|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: allan tracyallan tracy Date: Nov 28, 2007 06:37
So, faced with the increasing competitiveness and environmental
credentials of rail freight what does the hopelessly subsidised road
haulage industry come up with err..... a train.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/philippa_edmunds/2007/11/lets_have_no_truck_with_them...
That's some safety culture that will allow one of these things to
share the same road space as a kid on a bike.
But then if you have a Government that wants to do nothing on
transport except short term measures to make the problems go away so
they can carry on playing doctors, teachers and nurses with their
mates in the public sector - this makes a heck of a lot of sense.
|
| |
|
| | 519 Comments |
|
|
Author: Light of AriaLight of Aria Date: Nov 28, 2007 08:09
>
> So, faced with the increasing competitiveness and environmental
> credentials of rail freight what does the hopelessly subsidised road
> haulage industry come up with err..... a train.
>
> http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/philippa_edmunds/2007/11/lets_have_no_truck_with_them...
>
> That's some safety culture that will allow one of these things to
> share the same road space as a kid on a bike.
>
> But then if you have a Government that wants to do nothing on
> transport except short term measures to make the problems go away so
> they can carry on playing doctors, teachers and nurses with their
> mates in the public sector - this makes a heck of...
|
| Show full article (2.09Kb) |
|
| | 57 Comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Nov 28, 2007 08:28
Light of Aria ("Light of Aria" novaliddomain.com>) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> Very emotive.
Indeed.
The claimed 77%% utilisation for efficiency gain "break-even" would seem
to suggest that they won't BE used unless the utilisation demands it.
The photo seems to show it as being a nicely modular solution, too - a
normal artic trailer attached to a relatively short rigid with a bogey
carrying the fifth wheel. Perfect! If there's really not much to shift,
leave the trailer. If there's a medium amount, put the trailer onto a
normal tractor unit. Bob's your uncle.
> The large loads on mass are then consolidated into smaller loads (17.5
> tonne, 12.5 tonne, 7.5 tonne, and 3.5 tonne for localised distribution).
...ah, yes, just like that... Yep, it'd work quite well.
I must admit to liking the "gigaliner" tag, too. That'd mean that the
next size up is going to be a "petaliner". Which sounds all nice & cute &
fluffy & cuddly. Awwww.
|
| |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: NMNM Date: Nov 28, 2007 08:59
Adrian wrote:
> Light of Aria ("Light of Aria" novaliddomain.com>) gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> >> Very emotive.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The claimed 77%% utilisation for efficiency gain "break-even" would seem
> to suggest that they won't BE used unless the utilisation demands it.
>
> The photo seems to show it as being a nicely modular solution, too - a
> normal artic trailer attached to a relatively short rigid with a bogey
> carrying the fifth wheel. Perfect! If there's really not much to shift,
> leave the trailer. If there's a medium amount, put the trailer onto a
> normal tractor unit. Bob's your uncle.
>
>> The large loads on mass are then consolidated into smaller loads (17.5
>> tonne, 12.5 tonne, 7.5 tonne, and 3.5 tonne for localised distribution).
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.25Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TimBTimB Date: Nov 28, 2007 09:05
On Nov 28, 4:09 pm, "Light of Aria" novaliddomain.com>
wrote:
> Unless you run a coal power station or perhaps a large aggregates works,
> you'd be mad to use rail transport.
What's all that stuff coming out of Felixstowe and Southampton then?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mustaphasiddiquemustaphasiddique Date: Nov 28, 2007 09:07
What is new about these? I drove the same in the UK army years ago.
We had to unhitch the trailers to take them around corners one at a
time.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Nov 28, 2007 09:20
NM (NM all.com>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
>> The photo seems to show it as being a nicely modular solution, too - a
>> normal artic trailer attached to a relatively short rigid with a bogey
>> carrying the fifth wheel. Perfect! If there's really not much to shift,
>> leave the trailer. If there's a medium amount, put the trailer onto a
>> normal tractor unit. Bob's your uncle.
> It would be more sensible to allow a normal trailer then a dolly
> supporting another normal trailer, effectivly doubling the capacity but
> enabling the loaded portions to be equal sized thus needing exactly the
> same support facilities at each terminal and creating much greater
> flexabilty than two differing sized units.
P'raps, but that'd be even longer than the rigid plus approach shown -
and rigid/short trailer combos are reasonably numerous across the rest of
Europe, so the facilities already exist. B'sides, there's no reason the
rigid can't have a detachable body. As many seem already to be.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Knight Of The RoadKnight Of The Road Date: Nov 28, 2007 09:38
"Light of Aria" novaliddomain.com> wrote
> Very emotive. Clearly the vehicle in question will not fit in a typical
> high street, and unless the "kid on a bike" is foolishly or illegally
> playing on motorways or trunk roads, is never going to go anywhere near
> anything other than major distribution nodes.
I'm totally opposed to these things so anything that turns people against
them, even if factually incorrect, is fine by me.
This quote was interesting though..."Freight on Rail believes that longer
heavier lorries (LHV) would mean more lorries".
As is obvious to anyone thinking about it, it would mean *less* lorries (and
downward pressure on drivers' wages)- hence my opposition to them.
|
| |
| 22 Comments |
|
|
Author: MariaMaria Date: Nov 28, 2007 09:39
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:38:00 -0000, "Knight Of The Road"
hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| Show full article (0.94Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Knight Of The RoadKnight Of The Road Date: Nov 28, 2007 09:48
"Maria" btopenworld.com> wrote
> But but but...are there less lorries now than there were when the
> limit was 32 tonnes?
>
No, because the economy has grown since the 1980s and far more goods are
moved. Had weights not risen from 32 tonnes, there would be many more trucks
on the road than there are. Have you not noticed all of the new retail
outlets that have appeared over the last 20 years?
You have 150 tonnes to move. You need three lorries if each can carry 50
tonnes but five if they can only carry thirty tonnes.
Hardly rocket science, is it?
Like I said, I'm firmly opposed to them because they will take trucks off of
the road and that puts downward pressure on my wages. So if you're opposed
to them too, then we're on the same side.
|
| |
| 7 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
