Fuel prices gone mad!!!!!!

[OmOnWeelz]

well good for you just keep paying and be happy.
public transport is just that transport for the general pubic the reason it is overcrowded is because there is not enough of it..
I take it from the above comments then you dont use public loos and have the shopping delivered so you dont have to queue at the checkouts with all the other unhealthy people and of course you never answer your phone in public in case it annoys someone else do you??????

nudge nudge say no more.

Happy only to pay a reasonable ammount, not happy to pay to support or fund new public transport or any thing else from our road use cost.
More public transport would slow the traffic and its still cramped and uncomfortable when empty.
We dont have home delivery, and I use self scan checkouts, I also don't queue at checkouts, If I can't get out of a shop quick the trolley gets left and I go

. I try very hard to avoid public toilets and door handles and always have a handy sixe pack of medicated wipes to hand

The wire on my phone is not long enough for it to be used in public

and my mobile is always on "silent" so you're quite correct, I NEVER answer it in public

Most people text or email as they know there is little chance of me answering

and my better half doesn't have a mobile and never enswers the home phone unless she knows who is calling.

 

[Steve L]

Chris stated:-
Get fuel prices down and people will spend more money on other things, keeping fuel prices high just screws the economy and the politicians just need to catch on to that fact.

You've hit the bulls eye there. As we predominately use our cars when on a big shopping trip, and the goods delivered by trucks, all use fuel. It would be benificial all round if the government woke upto the simple fact that reducing fuel cost's would get every sector of the retail supply chain on a road to recovery.

The trouble is. The government is seeing fuel taxation as the prime tax collector as we all have to drive or ride in/on something powered by petrol/diesel on a daily basis. Ok, so we could reduce the use of our cars but while there is no effective alternative transport network, we are lumbered with the car.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hi Omonweelz,
I appreciate that most of the local deliveries do come from a local hubs, but it’s the fact there is so much duplication. On an industrial estate near me there are three national carriers depots, and within in a ten mile radius most of the national carries have distribution hubs. At the business I worked at for twenty years, we got know the drivers quiet well, and despite being at the start of most of their delivery rounds, the vans were far from fully loaded. I estimate that the same amount of goods could easily be carried in a third or less of the vehicles.

I cannot agree there is a major difference between transferring goods from a train to lorry as compared lorry to lorry it requires the same manpower, its question of organisation and facilities. Besides which the train is most likely to be containerised. What would the government be moving that required a cargo hub? I don’t think that is a valid argument against a hub.

It is of course a matter of personal preference whether you use public services or not, but I seriously doubt that even you could live the life you crave without making use of many of the public services we have in the UK. Many of the services use the principal of sharing the total cost of operations equally across all users. Public transport is one example but equally the health service also applies the same funding process.

After your second post I actually wonder how you manage to live as you seem to have a phobia about crowds and shopping

 

[JonnyG]

Hi Omonweelz,
I appreciate that most of the local deliveries do come from a local hubs, but it’s the fact there is so much duplication. On an industrial estate near me there are three national carriers depots, and within in a ten mile radius most of the national carries have distribution hubs. At the business I worked at for twenty years, we got know the drivers quiet well, and despite being at the start of most of their delivery rounds, the vans were far from fully loaded. I estimate that the same amount of goods could easily be carried in a third or less of the vehicles.

I cannot agree there is a major difference between transferring goods from a train to lorry as compared lorry to lorry it requires the same manpower, its question of organisation and facilities. Besides which the train is most likely to be containerised. What would the government be moving that required a cargo hub? I don’t think that is a valid argument against a hub.

It is of course a matter of personal preference whether you use public services or not, but I seriously doubt that even you could live the life you crave without making use of many of the public services we have in the UK. Many of the services use the principal of sharing the total cost of operations equally across all users. Public transport is one example but equally the health service also applies the same funding process.

After your second post I actually wonder how you manage to live as you seem to have a phobia about crowds and shopping

" Valid argument"
8 million cars drive along our highways with just one person in the car! If every car carried 4 people you would reduce the amount of cars on the road by 75%! and that would free up a hell of a lot of road space.

