Ban lorries in the wet - doug_523i
Here we are after a hundred years of motoring and we still don't seem able to produce mudguards that work on lorries, has the time come to ban anything over 7.5 tons from using the roads when it's wet, on safety grounds?
Ban lorries in the wet - Pugugly {P}
Yes. I'll have to eat the dogs come February though and burn the wife's MINI to keep warm.
Ban lorries in the wet - bell boy
yes im for it but i think all the caves in england are all taken.
would it be ok if i took a sharp knife with me rather than a flint though?

wheels and rain dont mix do they ,,,,,,.///////.//////.............
Ban lorries in the wet - doug_523i
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - Stuartli
Move everything by rail to depots,>>


Have a little think about that one and then realise just how ridiculous it is.

About 95-96 per cent of everything we eat, drink or use is carried by road on many, many thousands of lorries and trucks - how on earth would we do it all by rail?

50 mile long trains all going to different parts of the country?

That's without even considering perishable goods or considering more remote destinations which are not served by rail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
Ban lorries in the wet - doug_523i
Have you having a little think about that one, and then realise how ridiculous it is, 50 miles of lorries on the road is better than 50 miles of train? Thinking outside the box for a minute, how's about building some new rail links?
Ban lorries in the wet - doug_523i
Oops, got me cut and paste mixed up.
Ban lorries in the wet - Stuartli
>>Thinking outside the box for a minute, how's about building some new rail links?>>

That would cost billions and billions of pounds even it it was possible. Where would the economic return come from?

However, I do know where the cost would be raised...:-)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
Ban lorries in the wet - Bill Payer
..but yet you don't seem to get the density of trucks on the road elsewhere, even in Europe.

I'm always amazed by the lack of trucks when travelling in the US - OK, long distance stuff goes by air/rail, but even within an individual state, there doesn't seem to be much city to city trucking.
Ban lorries in the wet - nick62
Drive down the side of the Rhine in Germany.

Two railways, one on each bank, one full of passenger trains, the opposite side full of goods trains and the rest in barges on the river!!!

Is it me or do the British always take a "short term" view of things? In other words "let's not spend the money now so we look good" (as per the gross underfunding of the railway infrstructure during the whole of the last Conservative govenment). There doesn't ever seem to be any attention paid to the "look what a fantastic ****** (insert railway/road/whatever) system" taht we will have in the future.

The Swiss/Italians are busy at the moment digging out a new rail tunnel (the longest ever?) under the Alps because the existing one (Simplon) is overloaded. They make the lorries use the train instead of the road, (which also explains whay you don't see too many on the Swiss Autoroutes).
Ban lorries in the wet - R75
The problem is we as consumers want everything yesterday or sooner, we also like to have fresh food, or frozen food. When we send mail we want it there the next day. The answer to all these problems unfortuantly lies in road haulage. Many companies have tried using the trains but it just does not work. It was far quicker for ParcelForce to get a parcel from Reading Distribution Ctr to Glasgow DC by road then it was by train. By road, one truck from each depot would meet halfway and swap trailers - these would then be driven back and the parcels sorted - total driving time about 8 hours for each driver, meaning parcels could be deliverd overnight, by train (and it was tried on different length trials) it would take about 14 hours for the journey, in one instance a container full of parcels went awol in some sidings for 3 months!!!!!!! Basically with the way we as consumers want to live our lives with the diversity of goods we want to buy we have no choice but to use road haulage as the primary means.

As for the spray issue, there are things called "Spatz" that you will see on some trucks that fit inside the mudguard, Safeway trucks used to all have them - not sure if morrisons have carried them over. Problem is they get knocked off and don't do a wonderful job in the first place - far better idea is to use the two long things that sit at the base of your windscreen!!!!!!
Ban lorries in the wet - Adam {P}
I can't remember the last time I've ever heard, read about or seen an accident caused by spray blinding the driver when overtaking a lorry.

The best solution is to see the lorry, then floor it as fast as the car will go to minimise the time you're alongside it. Works every time.
Ban lorries in the wet - Baskerville
Eddie Stobart's been doing some thinking:

www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=413...3

From the article: "Each train pulls the equivalent of 28 truck loads, saving 2,898,000 litres of fuel annually ? or £2m-worth."

