Truckers at UKIP

Robin · 13-08-2006, 12:13 PM

Cookie65,

Sorry I did`nt make myself clear.I should have said 24 hour PASSENGER service.Like you I think freight on rail is rubbish talk,except perhaps the Combi system,where the driver takes his lorry onto the train(without health and safety he could remain in it)and drives it off at the other end.

Some of the problems are symptomatic of our country,such as the establishments bullying attitude to those it has in its power(us)and its craven attitude to those it feels it cannot control or tax.This goes further than transport matters,mainly into law and order issues.Such as it is,it is very easy to run an unlicenced truck so long as it is left hand drive with a Polish telephone number on the side.

As to the fuel,the original controls by Germany and France(and then others)were 200 and 300 litres respectively.Ours was any that was in a manufactuers running tank,the fuel lines must be running direct to an engine(for refrigerated vehicles).Personnally I would reduce fuel tax so that anyone coming in did not have a great advantage bringing foreign diesel in.

Chipmunk493 · 15-08-2006, 09:15 PM

Gentlemen,

I came across your discussion forum by accident and I would say how impressed I am with some of the arguments and for my part, I do see the financial effects on individual operators in the individuals who have consulted me about taxation matters in the past.

Whilst I am sure you know your industry far better than I, I would ask you to consider an element of rail transport in your deliberations.

Rail is only practical for freight hauling bulk between two points. The days of individual items of freight being delivered by rail is long gone as mentioned in other posts in this discussion. However, rail freight can play a part in hauling containers (bulk) from the ports to one or two central distribution hubs. I am not necessarily thinking of one around London as the journey time is quite short and the transhipment times would make this uneconomical. However, a central hub someway between, say Birmingham and Manchester for freight delivered from Felixstowe and the southern ports would remove a number of lorry road journeys and could be popular with the electorate - even if it is along the lines of a roll-on/roll-off system for lorries.

True, there would have to be consideration to the amount of traffic such a rail service would release from the likes of the A14, the practicalities and economics of such a hub, the consideration to increasing the height clearance on the railway bridges/tunnels, etc and so forth and whether such a scheduled rail service would ultimately be feasible and you are far more expert at this than I. But I am thinking of the large container hubs in the US fed by the likes of Union Pacific and other railroads albeit on a smaller scale. (If such distribution centres didn't work in the US, the railroads wouldn't be investing millions to enlarge and build new ones).

What I am saying is that even if your arguments ultimately proves railfreight to be impractical/unworkable in the UK because of whatever reason, try not to eliminate rail altogether in your plans from the outset by not even considering it as this in my opinion could lead your arguments to be seen as biased towards UK road haulage instead of being presented as a balanced argument which is good for the economy and the UK as a whole.

I thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion and look forward to reading your arguments after you have all deliberated.

Rob
(aka Chipmunk493)

Chip · 16-08-2006, 07:30 PM

Rail freight works for large loads over long distance. The problem is the cost of the load transfer at the destination Rail Head and the cost to then deliver to the actual purchaser of the goods. In many cases I found that domestic appliances from Italy cost the same amount to off load at the railhead in the UK and then deliver to the Company warehouse as did the rail Freight cost from Italy. The same product delivered by road freight was "door to door" and cost 35% less. It was quicker by road and more flexible because we could redirect the load at any time we wished. There is a place for rail traffic but the rail companies need to get their act together and sell the service. They also need to look at their prices.

cookie65 · 16-08-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Rail is only practical for freight hauling bulk between two points. The days of individual items of freight being delivered by rail is long gone as mentioned in other posts in this discussion. However, rail freight can play a part in hauling containers (bulk) from the ports to one or two central distribution hubs. I am not necessarily thinking of one around London as the journey time is quite short and the transhipment times would make this uneconomical. However, a central hub someway between, say Birmingham and Manchester for freight delivered from Felixstowe and the southern ports would remove a number of lorry road journeys and could be popular with the electorate - even if it is along the lines of a roll-on/roll-off system for lorries.

There are quite a number of Container rail heads at present: All of the ports have at least one and most major cities (Birmingham, Glasgow, London, Manchester and Rugby?)have between one and three.
Trains run to these terminals mostly overnight but with some daytime trains. The main problem with these Road Freight terminals(RFTs) is the cost and complexity of the lifting equipment and the heavily unionised workforces. It is not unusual for a lorry to wait four hours for a container to be put upon it.