That statement is as accurate and just as feesable Prof, as your post concerning road haulage that i have quoted. looks good on paper but is absolutely impractical and non workable to any sort of degree.

On the subject of manpower, you are incorrect, using hubs mean double handling in a lot of cases, which again is not time or cost effective for the majority where haulage is concerned.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Jonny,
The hub if properly set up would not involve double handling, and if it did it would be no worse than the current arrangements, which is the point I was making, in so far that insufficient development of the necessary handling systems have been made to maximise the use of rail because there has been no cohesive transport policy.
It works in other countries so why not here?, I shall answer that my self, - because successive governments have failed to address the transport issues, the private sector has cobbled together various different independent systems, none of which fully involve rail. These systems are now so ingrained, and businesses have so many assets tied into them, there is no chance that they will voluntarily convert to long distance rail. It would need the government to legislate for it and boy would that be unpopular! Yet it could save businesses thousands of pounds in fuel costs which is what this thread is about.

 

[JonnyG]

Hello Jonny,
The hub if properly set up would not involve double handling, and if it did it would be no worse than the current arrangements, which is the point I was making, in so far that insufficient development of the necessary handling systems have been made to maximise the use of rail because there has been no cohesive transport policy.
It works in other countries so why not here?, I shall answer that my self, - because successive governments have failed to address the transport issues, the private sector has cobbled together various different independent systems, none of which fully involve rail. These systems are now so ingrained, and businesses have so many assets tied into them, there is no chance that they will voluntarily convert to long distance rail. It would need the government to legislate for it and boy would that be unpopular! Yet it could save businesses thousands of pounds in fuel costs which is what this thread is about.

i dont deny there is room for improvement and for use of the rail system, to carry far more haulage but its still limited and really can only be used over long distances, and by that i would suggest 3 or 400 mile distances.
How many hubs would need setting up? 20 30 50? how long would it take to load and unload a train with what 30 or 40? artic containers? how many extra trains would be needed? Who will pay for the logistics of working out what gets picked up where and by whom?I know that sounds silly but someone has to control this monster where a large or rather the vast majority of Artics make for a hub or worse still have to make arrangements for a specific time to be there, then spend hours in a queue getting to get loaded and unloaded! hgv drivers could find themselves running out of drivers hours so not being able to deliver/pick up or get home. transports managers would have to deal with transport managers of other companies hundreds of miles away to arrange pick ups or deliveries.at the same times as trying to arrange new work dealing with the actual customers instructions or delivery time delays!
Large company like tesco's, Salisbury who ever, give drivers delivery times, now how do you fit that into your rail timetable? it might mean starting work much much earlier to meet a train, or do you think the entire manufacturing industry will just put up with no show or late deliveries that cost them? If the rail network cannot even cope with passenger travel, how the hell would they cope with the haulage industry and 300,000 artics queuing and waiting and running late and costing their firms millions in lost time for work?.
Just try to remember my example 8 million cars with 1 driver, if they all car shared there would be 6 million less cars on the road, but look at the impracticability of that, not everyone going to the same place not everyone works the same hours.
same applies to a massive hub system being in place, it would not, could not fit in with the entire haulage industry of thousands of individual haulage firms delivering for tens of thousands of firms, all with there own important timetable to keep.
British rail cannot even keep to a timetable now can you imagine adding what a thousand more trains to that time table?higher costs to the manufactures and punters in the shop, longer waiting times/delivery times on any journey less than 3 or 400 miles? snow on the tracts wrong type of leaves.........................

 

[Philspadders]

Hubs do work , but the private road haulage sector has by and large ignored rail, and indeed made a point of avoiding rail.
At immingham container yards , containers are loaded on to lorries that disperse all over the uk to centralised depots. The depots are usually located no where near a railyard. Many lorries take Ikea containers just down the m18 to the Ikea northern distribution hub. These containers are emptied and then another fleet of vehicles distributes the goods to various Ikeas.
If the containers were rail freighted to the Ikea depot which could have been located by Doncaster rail freight terminal we would see a reduction in the numbers of lorries and a cheaper more efficient distribution system. However , untill the likes of DHL, TNT, come under government control goods will still be moved by road. The privately owned road hauliers will not use rail freight.. their business is road haulage and not rail ( Stobart does shift goods by rail and is an exception to the rule). The government would need to spend money in developing the rail yards, but then we would have the NIMBY's complaining about the increase in rail traffic.

