Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Featured Posts

Whilst I cannot deny that cars, especially diesel cars, cause as much pollution as trucks on our roads I think a good start to reducing pollution would be to get rid of trucks (as well as cyclists who do not have insurance or pay road tax etc etc.) There was a post about freight carrying coming back to the canals, one boat, but canal boats and canals are no longer practical for that job, they are just too slow, the railways are. Another crap government, especially a particularly crap minister, got rid of a lot of our railway lines a long time ago thus making the railways not viable for carrying much freight. That caused manufacturers to put their freight on the roads which has led, in turn, to the proliferation of dirty stinking, huge trucks on our inadequate road system, helping to cause massive pollution. I will admit that trucks will still be needed to convey the goods to the shops and factories etc from the trains but it will cut back the number of filthy trucks on our roads and make it safer for those cyclists that insist on riding 5 or 6 abreast on the roads.

 

As I said cars do cause pollution and I am not saying that cars should not be got rid of eventually. It's just that at the moment public transport is way to expensive and unreliable to get most people to where they want to go. Getting rid of trucks on the other hand is reasonably easy as long governments are willing to spend the money required to bring our railways up to standard. And pigs might fly! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pete.i said:

Whilst I cannot deny that cars, especially diesel cars, cause as much pollution as trucks on our roads I think a good start to reducing pollution would be to get rid of trucks (as well as cyclists who do not have insurance or pay road tax etc etc.) There was a post about freight carrying coming back to the canals, one boat, but canal boats and canals are no longer practical for that job, they are just too slow, the railways are. Another crap government, especially a particularly crap minister, got rid of a lot of our railway lines a long time ago thus making the railways not viable for carrying much freight. That caused manufacturers to put their freight on the roads which has led, in turn, to the proliferation of dirty stinking, huge trucks on our inadequate road system, helping to cause massive pollution. I will admit that trucks will still be needed to convey the goods to the shops and factories etc from the trains but it will cut back the number of filthy trucks on our roads and make it safer for those cyclists that insist on riding 5 or 6 abreast on the roads.

 

As I said cars do cause pollution and I am not saying that cars should not be got rid of eventually. It's just that at the moment public transport is way to expensive and unreliable to get most people to where they want to go. Getting rid of trucks on the other hand is reasonably easy as long governments are willing to spend the money required to bring our railways up to standard. And pigs might fly! 

You have got Ernest Marples, then Minister of Transport to thank for that.

 

At the time 1959-1964,  when he employed Beeching he, Marlpes was part owner of a company called Marples-Ridgeway who were constructing the M1. When a conflict of interest was pointed out he sold his shares in Marples - Ridgeway to his wife for a £1.

 

Shortly after he became a junior minister in November 1951, Marples resigned as Managing Director of Marples Ridgway but continued to hold some 80% of the firm's shares.[3][9] When he was made Minister of Transport in October 1959, Marples undertook to sell his shareholding in the company as he was now in clear breach of the House of Commons' rules on conflicts of interest.[9] He had not done so by January 1960 when the Evening Standard reported that Marples Ridgway had won the tender to build the Hammersmith Flyover and that the Ministry of Transport's engineers had endorsed the London County Council's rejection of a lower tender.[3][9][10]

Marples' first attempt to sell his shares was blocked by the Attorney-General on the basis that he was using his former business partner, Reg Ridgway, as an agent to ensure that he could buy back the shares upon leaving office.[9] Marples therefore sold his shares to his wife, reserving himself the possibility to reacquire them at the original price after leaving office;[3][11][12][13][14] by this time, his shares had come to be worth between £350,000 and £400,000.[9]

In 1959 Marples opened the first section of the M1 motorway shortly after becoming minister. It is now understood that although his company was not directly contracted to build the M1, Marples Ridgway "certainly had a finger in the pie".[15] Marples Ridgway built the Hammersmith flyover in London at a cost of £1.3 million, immediately followed by building the Chiswick flyover;[8]

Marples Ridgway was also involved in other major road projects in the 1950s and 1960s[16] including the £4.1 million extension of the M1 into

 

Marples is on record as having said "I hate railways."