I'm not saying we could shift it all this way, but we could shift a lot more than we do.
About 40% of freight goes by rail in the USA. Nowhere near that here. All it takes is a bit of imagination and the nerve to stand up to the road transport lobby. Do we have a politician with either of those qualities?
Ban lorries in the wet - jc2
Let's ban cars in the wet;at least the truck driver's are professional.
Ban lorries in the wet - dom grimes
Let's ban cars in the wet;at least the truck driver's are
professional.


Professional !!!!! - they are no better than anyone else on the road. I drive 65-70k per year all over the UK and the only thing that scares me on the road is artics and waggons that don't give 2 hoots about anyone except themselves. example - last week on the M6 roadworks at Cannnock an artic was 10 feet from my rear and flashing to go past - this in a 40mph contraflow.

try going down any motorway in the UK and drive in the nearside lane - you will be boxed in by 2 lanes of freight trying to overtake each other at 2mph and tailgating each other

all you ever hear is that " we have to keep our revs up" or " we have dealines to meet" well I'm sorry I've got a newsflash for you - when it's wet you slow down, when it's busy you slow down.

get the freight off the road onto rail, reduce the duty and tax for vehicles driving between 9.00pm and 6.00am

Dominic
Ban lorries in the wet - R75
Professional !!!!! - they are no better than anyone else on
the road. I drive 65-70k per year all over the UK
and the only thing that scares me on the road is
artics and waggons that don't give 2 hoots about anyone except
themselves. example - last week on the M6 roadworks at Cannnock
an artic was 10 feet from my rear and flashing to
go past - this in a 40mph contraflow.


There are always bad eggs!!!

try going down any motorway in the UK and drive in
the nearside lane - you will be boxed in by 2
lanes of freight trying to overtake each other at 2mph and
tailgating each other


That is as a result of speed limiters being fitted it is not always possible to slow down and sit behind a slightly slower wagon for what could be 4.5hrs, 2mph faster over a 9 hr total drive can be the difference between making it home for the night or having to spend the night in a tin box!!!
all you ever hear is that " we have to keep
our revs up" or " we have dealines to meet" well
I'm sorry I've got a newsflash for you - when
it's wet you slow down, when it's busy you slow down.


It's called driving to the conditions, when there is alot of spray around you can see very little in the car, the height you sit at in a truck means you are above all the spray and usually have a very good view of the road ahead and so are able to drive to the conditions and that may mean still doing 56mph if the road ahead is clear - just cos you cant see does not mean others cant.
get the freight off the road onto rail, reduce the duty
and tax for vehicles driving between 9.00pm and 6.00am

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn - not everyone wants to work nights.
Ban lorries in the wet - Stuartli
>>About 40% of freight goes by rail in the USA>>

America is a vast country containing probably every type of climate you can find in the world (which is probably why so few Americans have a passport) and long freight train journeys make sense, whilst the UK is a small island.

I know a haulage contractor and also owners of small firms in my town who undertake all deliveries by road.

In the past, when people have asked why they don't use the railways, they point out that a) the vehicle can be there and back in most cases before the train has barely left the town and b) it would still be necessary to take goods by road to the railway depot and to collect them in a vehicle at the other end.

Journeys by rail in the UK are just not long enough to be economical either for the firms or the railways - remember how much the railways have lost in the past on the freight side of their business.

By the way Eddie Stobart, from what I've read, is only conveying a small part of his business by rail.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
Ban lorries in the wet - Baskerville
Last time I checked it was a long way from here to Hungary. There is a rail link that potentially goes all the way. And yet a Hungarian 44-tonner made a delivery to a domestic house across the road from me yesterday. Why?

The Stobart trains, small part of the business or not (and I don't think anyone suggested they are not), are saving him £2 million a year in fuel. That might be walking around money to men of means like you and your haulier mates, but for most of us that's quite a lot. It seems it's quite a lot to Eddie Stobart as well.