Of we go back to the 50,s we saw a massive decline in the rail freight and a move to road haulage as at the time road haulage was more flexible and cheaper, mainly due to the way goods were handled. But today , with containerised loads, the actual types of goods, the locations of our industrial estates and shopping centres a move back to rail is feasable.
Instead of sending 30 or 40 hgvs up the M11 and M1 to Worksop to deliver containers from Kent, a little careful logistic management and they could go by rail.
B&Q in Worksop, no where near a rail freight yard.. it could have been located in Doncaster, Same with the Wilkinson distribution centre in Worksop . re locate to Donny and the hundreds of vehciles taking goods into Worksop would not be needed.
I visit many industrial estates and these days they all seem to have a number of large distribution warehouses... many empty at at the moment. Last week at Sherburn there at least 4 massive distribution warehouses, all requiring a fleet of lorries to move goods into the warehouse, then back out again.

We may also see a shift back to making things rather than moving things about that other countries have made.

 

[seth1]

Phil,haulage operators can sometimes wait upto 5hours to get loaded with containers at certain places,how would trains go on with this problem,and as for your last paragragh i cant see that happening sadly for along time.There isnt the money available needed to invest in factory regrowth at the present moment to start manufacturing.

 

[OmOnWeelz]

I assume that to move freight in a economic way it would need to be in standard containers as used in shipping. I've no idea how many train carriages are suited to container carryig but obvioulsy a lot more would be needed if rail could replace truck use.
We have a rail systm that is tenth rate and expensive. I've used 8 Trains in the past two years travelling betwen surrey and Waterloo. Daughter uses them for work purposes at times and has not travelled once on a train that has not had serious delays over a weekend in the past 4 years, travelling between Guildford and Hull many times since last July my wifes friend has not had one problem free trip. A small example but, what we hear of rail travel is far from positive. How the hell the railways would cope with thousands of container movements is a mind bogling proposition. The railways just can't cope with the business they have now.
If I set up a manufacturing business, I would truck a container to my local rail depot where it waits for the rail network to trundle it around th network and the have truck pick it up and truck it to its destination. In the real world, pick up once using one lorry that delivers to the destination works pretty darn well

 

[Surfer]

In large countries wheer ther is a significant distance between towns, it is better to use the railways and then to collect form that hub. Saves a haulier a fortune in fuel and servicing.

 

[Philspadders]

Om , you are quite right, although there is no real comparison between rail freight and passenger services. The rail industry has suffered for under investment for years, although the freight side has been trying to grow and develop its services.
I am involved with Agility trains group, that has tendered and been chosen as preferred supplier for the new high speed passenger service, but this has been delayed due to the financial mess we are in.. the country simply can not afford it. Also, Hitatchi , who were to build a factory manufacturing the trains can not find a suitable location.... why ,? because no wants a factory built near them.
For example , Beighton in Sheffield was a preferred location for the Hitatchi factory.To be bult on an old but dissused pit head shunting yard... perfect. But no, as when FotE and a few other eco groups got involved and rallied the locals agains tthe development , the city council rejected the planning application and Hitatachi just gave up. Hundreds of new jobs, new trains , cars off the roads, cheaper fares etc and FotE stick their nose in and it all falls apart. Paert opf the argument was that the factory was to built on a flood plain... no , it to be built on an old brown field site that used to be coal mine. Its the hypocrasy that really annoys me.

A working group was set up to develop new rail freight systems and rolling stock which would rely heavily on the exisiting network plus new line build. However the old network requires substantial investement which the country can not afford. Having said that something like 70bn has been promised yet no one actually knows when the money will start flowing.
Also the new west / mids line has run up against massive opposition from groups such as friends of the earth , campaigning against this new line... while,at the same time campainging for better public transport systems.
The way we move freight now can not be sustained and as a nation we have adopt a new approach ( or old approach as all freight used be moved by train).