 

Marples later fled to Monte Carlo to avoid income tax evasion charges in the UK.

 

"In the early 70s ... he tried to fight off a revaluation of his assets which would undoubtedly cost him dear ... So Marples decided he had to go and hatched a plot to remove £2 million from Britain through his Liechtenstein company ... there was nothing for it but to cut and run, which Marples did just before the tax year of 1975. He left by the night ferry with his belongings crammed into tea chests, leaving the floors of his home in Belgravia littered with discarded clothes and possessions ... He claimed he had been asked to pay nearly 30 years' overdue tax ... The Treasury froze his assets in Britain for the next ten years. By then most of them were safely in Monaco and Liechtenstein."[21]

Edited by Ray T
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The canals may be perfectly capable of transporting non-perishable freight in an environmentally friendly manner. Wooden boat and a horse. However, when the wages of at least one person are taken into account the whole cost per mile per ton must become excessive. If a boatman can do say 30 miles in a long day with a few locks or 200 in a week, a lorry driver would be expected to do the whole round trip in a day. One person's wages for a day or one for a fortnight. I love the romance of canal carrying but I can only see it's viable if the product is one for the canal community, such as diesel or coal. I did see one guy on a programme who was carrying gravel on relatively short distances on a contract. It was a modern build steel boat but such ventures must be the exception rather than the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will not find a greater supporter of rail freight than me, but even I accept that rail will probably never again achieve the dominant position it had on freight movement in 1900.

 

Having said that there is a lot that rail does move and even more it could move.  Yes, we all know about bulk, like aggregates, and the quarrying industry is moving freight to rail as fast as new sidings can be built.  Even so, much stone moves by road and, in doing so, the HGVs can pass a rail siding near the final destination where a parallel running train has carried the same type of stone.  Why?  How about the cross subsidy from the private motorist to HGVs meaning the haulage company only pays 30% of its costs to society?

 

People often say rail cannot carry supermarket type goods.  Tesco. Sainsbury, Morrisons and Asda give the lie to that with daily trains from the midlands to Scotland and Wales.  Certainly rail cannot deliver direct into the supermarket but the trunk haul can be by rail with final delivery by road.

 

Finally look at deep sea imports by container.  Approx. 30% of those containers move by rail, but these are long distance moves.  Use the approved measure of tonnes x distance (km), and over 50% moves by rail.  If that went on the motorways we would all certainly notice the difference.

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, pete.i said:

Whilst I cannot deny that cars, especially diesel cars, cause as much pollution as trucks on our roads

You should deny it - they don't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

The canals may be perfectly capable of transporting non-perishable freight in an environmentally friendly manner. Wooden boat and a horse. However, when the wages of at least one person are taken into account the whole cost per mile per ton must become excessive. If a boatman can do say 30 miles in a long day with a few locks or 200 in a week, a lorry driver would be expected to do the whole round trip in a day. One person's wages for a day or one for a fortnight. I love the romance of canal carrying but I can only see it's viable if the product is one for the canal community, such as diesel or coal. I did see one guy on a programme who was carrying gravel on relatively short distances on a contract. It was a modern build steel boat but such ventures must be the exception rather than the norm.

The UK does not have the size of rivers and canals to allow for the large barges needed to make inland water transport pay.  Why?  Because we are an island.  This means we have a coastline and around 20% of our domestic freight moves around our coast on coasters, avoiding road, rail or even inland waterway transport.

 

George

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, furnessvale said:

The UK does not have the size of rivers and canals to allow for the large barges needed to make inland water transport pay.  Why?  Because we are an island.  This means we have a coastline and around 20% of our domestic freight moves around our coast on coasters, avoiding road, rail or even inland waterway transport.

 

George

 

Including transport to/from Northern Ireland, the Scottish isles. the Isle of Wight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Machpoint005 said:

 

Including transport to/from Northern Ireland, the Scottish isles. the Isle of Wight?