I think the main thing is that we default to road now in an unthinking way. Most road hauliers will favour road transport and argue against the alternatives. Don't ask turkeys to argue for Christmas. But there are plenty of things that don't need to be "just in time" they need to come in a steady and predictable stream: coal to power stations, beans to Tescos distribution centres. The train is ideal for that.
Ban lorries in the wet - Chad.R
Last time I checked it was a long way from here
to Hungary. There is a rail link that potentially goes all
the way. And yet a Hungarian 44-tonner made a delivery to
a domestic house across the road from me yesterday. Why?


Probably because it's less hassle and quite probably cheaper too; If it was going by rail, then the Hungarian supplier would have to load 44 tonnes on to a HGV, haul it to the rail depot, unload 44 tonnes from HGV and on to a freight train. Train would then travel across Europe making god knows how many stops (and detours for this specific load) in between. Then when it finally arives at the UK end, unless you live ajacent to the railway depot, 44 tonnes have to be unloaded from the train and loaded on to a HGV and taken by road to your neighbour's.

Seems like a lot of hassle, by road its door-to-door. Plus, if the haulier plays his cards right, he may have goods he can take back to Hungary ......
Ban lorries in the wet - bignick
All it takes is a bit of imagination
and the nerve to stand up to the road transport lobby.
Do we have a politician with either of those qualities?

The last politician we had with both imagination AND nerve was Enoch Powell.
Given the current state of the parties I suspect it will be a long wait until we see another.
Ban lorries in the wet - Martin Devon
Yes. I'll have to eat the dogs come February though and
burn the wife's MINI to keep warm.

I have two perfectly serviceable Labradors that you may add to your larder. Why wait till Feb?? Swines both and they know it. The eldest is 11 today and more beligerent than 'er indoors. Orf with their 'eads I say>


vbr................MD
Ban lorries in the wet - stunorthants
Any high sided vehicle produces plenty of spray such as vans and MPVs, although not from the wheels but just as a result of the air blowing the water off a large object. So if you following behind in a car which is lower down, you get the spray. No point singling out lorries.

I think the point you are missing here is not the vehicles, but the surface they are travelling on - some roads have now been resurfaced in a material that greately reduces spray - its fantastic stuff, the difference which can be seen when you pass back onto an older stretch of road.

Spray is in general caused by vehicles travelling over standing water - so remove the standing water by better drainage and road surfaces...
Ban lorries in the wet - jase1
I've often thought it would be a very good idea to move lorries to driving overnight, and leave the roads for the cars during the day -- especially the hours of 8am-6pm.

Would it be that much of a hardship for the freight companies to do their work by night, when the roads are empty?

Slow-moving vehicles are a big cause of phantom tailbacks, especially when you have one overtaking another at 56mph vs 55 -- faster moving cars have to slow down causing tailbacks which then turn into temporary logjams. In the wet, and in winter months this becomes dangerous for the spray reasons listed above with the idiots tailgating everywhere and braking hard when a lorry pulls out in front of them, often because they haven't seen the car behind them through all the fug produced by spray everywhere.

So yes, move as much freight as possible to the rail network, and have the remainder that must be on the roads out of the way of the car drivers. Less accidents, no need to regulate against lorries in the wet and a (slightly) more pleasurable experience for the reps and commuters.
Ban lorries in the wet - Westpig
a lot of stuff used to go by train, there was a proper set up for it (and some companies had sidings in their grounds etc)...... but when the Unions were strong and there were strikes and threats of strikes....... a number of companies swapped to lorries..... more out of business necessity than anything.

when the Unions were tamed somewhat and the problem negated, there was no corresponding swap back from lorries to rail freight

and here we are now, with ever increasing traffic on the roads and ever increasing demands for the products

i should imagine a lot of the branch type rail lines have now got houses on them

Ban lorries in the wet - Martin Devon
i should imagine a lot of the branch type rail lines
have now got houses on them

They have and have had for several years.

Politicians and bankers eh! same school?

Y.I.U.D.......................MD.
Ban lorries in the wet - R75
I've often thought it would be a very good idea to
move lorries to driving overnight, and leave the roads for the
cars during the day -- especially the hours of 8am-6pm.


