|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 12, 2020 19:10:39 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2020 19:13:29 GMT
No it won't. Roads are cheaper for freight - ask any Eastern European lorry driver! If you hadn't noticed, the West Coast Main Line has been electrified since the 1960s. Ross stop being a twat Oh that it was that simple ! Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2020 20:02:43 GMT
Not looked into it but I suspect that road transport actually is cheaper than rail freight for a lot of things to be fair.
It is probably not possible to compare directly as some products keep for longer than others and direct delivery to a local market is less/more important but overall it seems that the argument "road transport is cheaper than rail" is probably a valid one.
Plus of course the old "Tories like roads and Labour like railways" thing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories suddenly decided to shelve HS2 just to have a go at the "let's throw shed loads of money at the trains" Blair government.
It could be too late for that though to be fair. It's quite a long way down the line now and quite a few eco worriers have been taken out of trees.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Nov 13, 2020 10:33:21 GMT
Not looked into it but I suspect that road transport actually is cheaper than rail freight for a lot of things to be fair. It is probably not possible to compare directly as some products keep for longer than others and direct delivery to a local market is less/more important but overall it seems that the argument "road transport is cheaper than rail" is probably a valid one. Plus of course the old "Tories like roads and Labour like railways" thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories suddenly decided to shelve HS2 just to have a go at the "let's throw shed loads of money at the trains" Blair government. It could be too late for that though to be fair. It's quite a long way down the line now and quite a few eco worriers have been taken out of trees. Dream on Andrew rail is cheap in comparison to road, I have the exol Pride boat go past every week loaded with oil it puts lots of lorries of the road, why do exol use a boat because it cheaper than road. I have two railway tracks a few hundred yards away all night freight trains going past why because they are cheaper than road. HS2 will move passengers and maybe freight at night the old mainline will no doubt move even more freight than it already does
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Nov 13, 2020 13:02:18 GMT
How are we disposing of all these used tests and PPE? What has been the carbon footprint of producing it all? Landfill. All that plastic crap. Or burning it. Chucking it overboard ships... into dolphins' stomachs. There are used face masks all over this town where I work, thrown out of car windows, caught up in bushes besides the pavements, simply discarded when not wanted any more. That's Finland for you. Phil
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 14, 2020 17:02:28 GMT
Not looked into it but I suspect that road transport actually is cheaper than rail freight for a lot of things to be fair. It is probably not possible to compare directly as some products keep for longer than others and direct delivery to a local market is less/more important but overall it seems that the argument "road transport is cheaper than rail" is probably a valid one. Plus of course the old "Tories like roads and Labour like railways" thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories suddenly decided to shelve HS2 just to have a go at the "let's throw shed loads of money at the trains" Blair government. It could be too late for that though to be fair. It's quite a long way down the line now and quite a few eco worriers have been taken out of trees. why do exol use a boat because it cheaper than road. What - one boat for the whole of the UK? Go Exol Pride, go! Exol Pride is just fiddling about playing at freight boating - no-one is really dependent on Exol Pride.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Nov 14, 2020 17:07:55 GMT
Not looked into it but I suspect that road transport actually is cheaper than rail freight for a lot of things to be fair. It is probably not possible to compare directly as some products keep for longer than others and direct delivery to a local market is less/more important but overall it seems that the argument "road transport is cheaper than rail" is probably a valid one. Plus of course the old "Tories like roads and Labour like railways" thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories suddenly decided to shelve HS2 just to have a go at the "let's throw shed loads of money at the trains" Blair government. It could be too late for that though to be fair. It's quite a long way down the line now and quite a few eco worriers have been taken out of trees. Dream on Andrew rail is cheap in comparison to road, I have the exol Pride boat go past every week loaded with oil it puts lots of lorries of the road, why do exol use a boat because it cheaper than road. I have two railway tracks a few hundred yards away all night freight trains going past why because they are cheaper than road. HS2 will move passengers and maybe freight at night the old mainline will no doubt move even more freight than it already does There is a formula used to determine where trains are cheaper- something like 1,000 tonnes over 100 miles. But then it can never be a truly accurate calculation because of the various subsidies involved.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Nov 15, 2020 19:19:53 GMT
