Some interesting points of view on this subject, though not much on mudguard design. My thoughts are that roads get built all the time, maybe not as many or as often as some would like, but they do get built, but when was the last fresh track laid? I've often wondered why railways have lots of bends in them, so speed is restricted, but motorways tend to be straight, and boring, and sleep-inducing. On another thread it's mentioned that lorries are banned on Sundays in parts of Europe, don't they have fresh food? I appreciate that certain goods are needed asap but much of todays freight isn't so time-sensitive and could go by rail, or even by canal, if they'd build one to transfer water from Scotland to the south-east, far too sensible, it'll never happen.
Not all traffic on the roads have wipers, they still get covered in spray.
|
You do get less spray from the lorries which have the mudguards that go all the wway across the back than the ones that just have them on the wheels, don't you?
Have to admit I follow Adam's technique of getting past as fast as possible, however I acknowledge that that has safety drawbacks in terms of going faster than you'd want to on a wet road.
|
The ridiculous statement of banning lorries in the wet,isn't even worthy of a comment.
Get a life you muppet.
|
|
wondered who would be the first to bite, didnt think it would be you though Ken!!!
|
I just get sick of all the nimby's,and the anti lorry brigade.
I am a professional driver of some 15 years standing,and I agree,that there are somethings that go on within the industry,that even I find unacceptable,but for people to still harp on that lorries are dangerous,cause pollution,and basically anti social,gets on my thruppenny bits.
Let's state the ultimate fact here,this country,and others NEED trucks,like it or lump it.Without them,we don't exist.Rail will NEVER replace the truck in this country,because the infrastructure is Victorian,and there isn't the money to replace it.
I challenge anyone to come up with a proper argument,that this country would be better off putting everything onto an already delapidated rail system
And if anyone who is a non truck driver,would like to see what it's like from a drivers point of view,and sit in the hot seat with me,and lives in the Wakefield area,then feel free to spend a day with me.(That's providing you can start at 3am,and are prepared for a very long day.)
|
>>Rail will NEVER replace the truck in this country>>
As I stated earlier in the thread, it's a ridiculous proposal as it's virtually impossible for all but a small fraction of road freight to go by rail; furthermore it's not a economic or timewise proposition in most instances.
What's more, freight and smaller vehicles' logistics vary from day to day for most hauliers and couriers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
>when wasthe last fresh track laid?
Channel Tunnel link about to open for the Eurostar?
But someone else mentioned above about branch lines having been built on and that's pretty near the truth. Many of the redundant lines could not be restored because they have been built across or, in places, turned into roads or cycle paths. The current main lines are pretty much running at capacity and couldn't take much more traffic, there is a big spat going on at the moment between two companies on the East Coast Mainline as to which can have some new slots that have just become available.
The only solution would be to build more lines but the reason more lines won't be built is the planning laws as they stand, can you imagine the public enquiries that would be needed if you wanted to build a new track into a central city terminus; the Victorians just passed a Railway Act, courtesy of their bought MPs, and shifted all the populace out of the way and bulldozed their homes, a bit different today!
As a nation we closed down all the little loss making branch lines which enabled most places to be served by rail freight to within a reasonable local distance of its destination, that's what they were built for in the first place, to move goods around the country close enough to its final destination to be picked up by horse and cart, not for commuters because they didn't exist.
I've often wondered why railwayshave lots of bends in them, so speed is restricted, but motorways tend to be straight,
Trains are much more influenced by gradient than road vehicles due to grip, a 1in 30 gradient is nothing much to a road vehicle but to a train virually impassable, the new Channel Tunnel route was planned witha 1 in 40 gradient at one point which would have made it the steepest mainline gradient in Europe. To get round this problem rail lines have to be laid in cuttings or on viaducts to even out the gradients, another trick is to follow contour lines, much as the canals and Roman aqueducts did thus lots of bends. Also lots of engineering problems to be solved and time taken. The new Channel Tunnel link first had its route agreed back in 1991, probably been in planning for some considerable time before that and was originally costed out at £790m for its 67 miles and has yet to open so I think you're right about the chances of a dedicated freight line running the length of the country being pretty low, I'd say there's more chance of every BR'er winning the lottery before it happens!
|
QUOTE: - >>>Move everything by rail to depots, small vans can do the last part of the journey. Alternatively, design some mudguards that work, how hard can it be? Put sidecovers over the wheels to within six inches of the road and let the water drain out rather than spray out, but something needs doing.<<<
Why not ban cars too, so we can all walk, cycle or travel by bus to the nearest station, then we wouldn't need roads! (LOL)
|
|
|
Cockle,
Puzzled by the 1 in 40 as steepest in Europe. Lickey incline on Brum to Gloucester line is 1 in 37 and has been open since 19th century.
|
Rain-X on the windscreen improves the view when lorries are spraying water. At motorway speeds, wipers are not required and visibility is excellent. I think it's a real improvement in safety.
Excuse me as I don my fire-proof overalls and duck for cover.... hee hee.
|
Spray from HGVs is less of a problem that it used to be due to "carpet" type mud flaps, more enclosed wheels etc.
