|
Or put freight back on the railways where much of it used to be. Maybe that nice Mr Corbyn will pump a few billions into the nationalised railway system so they can better compete with road transport.
Vans etc will still be required for local journeys, of course. Unless this "drone delivery" thing takes off (no pun intended) and they start making them the size of helicopters.
|
Or put freight back on the railways where much of it used to be. Maybe that nice Mr Corbyn will pump a few billions into the nationalised railway system so they can better compete with road transport.
Vans etc will still be required for local journeys, of course. Unless this "drone delivery" thing takes off (no pun intended) and they start making them the size of helicopters.
Nice idea - but - Dr Beeching decimated the railway network so not that much of it left - the present capacity can't cope now with passenger numbers so freight services can't be expanded.
|
|
<< Dr Beeching decimated the railway network so not that much of it left - the present capacity can't cope now with passenger numbers so freight services can't be expanded. >>
Quite. In the 1970s the railways realised that their only viable freight role is with liner trains carrying one cargo - coal, logs, etc. I can't really visualise a 1000-ton load of corn flakes, baked beans or potatoes.
Even if some freight were to return to rail it would still require offloading to a road vehicle for delivery. Just not on any more, logistically
|
|
|
Or put freight back on the railways where much of it used to be. Maybe that nice Mr Corbyn will pump a few billions into the nationalised railway system so they can better compete with road transport.
Vans etc will still be required for local journeys, of course. Unless this "drone delivery" thing takes off (no pun intended) and they start making them the size of helicopters.
Nice idea - but - Dr Beeching decimated the railway network so not that much of it left - the present capacity can't cope now with passenger numbers so freight services can't be expanded.
I was being slightly facetious, RT. Buying back the rail network from private companies is one thing, and on its own would probably cripple the Treasury; improving and extending the infrastructure to create genuine competition between road and rail is quite another.
|
Or put freight back on the railways where much of it used to be. Maybe that nice Mr Corbyn will pump a few billions into the nationalised railway system so they can better compete with road transport.
Vans etc will still be required for local journeys, of course. Unless this "drone delivery" thing takes off (no pun intended) and they start making them the size of helicopters.
Nice idea - but - Dr Beeching decimated the railway network so not that much of it left - the present capacity can't cope now with passenger numbers so freight services can't be expanded.
I was being slightly facetious, RT. Buying back the rail network from private companies is one thing, and on its own would probably cripple the Treasury; improving and extending the infrastructure to create genuine competition between road and rail is quite another.
The railways themselves were never privatised, Network Rail is a publicly owned company - it was the train services themselves which were privatised, usually leasing trains from another publicly owned company!
|
Or put freight back on the railways where much of it used to be. Maybe that nice Mr Corbyn will pump a few billions into the nationalised railway system so they can better compete with road transport.
Vans etc will still be required for local journeys, of course. Unless this "drone delivery" thing takes off (no pun intended) and they start making them the size of helicopters.
Nice idea - but - Dr Beeching decimated the railway network so not that much of it left - the present capacity can't cope now with passenger numbers so freight services can't be expanded.
I was being slightly facetious, RT. Buying back the rail network from private companies is one thing, and on its own would probably cripple the Treasury; improving and extending the infrastructure to create genuine competition between road and rail is quite another.
The railways themselves were never privatised, Network Rail is a publicly owned company - it was the train services themselves which were privatised, usually leasing trains from another publicly owned company!
Thanks, I understand that. I have a close relative who works for Network Rail. ;0)
The shortcomings of privatised rail franchises are well documented, but what I think is less well known is that they still get lots of money from the Treasury to ensure they make a profit so we can all see that privatisation works.
|
|
The problem with the UK's rail privatisations is that there were done in the wrong way. There was either an article in the DT or TV report/documentary about the issue, which its main thrust was that the franchise periods were way to short (7 years) for firms to bother to plan long term and make the kinds of investments they need, hence why most of the time they just repaint the trains.
It doesn't help with our militant Hard Left rail unions blackmailing Naitional Rail, the rail operating companies and the government (local and national) either. £50k+ for a glorified bus driver for a 35hr week, lots of holidays and free travel for them plus family (often) ANYWHERE on the network, and they have the cheek to complain about Ts&Cs! I worked for the 'Tube Lines' company for a couple of years about a decade or so ago and the mix of private sector staff and militant (and IMO often usless, lazy and ineffecient) ex-LU staff was the worst of all worlds, and they WERE the BETTER of the two PPP firms. Take how much it should cost to do something and triple it - that's how the railway is run, and has been since the end of WWII.
Younger people don't realise how BAD the nationalised railways were, and, frankly, how much it costs on taxes on the continent to run such services. Its only in the more 'efficiency culture' countries that they are better value for money, and privately run trains could work if politics and hard left unions weren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
City dwellers are going to stop buying food and other goods so they don't need trucks to deliver them.
We need to reduce NOx/particulate levels in inner cities, particularly London. The main contributor of NOx and particulates is the diesel engine. Diesels cannot be eliminated altogether as we need goods moving to provide supplies. Diesel pollution can be lowered significantly by reducing non-essential users such as many of the private diesel cars in Inner London and by incentivising use of hybrids and electrics for essental stuff, local deliveries etc.