Quote:

True, there would have to be consideration to the amount of traffic such a rail service would release from the likes of the A14,

The A14 is one of the worst planned road built in recent years. it should have been motorway from the M1 to the M11 to start with, but as a minimum M11 to A1.

Quote:

What I am saying is that even if your arguments ultimately proves railfreight to be impractical/unworkable in the UK because of whatever reason, try not to eliminate rail altogether in your plans from the outset by not even considering it as this in my opinion could lead your arguments to be seen as biased towards UK road haulage instead of being presented as a balanced argument which is good for the economy and the UK as a whole.

I am a firm believer in the principles of rail freight, however the practicalities need to be overhauled. It should be the most environmentally friendly option, however it is not friendly to have a queue of 200 lorries waiting to get into an RFT and it is economic madness.

Robin · 17-08-2006, 06:16 PM

The thing about rail freight is that you have to make up whole trains.
At present a manufacturer(if theres one left in the UK) or other business can send for a vehicle that meets his demand from a car derived van to a juggernaut.He would`nt be able to send one railwagon from say,Shepton Mallet to Glasgow.It would have to go to a marshalling yard to be made up into a whole train.
If people want a freight on rail policy that have to have a freight on rail economy,and the living standard that goes with that.Somewhere along the level of Ceaucescu`s Romania.
I once heard a women say that all the lorries going round the M25 should be replaced by railfreight.Even if the same tonnage of goods was transported that way,it would require another M25s worth of space devoted to rail track,with marshalling yards.The original M25 would still have to be there for the cars.
Governments through the decades have taken millions from the road haulage industry and given millions to the rail freight industry and it hasnt made it the first choice of the customer,despite him having to part subsidise it as well.
I know the general public doesnt see or want to see the problems of railfreight so its best to throw the usual "we will send more freight by rail"that all the political parties do,but concentrate on getting a good passenger service 24/7,for most areas of the country.

Chip · 17-08-2006, 08:20 PM

The railways can take people / cars off the road if they are made competetive. However to make them competetive does not mean increasing the price of the alternative.

cookie65 · 02-09-2006, 02:08 PM

Just refound this:

Quote:

Speed Kills?

"Speed kills!", says the Government advertisement. It's a snappy little slogan, isn't it? The simple word "speed", and the highly emotive word "kills". Gold star and an extra days holiday for whoever thought it up. It's short, it's punchy, and it's attention-grabbing. What a pity it isn't true!

If it were true, the safest roads in the country would be in built-up areas subject to 30mph limits, the most dangerous would be motorways, and the most dangerous drivers would be the traffic police, cutting great swathes through the population as they rush about in their high-powered cars. In fact, the opposite is true. For every 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled there are 96 injury accidents on urban roads, compared to just 11 on motorways, and the traffic police, considering the speeds they have to drive at, are incredibly safe. What's gone wrong with our slogan?

The truth is that speed doesn't necessarily kill. Bad driving kills. Of course, bad driving can include driving too fast for the situation, but it's too simplistic to say that speed itself is dangerous. Speed in the wrong place is dangerous, but so is parking in the wrong place. 30mph past a school when the children are coming out would be dangerously irresponsible, but 70 on a quiet motorway is perfectly safe. If the motorway is busy, or it's chucking it down with rain, 50 could be too fast. The responsible driver knows when it's okay to wind it up, and when he should rein in the horses.

Imagine, though, if some lunatic invented something which would allow you to race past schools, through town centres, down narrow rural roads, and even drive too fast on motorways when the conditions weren't right, but as soon as you were on a quiet stretch of motorway, in good conditions, restricted your speed so you couldn't even reach the speed limit, never mind exceed it. Imagine, also, that some other lunatic decided that these things should be fitted to vehicles driven by the safest drivers in the country. "No", you say, "That would be ridiculous".

Well, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. The safest vehicles on our roads are lorries, (51 accidents per hundred million vehicle kilometres, compared to 94 for cars), but thanks to a decree by our masters in Brussels, they are now fitted with speed limiters.

This does absolutely nothing to make our roads safer. You want to do 55 past a school? Certainly. The speed limiter won't stop you. Want to race down country lanes at 55? No problem. How about doing 55 on the motorway right up someone's backside in heavy traffic through roadworks in the pouring rain? Carry on. Want to travel at 60 on a quiet stretch of motorway in the dry? Oh no you don't! The limiter closes the throttle down, and 56 is all you get. A real contribution to road safety, huh?