Hmmm, Not all drivers want to work night shifts, and those that do get a premium in pay, put all freight on night runs and you end up with no one wanting to do the job, to then get people to do the job the rate has to rise, for that to happen the cost would be passed onto the consumer - do you want to pay more? Also, if you lived near a shop do you really want trucks turning up in the small hours delivering? Who is going to be there to receive the goods? who is going to work in the warehouse to receive the goods? Too many industries (infact virtually all) rely on road transport and dayime deliveries.

As for the eddie stobart comment, you might be interested to know he got a nice grant to send this traffic via rail - what happens when this grant runs out? Oh yeah he will do the same as he did last time and stop using the train - and yes I did say last time as this is not the first time he has done this.
Ban lorries in the wet - Group B
I think the point you are missing here is not the
vehicles, but the surface they are travelling on - some roads
have now been resurfaced in a material that greately reduces spray
- its fantastic stuff, the difference which can be seen when
you pass back onto an older stretch of road.


Yes Porous Asphalt, rainwater can pass through the top surfacing layer of the carriageway. Can reduce spray by up to 90%, but also inproves skid resistance, and reduces tyre noise. But it wears out quicker than hot rolled asphalt so was originally judged to be uneconomical; I think some harder wearing types have been trialled but I dont know the outcome. It also needs a lot more salt applied in winter.
archive.rushmoor.gov.uk/council/hig9750.htm

Apparently its used on French Autoroutes?
Ban lorries in the wet - mfarrow
There is always talk of a dedicated freight line running up and down the country. The problem is that the current government isn't giving the project their support and the tories are more interested in the highly energy inefficient and costly Maglev trains. Another problem is that the British railways were not built with a large enough loading guage compared to the rest of Europe to accomodate large containers or ideally complete trucks.

As for spray, I think Adam's idea works best, you're not going to get all lorries off the roads - trains don't run to your supermarket!

--------------
Mike Farrow
Ban lorries in the wet - Dave E
An idiotic idea. Not really worthy of further comment. On the other hand, any chance of a drink, smoke of what your having. :<)
Ban lorries in the wet - Adam {P}
I do hope you're not on about my excellent idea there Dave. I'd hate to have to add your name to "the list".
Ban lorries in the wet - Dave E
List, I love being in lists, it is always a sure sign you are P-ing someone off.

In reply to your query the answer is no. I am aiming that at the thread topic/author.
Ban lorries in the wet - JH
Doug,
I understand the sentiment but... this is Britain. Check your feet for the webs.
JH
Ban lorries in the wet - doug_523i
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - PoloGirl
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - Quinny
The ridiculous statement of banning lorries in the wet,isn't even worthy of a comment.

Get a life you muppet.

Ban lorries in the wet - R75
wondered who would be the first to bite, didnt think it would be you though Ken!!!
Ban lorries in the wet - Quinny
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.)
Ban lorries in the wet - Stuartli
>>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
Ban lorries in the wet - cockle {P}
>when was
the 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 railways
have 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!
Ban lorries in the wet - Sofa Spud
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)
Ban lorries in the wet - Bromptonaut
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - Pete M
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - cheddar
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - henry k
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
Ban lorries in the wet - Cliff Pope
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?
Ban lorries in the wet - Westpig
rain, in Blighty?
Ban lorries in the wet - Lud
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - cockle {P}
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - Quinny
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - cockle {P}
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!
Ban lorries in the wet - Baskerville
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - nick62
>>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!


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.
Ban lorries in the wet - cockle {P}
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - doug_523i
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.

Ban lorries in the wet - Cliff Pope
Luddites were people who resisted new technologies. Trains going up steep inclines in 1890 are old technology.
Ban lorries in the wet - Baskerville
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.
Ban lorries in the wet - R75
In fact
the 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).
Ban lorries in the wet - R75
the argument was about spray, but clearly since it doesn't
affect 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!!!!!!!
Ban lorries in the wet - Chad.R
.... 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!
Ban lorries in the wet - Stuartli
>>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
rail vs road - bignick
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.
rail vs road - doug_523i
"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 .......

rail vs road - Stuartli
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
rail vs road - R75
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.
rail vs road - Stuartli
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
 

Ask Honest John

Value my car