Tehre are many reports available to the public regarding the development of the rail network at the DftE.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Thank you Phil and Forest,

You seem to understand the point I was making, that fundamentally there has been insufficient investment in railways, and other aspects of the transport system. As a result of the lack of foresight, it has force the transport industry to come up with other means, and the mass duplication and over diversity of carriers has been the result.

I recognise that these comments have been made with the benefit of hindsight. However, if proper investment had been made in a cohesive transport policy, the needs of industry and other mass movements could have been taken in another and more fuel-efficient direction.

This could have included the development of hubs that can cope with diversity of goods, and become a reliable element within the logistics processes

The development of JIT systems would be different; and would need to include the latency that using the hub would include – or the necessary manufacturing or storage would be implemented closer to the point of use. There are ways of managing.

However the lack of cohesive action over the last 50 years now means the chances of redressing the situation is virtually past, unless some major catastrophe to fuel supplies occurs.

I do not disagree with Om that it could not work with our current systems and expectations, which have led to expect next day deliveries etc.

 

[Surfer]

Maybe I am wrong but wasn't the idea of all this tax and duty on fuel for the overall transport system to be improved? What do they do with all the tax and duty collected on fuel in addition to the road tax. We should be driving on gold plated highways by now!

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Surfer,
As I pointed out in an earlier post, All tax is the property of the exchequer, none of it can be collected and kept separate for a specific purpose. It is up to the government of the day to decide how the funds in the exchequer are to be used. Just because transport may put in X% of all the funds it does not mean that X% of the funds will be spent on transport.

 

[max1979]

would be nice to be able to drive on a decent road surface which isnt full of pot holes causing suspension damage to vehicles but then i suppose i would be out of a job as a mechanic. i really dont no what can be done about the fuel price saga, ive found buying fuel from a well known petrol station rather than tesco asda etc i do more mpg albeit a couple of pence dearer it works out better value to do this

 

[Steve L]

To be quite honest, until people unite and stand together making a notable stand, you won't stand a chance of getting a change to the system.

Only yesterday Shell posted a 11.5 Billion pound profit, up 64% on last year. When the tv anylist suggested the fuel price at the pump issue, he was quickly side tracked by the oil conglomerates anylist into a view that it is the governments taxation that drives the pump prices up. There has even been comment on tv about wholesale prices (cost to the petrol station) going down 2p/ltr since December, but retail prices (the price we pay) going up by 5p/ltr.

So far only the Daily Mail has dared to try to expose this discrepancy, but without success. It would take a large scale across the board tabloid front page headline grabber to be on display before the MP's coughed and spluttered. Thats because the revenue boys are getting nearly 90P a litre off us in tax without any effort on their part.

Another side line to the fuel price is the increased number of heating oil theift's. That's because an old diesel tranny will run on red heating oil as will agricultural vehicles, construction site diggers etc. Also diesel generators will run on red oil. Now as the dept of transport only check HGV lorries and coaches for fuel duty evasion, others get away scot free. Tractors for instance won't be tested because for years until recently, they were running red diesel legitimately.

I changed my car to diesel to take advantage of a 20% better fuel economy, but since August 2010, that has now beeen erroded away by the pump price hikes.

 

[JonnyG]

"I changed my car to diesel to take advantage of a 20% better fuel economy, but since August 2010, that has now beeen erroded away by the pump price hikes."

Sorry I don't get the maths on that one Steve,has diesel become 20% dearer than petrol then?In fact its quite the opposite as the rises/taxes go up in monetary value i.e. the Jan average price rise was of about 6.6p, on both fuels. which means diesel went up less than petrol as a percentage.
don't forget you pay less road tax on your rover than you did on you luguna too.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuel/

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Jonny,
Your maths are correct. But I do recall doing a simple calculation a couple of years ago, where taking into account other additional costs of running a diesel (e.g Higher purchase cost for diesel variants, more frequent services, and the cost of filters, and high performance lubricants needed by a diesel engine, Diesel only needed to be about 12% more expensive than petrol before the mpg benefits of Diesel over petrol was effectively wiped out. The exact figure was dependant on the annual milage.