If this was the only effect of the limiter it would be be little more than an annoyance. There is, however, a more dangerous side to limiters. If you look at a tachograph chart from a lorry with a limiter, you'll see that, as long as the driver keeps his foot on the pedal, the limiter holds the speed at exactly 56. The speed hardly varies at all. This means that the driver has nothing to do except sit holding the wheel as the limiter drives the lorry slowly along. This causes the driver to become fatigued very quickly, and he stops paying attention to what he's doing, because, in effect, he's doing nothing. There's nothing to keep his brain engaged, and it's too easy then to start day-dreaming. In some cases he may even fall asleep.

As I said, this dangerous nonsense has been inflicted on us by the European Union, and we all know what a brilliant record they've got for sensible and constructive legislation! We should be telling them what to do to improve road safety, not them telling us. In 1992, for example, seven people out of every 100,000 in Britain were killed in road accidents, compared to 12 in Germany, 18 in France, and 34 in Portugal. This makes British roads the safest in Europe, and probably the world. Motorways are the safest roads, and lorries are the safest vehicles on our roads. It's not difficult to deduce from these facts that a lorry on a British motorway is the safest vehicle in the world, so naturally the EU imposes a measure that affects only the safest vehicles in the world. They also, incidentally, force us to interpret the drivers' hours regulations in a way which allows you to drive for nine hours solid with only a fifteen minute break in the middle. Three cheers for the EU!

The road accident statistics which were published earlier this year (see Transport News, August 1996, page 14, "CV fatalities buck the trend") are extremely disturbing. Although the overall number of road accidents is down as part of a continuing trend, the number of lorry drivers killed in 1995 was 24% higher than in 1994, (130, up from 105), and the number of PSV drivers killed was up a staggering 67%.

So what's caused this worrying rise in deaths? The increase in traffic on the roads perhaps? The volume of traffic keeps rising, true, but if that was the reason you would expect to see a similar, if not worse, rise in the figures for non-professional drivers, but their death rate continues to decline. It must be something which affects only the professional driver. Have the hours regulations been relaxed in the last couple of years? No. Although some may argue that the rules allow drivers to work for too long, they've been the same since 1987, so that wouldn't account for the increase either. So what is it? What's happened in the last couple of years which only affects HGV and PSV drivers, and has led to all these extra deaths and serious injuries?

Speed limiters. They've been fitted to most trucks and coaches in the last couple of years. Drivers on motorways now travel "on the limiter" for hours on end, and they now have nothing to do, as the vehicle is effectively driving itself. They stop paying attention to what's happening on the road, and they suffer more from fatigue, boredom and stress. In some cases they fall asleep, but even in less severe cases they will fail to spot potential dangers, or stray onto the hard shoulder or other running lanes.

Lorry drivers are the most highly skilled drivers on our roads. I've always tried to be the best driver I can, even to the extent of passing the Institute of Advanced Motorists test on a car and an artic, and I was active in my local IAM Group for over ten years, but my advanced driving skills now count for nothing as most of the time I am now a passenger behind the wheel. My lorry is now being controlled by the limiter, not by me.

The answer to this rise in fatalities is to restore control of lorries to their drivers. This means disconnecting their limiters, or at least resetting them to a speed where drivers won't be surrendering control to them. Driving is too complex a task to be left to electronic gadgets. Control of lorries should be given back to the safest drivers in the world.

It can't be co-incidence that, in the absence of any other factors, the rise in deaths amongst professional drivers has happened at the same time as those same drivers started driving on speed limiters. The only drivers whose death rates have increased are those whose vehicles are now fitted with speed limiters, and this leads us to one inescapable conclusion: Speed limiters kill.

© Copyright 1997

Published in "Trucking International", May 1997

http://www.cybertrucker.co.uk/content.php?speed.php

mkpdavies · 02-09-2006, 04:22 PM

Speed kills is another one of those mass brain washing exrecises that we take a long time to undo.

Recklessness, incompetence and stupidity kills, not speed.

Robin · 05-09-2006, 04:25 PM

Roumania and Bulgaria may join the EU in 2007.Their nationals may be forbidden to work in the UK for an indefinate time.

So what happens about cabotage?
(Cabotage is where a lorry registered in one country can work domestically within the borders of another country)

We may have a situation where a Roumanian is not allowed to drive a British registered truck but can travel the same routes within the UK in a Roumanian one.