The economic argument for rail v road is going to stand or fall on much more than spray from HGVs in heavy rain.
One counter argument is to say, let the salesmen take the train and let the goods they sell be delivered by road.
|
Spray from HGVs is less of a problem that it used to be due to "carpet" type mud flaps, more enclosed wheels etc.
like this
www.clear-pass.co.uk/EN/accueil.htm
|
|
OK, so it's a dry day, but now it starts raining hard. So all the HGVs pull in to the side of the road and wait. What's that going to do for trafic congestion, and the general cost of consumer goods and vital necessities?
|
Rain is a hazard as we all know. Modify your driving accordingly.
A question for the OP though: who decides when the sort of misty drizzle English people pretend not to notice on picnics or during games of cricket turns into proper rain that might actually make a bit of spray on the road? Differences of opinion would give rise to some interesting court cases.
|
|
That's what comes of believing what you read in Hansard! Politicians are always economic with the truth!
Don't doubt what you say but that stat seriously came from the Hansard record of a Transport Ministers Questions on the Channel Tunnel line in 1991, and as that's where the cost and length stats came from as well then they're probably wrong too! Mind you I would imagine that the cost has at least doubled in time honoured tradition.
Having done a little more digging the steepest incline ever worked by an adhesion loco in Britain was the Hopton incline on the Cromford and High Peak Railway which was 1:14 but the locos could pull a maximum of 38 tons, just about equal to one artic, up the incline, the other 8 inclines on the route were worked by stationary engines hauling the trucks up by cable or descent by gravity.
The line was 33 miles long running from High Peak Junction to Whaley Bridge and a truck would take two days to travel the length of the line!
If you're interested in good old fashioned engineering have a look on here it'll whet your appetite, tinyurl.com/h92w3
Part of the line is now the High Peak Trail for walking and cycling, I've spent several happy days cycling along it and looking at the old winding engines and signal boxes.
|
If your talking about rope railway haulage,then the 1:13 incline on the Bowes Railway,near my birthplace at Gateshead,has to be a steep one as well.
www.bowesrailway.co.uk/
Check out section 4 under rope haulage operations.
Ken.
|
At the risk of this becoming a railway thread, then that's getting pretty steep, one of the inclines on the C&HPR was 1:8. Apparently there was a runaway on that incline and a truck was estimated to have reached 120mph at the bottom and supposedly took off and cleared the canal, must have been interesting!
Think it was the Bowes railway that I saw some old footage of a while back, is that the line that took coal down to the quays and used the gravity to take a truck down and the empty one back up running continuosly with shunters jumping under the moving trucks to hitch and unhitch them to/from the cable?
There were certainly some ingenious engineering solutions implemented by our forefathers, mind you Health and safety would never allow half of them today!
|
Talking of runaways and health and safety:
www.britannica.com/coasters/1870.html
Actually though this was pretty safe, for an 18-mile roller coaster in 1872.
|
|
|
>>the C&HPR was1:8. Apparently there was a runaway on that incline and a truck was estimated to have reached 120mph at the bottom and supposedly took off and cleared the canal, must have been interesting!
The Cromford & High Peak Railway inclines had "run-off" pits at the bottom to catch the "runaways", just like on some steep inclines on major roads.
|
|
Correct, nick, but the one on Sheep Pasture was built in 1890 as a result of the runaway on Mar 1st 1888. The Victorians were as good as we are are at bolting doors after the horses have left! Just proves that very little is new.
|
I work next to a popular railway track, I see freight trains with 20 or more containers on them, that's twenty less lorries on the road, twenty less diesel engines polluting the atmosphere. I've got news for some of you luddites, pollution is starting to matter, and if the source of the pollution can be reduced then it makes a compelling argument to go in that direction. Electric trains mean the power station is the main polluter, so it's easier to reach a solution.
It's slow moving freight on the railways? I'd imagine DHL/UPS/Citilink or others would have a seriously quick turnaround if they ran the terminals. Fill a container, and put it on a railway carriage, they seem to manage quite fine shifting containers by boat, and you aren't telling me that sailing is quicker than a lorry.
So I'm a muppet, perhaps if you had reasoned argument you wouldn't have to name-call. It's obvious they won't ban lorries altogether, the argument was about spray, but clearly since it doesn't affect the lorry driver sat high above it then it doesn't matter.
You don't want to work at night? I'm sure there's a Polish driver waiting to take your place. The roads are a limited resource, it's inevitable that spreading the use of them will become a priority, that's what road-pricing is all about.
|
|
Luddites were people who resisted new technologies. Trains going up steep inclines in 1890 are old technology.
|
Luddites were people who resisted new technologies. Trains going up steep inclines in 1890 are old technology.
Lorries are hardly new technology either. They've been used for about a century now. I always wonder what people are smoking when they argue for the modernity of road transport compared with the train. Neither is new. Neither is good for every occasion. But when it comes to transport we don't often make decisions on the basis of "best tool for the job." It's more usually "What's available right now?" the tactic of bad DIYers everywhere.