Can't see the last two making a statistical blip but I will check on NI.  Given the amount of ROI traffic transiting UK that could have an effect.

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, furnessvale said:

Can't see the last two making a statistical blip but I will check on NI.  Given the amount of ROI traffic transiting UK that could have an effect.

 

George

 

Yes, that was why I asked - I have no feel for the relative sizes of the various transport markets. but I know you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The huge advantage that trucks have is that they deliver right to the door, or back door in the case of supermarkets. Just look at what most lorries are carrying, its supermarket stuff. The rest is a mixture of parcels, consumer goods and am awful lot of white vans. Rail can't compete with this and canals are just not even in the frame. Maybe electricity can compete with diesel but until some way of charging whilst on the move is worked out I cannot see a solution to the diesel. Overhead power lines with pick ups? some sort of induction loops in the road? Trucks do the job but one hefty diesel per 20 tons or so is pretty poor.

   I fear the solutions could be tax based, if its grown/raised/made within 20 miles- no tax, if it comes from the next county-a bit of tax, if it comes by ship or plane from halfway round the world, punitive tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures are about 20 years old - so - out of date but show 'how it was' in the year 2000

 

Percentage of all Traffic
Road 65% 
Rail 7% 
Water 23% 
Pipeline 5%
All Modes 100%

 

The Payload capacity (for selected waterways) is defined by the limiting dimensions

 

Navigation Payload (Tonnes)
72ft Typical Narrow Beam Canal = 25
56ft Typical Broad Beam Canal = 45
72ft Typical Broad Beam Canal =50


River Severn – Stourport 350 to Worcester
River Weaver – Winsford 350
Crinan Canal 100
Caledonian Canal 400
Millennium Link 60
River Ouse – York 200
Howden Max 3000
Selby Max 1200
Aire and Calder, Leeds 600
Aire and Calder, Wakefield 250
South Yorkshire Navigation 700
River Trent – Nottingham 200
River Nene 50
River Great Ouse 50
River Lee 150
River Thames (down stream of Oxford) 500
River Thames (up stream of Oxford) 60
River Medway 60
Manchester Ship Canal 10,000
Gloucester and Sharpness Ship Canal

 

Statistics from the DETR indicate that in 1998
1,727 million tonnes of goods were lifted for
road traffic within the UK, whilst at the same
time 149 million tonnes were lifted for
transportation by water as sea-going traffic

The corresponding figures, in terms of goods
moved, were: for road 159.5 billion tonne
kilometres (65 per cent of the total moved),
with water being responsible for 57.2 billion
tonne kilometres (representing 23 per cent
of the total).

 

A 2008 Presentation on getting more freight onto the Trent.

 

Trent_Freight_Sep10.pdf

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Yes, that was why I asked - I have no feel for the relative sizes of the various transport markets. but I know you do.

Thanks for asking, it raises an interesting point.

 

I have difficulty isolating NI from rest of UK (interesting point with respect to current politics?) but as only way of getting to NI is via ports I looked at that. 

 

27.1m tonnes moved through NI ports in 2017.  98m tonnes was booked to coastal shipping in UK in the same year.

 

Even if all the NI traffic was booked as UK coastal, it would account for about 26% of UK coastal, and that is before we consider that at least some NI shipping will be direct import/export to other than rest of UK.

 

Incidentally, UK coastal has taken a hit in recent years and now stands at 13%, not the 20% I quoted.

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do have the canals up here to move large amounts of oil by canal, I watch the Exol Pride weekly do its job of removing lots of lorries of the road, its just a shame that they arnt more used as they would clean up the environment greatly, Car wise diesels are finished sales dropped again makers arnt bothering with trying to get engines to comply, Electric cars are and will be the way forward battery tech is leaping forward at a pace,and plans are that in five years time 100 charging stations will be dotted around that are run by solar with a huge battery bank to ensure electric cars really are green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read in a newspaper recently that Irish ports are getting busier and expanding as more hauliers are going straight to Europe rather than crossing England to get to English ports but how that works out in the future is anybody's guess. Depends on where you are going really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bee said:

I read in a newspaper recently that Irish ports are getting busier and expanding as more hauliers are going straight to Europe rather than crossing England to get to English ports but how that works out in the future is anybody's guess. Depends on where you are going really.