Actually anyone who has dealt with the halfwits at the Department against British Transport knows we are going to be the losers.Why change decades of practice?Their failure to enforce any legality on foreign hauliers has led to cabotage being done by EU and non EU firms,using any nationalty of drivers for years.

(In Felixstowe Rynarts were using Baltic registered trucks and drivers for traction until it was pointed out that they were picking up trailers right outside the DoTs office.The Dot had a word with Rynarts who then used Dutch registered trucks with the same non EU drivers.Thats how pathetic our civil servants are.)

Robin · 06-09-2006, 08:05 PM

Page 4 of the Times

More Freight Trains Will Free Up Roads But Disrupt Rail Journeys

This is an article about how spending £500m will reduce 12000 lorries on motorways,and other statistics.

Notice the headline. If passengers face disruption on the rail will they wish to use it or go by car? If they go by car will this "free up" the roads?

The rail freight operators also complain in the article about cheap European hauliers. At least they can see where the future threat is coming from,unlike the RHA, FTA and the Unions.

The article is interesting for the shoddy journalism that is always written about freight. No serious questions are asked. For example the company EWS says that it can only afford £500 a train (not per wagon) to use the Channel Tunnel. No comparison is made about how much a single truck pays for the same journey, or for that matter how much train operators pay for diesel and the (non) tax on it.The £500 million is Extra spending, on top of any subsidy received now.
The use of the words by EWS of "unfair advantage" for road hauliers isnt questioned or how the "costs of using the rail infrastructure" are to be "made more affordable" can be achieved.

To put freight on rail may be a laudable aim,but if it is at the expense of passenger traffic, is it worth it ?

15-08-2006, 09:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
Chipmunk493 Newbie Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Suffolk Posts: 1	A further thought Gentlemen, I came across your discussion forum by accident and I would say how impressed I am with some of the arguments and for my part, I do see the financial effects on individual operators in the individuals who have consulted me about taxation matters in the past. Whilst I am sure you know your industry far better than I, I would ask you to consider an element of rail transport in your deliberations. Rail is only practical for freight hauling bulk between two points. The days of individual items of freight being delivered by rail is long gone as mentioned in other posts in this discussion. However, rail freight can play a part in hauling containers (bulk) from the ports to one or two central distribution hubs. I am not necessarily thinking of one around London as the journey time is quite short and the transhipment times would make this uneconomical. However, a central hub someway between, say Birmingham and Manchester for freight delivered from Felixstowe and the southern ports would remove a number of lorry road journeys and could be popular with the electorate - even if it is along the lines of a roll-on/roll-off system for lorries. True, there would have to be consideration to the amount of traffic such a rail service would release from the likes of the A14, the practicalities and economics of such a hub, the consideration to increasing the height clearance on the railway bridges/tunnels, etc and so forth and whether such a scheduled rail service would ultimately be feasible and you are far more expert at this than I. But I am thinking of the large container hubs in the US fed by the likes of Union Pacific and other railroads albeit on a smaller scale. (If such distribution centres didn't work in the US, the railroads wouldn't be investing millions to enlarge and build new ones). What I am saying is that even if your arguments ultimately proves railfreight to be impractical/unworkable in the UK because of whatever reason, try not to eliminate rail altogether in your plans from the outset by not even considering it as this in my opinion could lead your arguments to be seen as biased towards UK road haulage instead of being presented as a balanced argument which is good for the economy and the UK as a whole. I thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion and look forward to reading your arguments after you have all deliberated. Rob (aka Chipmunk493)

02-09-2006, 04:22 PM	#28 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	Speed kills is another one of those mass brain washing exrecises that we take a long time to undo. Recklessness, incompetence and stupidity kills, not speed. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

13-08-2006, 12:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
Robin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 759	Cookie65, Sorry I did`nt make myself clear.I should have said 24 hour PASSENGER service.Like you I think freight on rail is rubbish talk,except perhaps the Combi system,where the driver takes his lorry onto the train(without health and safety he could remain in it)and drives it off at the other end. Some of the problems are symptomatic of our country,such as the establishments bullying attitude to those it has in its power(us)and its craven attitude to those it feels it cannot control or tax.This goes further than transport matters,mainly into law and order issues.Such as it is,it is very easy to run an unlicenced truck so long as it is left hand drive with a Polish telephone number on the side. As to the fuel,the original controls by Germany and France(and then others)were 200 and 300 litres respectively.Ours was any that was in a manufactuers running tank,the fuel lines must be running direct to an engine(for refrigerated vehicles).Personnally I would reduce fuel tax so that anyone coming in did not have a great advantage bringing foreign diesel in.