And of course there was a lot more to the Luddite complaint than the rise of the machines. That whole period was marked by political struggles brought about by terrible poverty. In fact the hauliers resisting calls for more rail freight are more in the Luddite way: it will affect their livelihoods.
|
In factthe hauliers resisting calls for more rail freight are more in the Luddite way: it will affect their livelihoods.
Not many hauliers are anti rail, the welcome it, knowing full well it will never happen. Most modern trucks are far more environmentaly friendly then some old diesel train - how many trains run at euro 4 or 5 emissions levels? No matter what peole use as the arguement with todays ways of living there is no alternative to road haulage - so unless those people want to start growing their own produce, only buy locally made goods and are happy to wait months for some goods and services then I'm afraid road haulage is here to stay (and good job as well as it pays my mortgage).
|
the argument was about spray, but clearly since it doesn'taffect the lorry driver sat high above it then it doesn't matter.
Well working that still further, I suggest that all cars are banned from the road during times of low sun, many car drivers seem to want to brake heavily when the sun gets in their eyes, I find this very dangerous so suggest that they be banned from the road during the times of day that low sun is likely!!!!!!!
|
.... they seem to manage quite fine shifting containers by boat, and you aren't telling me that sailing is quicker than a lorry.
If you have to cross a body of water then the lorries still have to get on the boat!
|
>>I see freight trains with 20 or more containers on them,>>
That's a flea bite in the overall total of trucks and lorries on our roads...:-)
Put it simply. if you want to eat, drink or enjoy a vast range of goods then you will have to acccept that trucks and lorries play an unassailable role in their provision.
Rail freight, canals or any other low level means of transportation will merely play a tiny bit part in the overall scheme of things, basically because of the sheer scale of road transport and the ever changing logistics involved.
Yes, rail freight can/is used for transporting bulky, non-urgent deliveries such as coal but, otherwise, it's a non-starter for almost 100 per cent of goods and services.
That's where trucks and lorries come in......
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
In an ideal world if one was designing a system from scratch then yes non-perishable commodities would make the majority of their trips by rail (or even maybe canal) with only a short trip from railhead to shop being done by lorry.
Unfortunately at the time the railway network was planned there was nothing like the need for long distance freight that modern life requires. I suspect the average victorian household used products that were mostly sourced within 50 miles. These days we think nothing of having a kitchen cupboard full of products from all over the world. Building an efficient rail distribution network from scratch now would be the only way to make it work.
Yes it could be done, maybe even it should be done but the costs would be staggering and no one who depends on a popularity contest to retain his job is going to go anywhere near such a vote loser.
The obvious solution is to build more roads, remove the ridiculous speed restrictors on lorries to allow safe overtaking, the tachograph will still allow checks on overall average speed as a guide to whether abuse is taking place.
|
"The obvious solution is to build more roads" That doesn't seem obvious to me, railways are narrower, by some margin, and I'll bet the owners of horses and carts had the same arguments about the infernal combustion engine, 'it'll never replace horses'.
I'm 100% certain that railway locos could match Euro emission laws if needed, although if you read my comments you'll see electricity was mentioned. It's already been said that we can't build our way out of congestion, you will have to accept that cos they won't change, even "call me Dave" is taking a greener standpoint.
Shopping malls are becoming centralised, there's no reason why they couldn't have a small rail terminal feeding them, all it needs is a bit of common sense and the will to look for alternatives. Look at the trams in Manchester, a Victorian idea with a modern interpretation.
It's lucky that Snowdon is flat, or it wouldn't have a railway, a bit like Switzerland, or Peru, or .......
|
railways are narrower, by some margin>>
The railway lines in my area, shut down follow the Beeching Report, now contain many hundreds of houses - they were equally considered for new roads building but, at that time, there wasn't the demand due to far fewer vehicles on the highways.
So they are certainly not as narrow as you would infer.
I keep getting the impression that you are still flogging a dead horse...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
The problem is rail does not allow for a flexible distribution network. If you get a container of toy trains from China, that then goes to a distibution ctr and from there is loaded onto a truck for delivery to the store direct. This truck can deliver to one or more stores and is flexible on which stores it can serve, even being re-routed once it has left base, if you had to send the goods via rail the trailer (or equivelent) would have to leave the DC attached to others, then they would all have to either pay a visit to the same shop or be routed into shunting yards to connect with other trains, this is very ineffecient and slow. It is a logistical nightmare moving freight in this way and pushes the cost up, which we would all have to pay for. Now I firmly believe in green issues, and would love to see some better forms of transport, electric may be an option for cars, but at the current time is just too expensive for the average joe, some haulage operators have dabbled with Gas which is fine for shorter lighter weight stuff but until there is some real incentive from the govt (either + or - incentives) then the IC engine will still be king and road haulage will still be the cheepest method.
|
The problem is rail does not allow for a flexible distribution network>>
Presumably because the track was laid some considerable time ago...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