Dream on Andrew rail is cheap in comparison to road, I have the exol Pride boat go past every week loaded with oil it puts lots of lorries of the road, why do exol use a boat because it cheaper than road. I have two railway tracks a few hundred yards away all night freight trains going past why because they are cheaper than road. HS2 will move passengers and maybe freight at night the old mainline will no doubt move even more freight than it already does There is a formula used to determine where trains are cheaper- something like 1,000 tonnes over 100 miles. But then it can never be a truly accurate calculation because of the various subsidies involved. Ah Vince you have an answer unlike Foxy the Troll who has no idea how things work other than cut and paste!! clearly he couldnt find any to answer me, Two boats are now shifting sand to leeds because its cheaper and cleaner than lorries, the the A & C was dredged it would be even cheaper, but that means CRT has to spend money on dredging which they seem adverse to
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 15, 2020 19:30:51 GMT
There is a formula used to determine where trains are cheaper- something like 1,000 tonnes over 100 miles. But then it can never be a truly accurate calculation because of the various subsidies involved. Ah Vince you have an answer unlike Foxy the Troll who has no idea how things work other than cut and paste!! clearly he couldnt find any to answer me, Two boats are now shifting sand to leeds because its cheaper and cleaner than lorries, the the A & C was dredged it would be even cheaper, but that means CRT has to spend money on dredging which they seem adverse to "clearly he couldn't find any to answer me" - I don't remember you asking me anything. "Two boats are now shifting sand to leeds because its cheaper and cleaner than lorries" - the lorry drivers are now on the dole, so remember to take that into account when doing the costing. (although, of course, I do think water transport is good, and I have said this before). "that means CRT has to spend money on dredging which they seem adverse to" - err... that means it's cheaper for CRT, eh? I don't know how dredging would make the operation 'cheaper' - money has to be found for the blokes doing the dredging and the machinery - oh, and for all the fossil fuels those dredging machines consume!! (or do they have electric dredging machines these days, hmmm??!!)
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Nov 15, 2020 19:35:23 GMT
There is a formula used to determine where trains are cheaper- something like 1,000 tonnes over 100 miles. But then it can never be a truly accurate calculation because of the various subsidies involved. Ah Vince you have an answer unlike Foxy the Troll who has no idea how things work other than cut and paste!! clearly he couldnt find any to answer me, Two boats are now shifting sand to leeds because its cheaper and cleaner than lorries, the the A & C was dredged it would be even cheaper, but that means CRT has to spend money on dredging which they seem adverse to If the amount of sand being carried is gradually increased over a number of trips would they end up dredging it themselves? Or displacing it and digging a deeper channel anyway. Dredging is probably the wrong word as it wouldn't be taken out of the canal. Maybe a question for TD.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Nov 15, 2020 19:36:48 GMT
There is a formula used to determine where trains are cheaper- something like 1,000 tonnes over 100 miles. But then it can never be a truly accurate calculation because of the various subsidies involved. Ah Vince you have an answer unlike Foxy the Troll who has no idea how things work other than cut and paste!! clearly he couldnt find any to answer me, Two boats are now shifting sand to leeds because its cheaper and cleaner than lorries, the the A & C was dredged it would be even cheaper, but that means CRT has to spend money on dredging which they seem adverse to But if these boats were operating in a pure free market economy then the owners would be prepared to pay for the cost of dredging as this would be less than the extra profits to be made from running deeper draughted boats. But this is the problem with both waterway and rail transport, it's not the cost of running the vehicles which makes it unviable, it's the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. Dredging a canal is an enormously expensive and never-ending operation, and sand pays a very small per-tonne profit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 19:49:06 GMT
Has anyone heard from TonyDunkley lately? Maybe he is brown bread. I'm sure he would have something to say about dredging in this context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 19:51:31 GMT
Ah Vince you have an answer unlike Foxy the Troll who has no idea how things work other than cut and paste!! clearly he couldnt find any to answer me, Two boats are now shifting sand to leeds because its cheaper and cleaner than lorries, the the A & C was dredged it would be even cheaper, but that means CRT has to spend money on dredging which they seem adverse to But if these boats were operating in a pure free market economy then the owners would be prepared to pay for the cost of dredging as this would be less than the extra profits to be made from running deeper draughted boats. But this is the problem with both waterway and rail transport, it's not the cost of running the vehicles which makes it unviable, it's the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. Dredging a canal is an enormously expensive and never-ending operation, and sand pays a very small per-tonne profit. That's why road transport is such a good idea because roads are built for all those people who like to roll around in cars. I expect if the trucking companies had to pay for the roads there would be no roads.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 15, 2020 19:53:54 GMT
Ah Vince you have an answer unlike Foxy the Troll who has no idea how things work other than cut and paste!! clearly he couldnt find any to answer me, Two boats are now shifting sand to leeds because its cheaper and cleaner than lorries, the the A & C was dredged it would be even cheaper, but that means CRT has to spend money on dredging which they seem adverse to If the amount of sand being carried is gradually increased over a number of trips would they end up dredging it themselves? That sounds like a lazy solution. Proper dredging is the way to go - but... what's at the bottom? Paddled clay? Trampled down by a herd of cows?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 19:55:09 GMT
Puddled.
|
|