|
Post by JohnV on Feb 11, 2020 20:17:21 GMT
I had an excuse when I repowered my barge which was that the wheelhouse floor was too low to allow a real engine in there so I went for a Beta Kubota. Someone with a similar boat did put a Gardner in (5LW so not one of the big ones) but I would guess they got less headroom in the wheelhouse. Bigger boats like Humber Barges have acres of space. maybe but when offered a complete engine room installation (and I mean complete) with an 6 cyl 8 litre 135 HP lump normally aspirated (long stroke as well) for £10K brand new .....which way would you jump ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 20:19:15 GMT
I'd go for the new one as you did
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 20:20:55 GMT
I'm not a wise enough man to know if HS2 will ultimately be beneficial to the WHOLE country.
But with ground works already undertaken, and a swathe cut through parts of the country, I'm at least pleased it's not going to be wasted.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 11, 2020 20:25:49 GMT
on that subject Rog, all I can do is point to history ..... supply good transport links and business and industry always seems to spring up around it
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 11, 2020 20:27:45 GMT
Road transport won the war in the 1960's ... sad but true. Rog It has its origins earlier than that, one major factor was the large amount of army surplus trucks coming onto the market after WW2 coupled with demobilised soldiers looking for work and lax operating and licensing requirements, which triggered the birth of many haulage firms. But then again, rail had largely killed off the canal carrying trade a hundred years before so what goes around comes around I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 11, 2020 20:29:11 GMT
I'm not a wise enough man to know if HS2 will ultimately be beneficial to the WHOLE country. But with ground works already undertaken, and a swathe cut through parts of the country, I'm at least pleased it's not going to be wasted. Rog Big transport infrastructure projects are always unpopular with anyone living nearby and with the environmentalists, but ultimately if they don’t get built we remain stuck in the 18th century. I remember being a bit upset when the M40 swathed through lovely Warwickshire countryside, but now one couldn’t imagine life without it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 20:34:29 GMT
The relentless march of "progress"
I heard someone earlier on the radio mentioning that the Victorians spent about ten times more as a percentage of GDP on major transport infrastructure than we do today.
But then you have to think about it. That was in the days of endless coal supplies and plenty of room in the air for the smoke. No problems on the horizon.
It seems to be a bit of a different story these days.
As for not being able to live without motorways I suspect in a lot of ways ordinary people would have a higher quality of life if motorways had never been built.
Quality of life measured by actual life rather than consumable life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 20:35:32 GMT
I agree Mr Stabby but it seems that the 'fork in the road' decision time was the early 60's ... and road transport was chosen and backed. I wonder if rail and public transport had been chosen at that point, how would the UK have progressed ... the dream of an integrated local and inter city rail, and subsequently tram public transport service, rather than being the constant after thought. Public transport could have been a national service. Rog
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 11, 2020 23:23:21 GMT
Road transport won the war in the 1960's ... sad but true. Rog It has its origins earlier than that, one major factor was the large amount of army surplus trucks coming onto the market after WW2 coupled with demobilised soldiers looking for work and lax operating and licensing requirements, which triggered the birth of many haulage firms. But then again, rail had largely killed off the canal carrying trade a hundred years before so what goes around comes around I suppose. Utter rubbish ! Name one substantial long haul bulk railway or waterborne traffic to waterside industries which was ever lost to a fleet of ex-army 3-tonners, or any substantial bulk canal traffic to waterside industry that was lost to the railways in the 1850's.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 12, 2020 5:13:29 GMT
Road transport won the war in the 1960's ... sad but true. Video killed the radio star in 1979.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 5:31:09 GMT
I heard someone earlier on the radio mentioning that the Victorians spent about ten times more as a percentage of GDP on major transport infrastructure than we do today. There are several excellent reasons why: - Britain was the primary global economy.
- Wealth was even more focused on a tiny percentage of the population than it is today.
- Victorian society was not a democracy. Those with power could act in their own interests without opposition.
- Before the industrial revolution matured, 'transport infrastructure' was virtually non-existent. The scope for development was immense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 5:32:30 GMT
Public transport could have been a national service. It was.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 12, 2020 7:00:08 GMT
It has its origins earlier than that, one major factor was the large amount of army surplus trucks coming onto the market after WW2 coupled with demobilised soldiers looking for work and lax operating and licensing requirements, which triggered the birth of many haulage firms. But then again, rail had largely killed off the canal carrying trade a hundred years before so what goes around comes around I suppose. Utter rubbish ! Name one substantial long haul bulk railway or waterborne traffic to waterside industries which was ever lost to a fleet of ex-army 3-tonners, or any substantial bulk canal traffic to waterside industry that was lost to the railways in the 1850's. Happened equally after WW1. As stated on Wikipedia "Road transport grew rapidly during the 1920s, stimulated by the cheap sale of thousands of war-surplus vans and lorries and the subsidised construction of new roads, which was mainly funded by local authorities." But of course, as ever, Dickhead Dunkley knows better.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Feb 12, 2020 7:59:15 GMT
............. I heard someone earlier on the radio mentioning that the Victorians spent about ten times more as a percentage of GDP on major transport infrastructure than we do today. ............ It is a question of priorities, so back then tax was low and not spent on education, benefits for the poor and the NHS to name but 3. Also interest rates were low and to make more money rich people looked for things to invest into, these being initially the canals and later the railways, all built with very cheap labour.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 12, 2020 8:01:57 GMT
Utter rubbish ! Name one substantial long haul bulk railway or waterborne traffic to waterside industries which was ever lost to a fleet of ex-army 3-tonners, or any substantial bulk canal traffic to waterside industry that was lost to the railways in the 1850's. Happened equally after WW1. As stated on Wikipedia "Road transport grew rapidly during the 1920s, stimulated by the cheap sale of thousands of war-surplus vans and lorries and the subsidised construction of new roads, which was mainly funded by local authorities." But of course, as ever, Dickhead Dunkley knows better. Alright then, . . . I'll invite you once again to name one substantial long haul bulk railway or waterborne traffic to waterside industries which was ever lost to a fleet of ex-army 3-tonners, or any substantial bulk canal traffic to waterside industry that was lost to the railways in the 1850's. By the way, there's a helpful clue for you in the question to one of the real reasons for the general demise of inland waterway transport in this country, . . . it's a nine letter word beginning with a 'w' and ending with an 'e' !
|
|