, 2020 12:16:20 GMT
Who wants to get to Birmingham quicker anyway? Or to London come to think of it.
|
|