Raising issues like wood burners and tyre/brake particles as reason to do nothing about the biggest part of the problem, diesel, is like the kid caught misbehaving in class complaining that little Johnny got away with it.
|
|
I read diesels will stay for a long time yet but its up to the manufacturers to make them eco friendly, thats assuming people want to buy them, if assuming they are made much more efficient and eco friendly I see no reason not to carry on buying them
but as with any other health scares, people tend to panick and not listen/understand the reasons why diesel is unhealthy. though I doubt you will see the end of diesel hgv`s
Londons Mayor is trying to ban woodburning fires as part of emmisions problem, but it would help if older vans/lorries were banned first, or had the smoke problems fixed, which so far appear to be getting away with smoky engines
|
|
When all is said and done, the basic problem is that too many people do too much travelling, partly because they enjoy the advantages it brings. Petrol, diesel, aero-fuel - it all contributes to the overall pollution of the atmosphere. You can chop and change between them, but it won't reduce the overall problem much, just the flavour.
One thing we don't need to do is cultivate car racing, F1 etc. It's fun for some, but hardly beneficial to anyone.
|
One thing we don't need to do is cultivate car racing, F1 etc. It's fun for some, but hardly beneficial to anyone.
I wonder if the research and development for car racing has a net beneficial effect for private cars and commercial vehicles in the long run.
I suspect that the amount of fuel used for racing as a percentage of private/commercial use would be tiny, so even small future gains due to research could result in a net benefit.
|
|
|
When all is said and done, the basic problem is that too many people do too much travelling, partly because they enjoy the advantages it brings. Petrol, diesel, aero-fuel - it all contributes to the overall pollution of the atmosphere. You can chop and change between them, but it won't reduce the overall problem much, just the flavour.
One thing we don't need to do is cultivate car racing, F1 etc. It's fun for some, but hardly beneficial to anyone.
Maybe if bus service and train service were improved by a heck of a lot, people would travel more by those means, I remember a long time ago when the rail had up to 12 carriages and up to eight stopped at certain stations, now your lucky to see 4, no wonder no one wants to use it
|
|
<< Maybe if bus service and train service were improved by a heck of a lot, people would travel more by those means, I remember a long time ago when the rail had up to 12 carriages and up to eight stopped at certain stations, now your lucky to see 4, no wonder no one wants to use it. >>
Until WW1 the railway was the only transport available to most people, apart from municipal bus services. After that the bus companies easily attracted people from the railway, because they didn't have to get to a station perhaps a long way away. After WW2 more people could afford cars, which then attracted them away from the bus, as they were no longer limited to a fixed timetable, they didn't have to wait in the rain, and the car took them to the door (or close to it). Rural buses soon became uneconomic.
Reversing that mindset will be impossible unless driving and parking become intolerably difficult or expensive, and increased taxation is used to subsidise public transport.
Edited by Andrew-T on 10/10/2017 at 18:23
|
|
|
|
|
|
City dwellers are going to stop buying food and other goods so they don't need trucks to deliver them.
We need to reduce NOx/particulate levels in inner cities, particularly London. The main contributor of NOx and particulates is the diesel engine. Diesels cannot be eliminated altogether as we need goods moving to provide supplies. Diesel pollution can be lowered significantly by reducing non-essential users such as many of the private diesel cars in Inner London and by incentivising use of hybrids and electrics for essental stuff, local deliveries etc.
Raising issues like wood burners and tyre/brake particles as reason to do nothing about the biggest part of the problem, diesel, is like the kid caught misbehaving in class complaining that little Johnny got away with it.
I was trying to be humourous!
NOx and particulates are an issue in cities - that's why Euro 6 petrols have to meet the PM limits that diesel did in Euro 5 - and why Euro 6 diesel NOx limits are very close to those of petrol, and many large diesel cars are under 50% of their limit.
I doubt that ANY car user in London regards their use as non-essential, it's not exactly a joy-ride.
Both local and national government are missing out step one in improving city air quality - introduce cheap, clean, efficient public transport and that will eliminate large numbers of so-called non-essential car journeys - if the public don't/won't use that cheap, clean efficient public transport then just introduce appropriate bans.
|
|
The future will not be trains. They function on commuter routes into major cities. For most other journeys they are inflexible, expensive and require transport to/from each terminus.
Simply due to power requirements, diesel will continue to dominate the freight market. Using rail for the long distace component, then adding to cost and complexity for local sectors - building loading, unloading, storage and container handling is plain daft.
A far more likely scenario is a rapid growth in hybrids for personal, local delivery and light commercial use. This would give significantly lower emissions in city centres, the option to battery charge at home, supermarket or on board engine charging. Small efficient engines with power augmented by battery for fast acceleration.
The only question is timing. Transition to hybrid may be 3-10 years away. Diesel scrappage in my view is a sales ploy designed to part punters from their cash. You need to be clear what other discounts come with the car, finance deals if this is part if the purchase decision, and what the trade in value should be.
The best advice is to ignore the hype and focus on cost to change.
|
|
The best advice is to ignore the hype and focus on cost to change.
...I recently have and it's worked very much to my advantage! Cheers Audi...
|
|
|
|
A far more likely scenario is a rapid growth in hybrids for personal, local delivery and light commercial use
hybrid HGvs are being tested, but there are a lot of problems to overcome for them, I agree hybrid cars may become the norm unless diesel is made a lot more eco friendly which is more than possible
I gather inroads are being made into flexible batteries which would improve on the amount and position they can be placed in a car, similar tech to samsungs flex phone they are developing. futures looking good tech wise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