16-08-2006, 07:30 PM	#23 (permalink)
Chip Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: North West UK Posts: 548	Rail freight works for large loads over long distance. The problem is the cost of the load transfer at the destination Rail Head and the cost to then deliver to the actual purchaser of the goods. In many cases I found that domestic appliances from Italy cost the same amount to off load at the railhead in the UK and then deliver to the Company warehouse as did the rail Freight cost from Italy. The same product delivered by road freight was "door to door" and cost 35% less. It was quicker by road and more flexible because we could redirect the load at any time we wished. There is a place for rail traffic but the rail companies need to get their act together and sell the service. They also need to look at their prices.

17-08-2006, 06:16 PM	#25 (permalink)
Robin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 759	The thing about rail freight is that you have to make up whole trains. At present a manufacturer(if theres one left in the UK) or other business can send for a vehicle that meets his demand from a car derived van to a juggernaut.He would`nt be able to send one railwagon from say,Shepton Mallet to Glasgow.It would have to go to a marshalling yard to be made up into a whole train. If people want a freight on rail policy that have to have a freight on rail economy,and the living standard that goes with that.Somewhere along the level of Ceaucescu`s Romania. I once heard a women say that all the lorries going round the M25 should be replaced by railfreight.Even if the same tonnage of goods was transported that way,it would require another M25s worth of space devoted to rail track,with marshalling yards.The original M25 would still have to be there for the cars. Governments through the decades have taken millions from the road haulage industry and given millions to the rail freight industry and it hasnt made it the first choice of the customer,despite him having to part subsidise it as well. I know the general public doesnt see or want to see the problems of railfreight so its best to throw the usual "we will send more freight by rail"that all the political parties do,but concentrate on getting a good passenger service 24/7,for most areas of the country.

17-08-2006, 08:20 PM	#26 (permalink)
Chip Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: North West UK Posts: 548	The railways can take people / cars off the road if they are made competetive. However to make them competetive does not mean increasing the price of the alternative.

05-09-2006, 04:25 PM	#29 (permalink)
Robin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 759	Roumania and Bulgaria may join the EU in 2007.Their nationals may be forbidden to work in the UK for an indefinate time. So what happens about cabotage? (Cabotage is where a lorry registered in one country can work domestically within the borders of another country) We may have a situation where a Roumanian is not allowed to drive a British registered truck but can travel the same routes within the UK in a Roumanian one. Actually anyone who has dealt with the halfwits at the Department against British Transport knows we are going to be the losers.Why change decades of practice?Their failure to enforce any legality on foreign hauliers has led to cabotage being done by EU and non EU firms,using any nationalty of drivers for years. (In Felixstowe Rynarts were using Baltic registered trucks and drivers for traction until it was pointed out that they were picking up trailers right outside the DoTs office.The Dot had a word with Rynarts who then used Dutch registered trucks with the same non EU drivers.Thats how pathetic our civil servants are.)

06-09-2006, 08:05 PM	#30 (permalink)
Robin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 759	Page 4 of the Times More Freight Trains Will Free Up Roads But Disrupt Rail Journeys This is an article about how spending £500m will reduce 12000 lorries on motorways,and other statistics. Notice the headline. If passengers face disruption on the rail will they wish to use it or go by car? If they go by car will this "free up" the roads? The rail freight operators also complain in the article about cheap European hauliers. At least they can see where the future threat is coming from,unlike the RHA, FTA and the Unions. The article is interesting for the shoddy journalism that is always written about freight. No serious questions are asked. For example the company EWS says that it can only afford £500 a train (not per wagon) to use the Channel Tunnel. No comparison is made about how much a single truck pays for the same journey, or for that matter how much train operators pay for diesel and the (non) tax on it.The £500 million is Extra spending, on top of any subsidy received now. The use of the words by EWS of "unfair advantage" for road hauliers isnt questioned or how the "costs of using the rail infrastructure" are to be "made more affordable" can be achieved. To put freight on rail may be a laudable aim,but if it is at the expense of passenger traffic, is it worth it ?