Whichever way you think of Brexit that can only be a good thing.  Transit traffic contributes nothing to the UK economy except pollution, congestion and accidents on our roads.

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peterboat said:

 Car wise diesels are finished.

?

Over 50,000 new diesel cars were registered in Britain last year - not bad for a product that's "finished".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Athy said:

?

Over 50,000 new diesel cars were registered in Britain last year - not bad for a product that's "finished".

The secret is noticing trends 'early' and taking whatever action you deem fit.

 

New diesel car registrations continue to sharply fall, with petrol cars increasing instead. There was a sharp decline in the number of diesel cars being registered for the first time in 2018 Q2, down 26% compared to 2017 Q2, to just 184,000 cars, which is below the 2008/09 recession dip and similar to 2003/04 levels.

This was the second year of sharp decline in the second quarter, following the 20% decrease in new diesel car registrations in 2017 Q2. Over two years, registrations fell by 41% with 128,000 fewer diesels being registered. This was the fifth quarter in a row where an annual decrease of over 20% has been observed.

 

Diesel cars accounted for 49% of all new car registrations in 2016 Q2, which has dropped to just 31% in 2018 Q2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

New diesel car registrations continue to sharply fall, with petrol cars increasing instead.

 

This suggests that buyers of new cars are choosing continuing climate change over localised pollution -- but do they know that is what they are doing?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

This suggests that buyers of new cars are choosing continuing climate change over localised pollution -- but do they know that is what they are doing?  

No but they will do when petrol engines are hit with higher taxation. Which is what will happen now that they have cleaned up diesel engines.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have to look far to learn a valuable lesson. 

The island of Sodor which is between Cumbria and the I.O.M. 

Although there a few road vehicles the majority of goods movements are by train and barge.

 

Their attitude to logistics proved advanced years ago when Whiff's Waste Dump which is located on the Peel Godred Branch Line between Abbey and Kirk Machan suddenly became home to many road vehicles, including the hearse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Isn't Thomas a key player there ?

Nah, he's a tank engine, not a truck

download.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Nah, he's a tank engine, not a truck

 

 

15 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

Although there a few road vehicles the majority of goods movements are by train and barge.

 

You do know about Sodor ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/04/2019 at 09:49, furnessvale said:

You will not find a greater supporter of rail freight than me, but even I accept that rail will probably never again achieve the dominant position it had on freight movement in 1900.

 

George

At that time, the average train load was around 70 tons, so one L&LC long boat would have been carrying the same as an average goods train. Railways may have had a dominant position, but were, apart for some bulk train-loads, hardly economic. It was the effect of the First World War on UK overseas markets which spelt the end for much factory production here, and thus the end to the older types of goods transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Pluto said:

At that time, the average train load was around 70 tons, so one L&LC long boat would have been carrying the same as an average goods train. Railways may have had a dominant position, but were, apart for some bulk train-loads, hardly economic. It was the effect of the First World War on UK overseas markets which spelt the end for much factory production here, and thus the end to the older types of goods transport.

Whilst the First World War undoubtedly had an effect, I believe the start of the demise of railfreight was a lot more to do with many thousands of war surplus lorries, and men trained to drive them, coming on to the market at the end of hostilities.  This coupled with common carrier obligations imposed on the railways, enabled haulage companies to cherry pick the best railway traffic leaving the dross on rail.

 

George

 

ps I would be interested in a source for the 70 tons figure.  As early as 1892 the LNWR, for example, were building 0-8-0 freight locos which would be overkill, to say the least, for a 70t payload.

Edited by furnessvale
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.