I'm currently seeing a price difference of between 2 and 4p more /l for diesel. But things have changed - we now see petrol engined vehicles achieving some quite remarkable improvements in consumption, so the consumption benefits of diesels may have been eroded to the point where the current fuel price difference is no longer an issue.

I recently an exquisite example of how some concentrate the minutiae rather than the bigger picture: I was recently helping to present a business training session. It was an all day session with a lunch break. The canteen over looked the car park, and at lunch time there were about five delegates who left the site in their cars. Most of them returned in time for a quick bite and the post lunch coffee, and in conversation one of the delegates told me they had just been out to get their car filled up, because the the supermarket in the next town was a penny cheaper than the local just down the road. He suggested I should also go there and fill up. I asked how far was the next town, and we established it was about 4.5 miles (each way). I know my car uses about 15p worth of fuel per mile, so I was able to point out that as it would be an extra journey for me it would cost me about £1.35, and as my tank only holds 70L it will cost me almost twice as much as I could save if my tank were empty, and as I was already more than half full - no thanks.

It was an opportune happening, as we were able to use it (in the nicest possible way) as an example for the afternoons Best Value session, and I hope it has also saved those who hadn't realised it a few pounds now and in the future.

 

[Dustydog]

Interesting to see Prof John's delegate purchased fuel at a supermarket.
Since my £600 bill for a new exhaust gas recirculation valve and two turbo pressure air pipes, purely on the recommendation of teh Kia main dealer I have ceased using" very little helps stores "and now sponsor Mr Esso and Mr BP.
Most of the time the fuel costs are the same if not cheaper than Mr Cohen's.
Now whether it's my imagination or not I swear blind the Sorrie performs better and is more frugal on Esso and BP. There appear to be mixed views on the internet.
I wonder what you engineers out there think?

 

[xtrailman]

Now thats strange, up to the recent fuel increases all my fuel was supermarket fuel.
Having used a comparison site, i found the local esso was cheaper than tesco by nearly 3p.
So filled up there, blow me if the car didn't run rough on esso. !

Work that one out?

last i looked tesco was dearer than morrison and asda.

 

[max1979]

last yr my father in law did a test with his car using fuel from different supermarkets and the main suppliers and he found esso to be the better fuel, although it was a couple of pence dearer than the supermarkets he was getting far more mpg.
with my current car a fiat jtd if i buy diesel from tesco my mpg is rubbish and not much better from esso but from bp im getting around 50 mpg

 

[joeby]

i cant see how people say that different fuels give different MPG , i use the Diesel from Tesco in Swansea , and i quite often drive to Farnborough in Hampshire a journey of about 170 miles , the best reading i have had is 67 MPG in my Ford Mondeo 130 TDCI estate , but i have also had readings of 54 MPG , most of the journey is motorway , and i keep it in 6th gear as much poss and never do more than 65 MPH , every journey i never get the same reading , and the 67 MPG i have only acheived once since 2004 , so i cant see how you can say its the Fuel , there are lots of other variations in the journey

 

[JonnyG]

Hi prof, i said something similar a few months back concerning the advancement taking place with the petrol engined vehicles,
but as petrol cars improve on the MPG stakes, so do the newer diesel cars, and when petrol cars start to be fitted common place with turbochargers for achieving better fuel consumption, and the lowering of their CO2, so will servicing bills start to go up too.
As a rule diesel as a fuel has somewhere around a 20% advantage on petrol. so even when these newer petrol cars start to arrive en mass, if petrol was say £1.20 a litre, diesel would need to be around the £1.50 a litre for a like with like comparison
And don't forget from a caravanning perspective the turbo diesel will always have that extra 20% or so of torque advantage over the petrol turbo and we do all like that extra pulling power do we not?

PS . one other note as this is a touring caravan site,and may have mentioned in the past they use a bigger car purely for touring and indeed venture into Europe too and that is diesel is still cheaper in many parts of Europe than petrol, so depending on what type of touring you do, and what mileage you do here and over there then the maths book has to come out to see if each individual could or would benefit from which type of fuel.

 

[Steve L]

Jonny, it's quite simple. I made the change from a 2ltr petrol laguna to a diesel Rover 75. To start with the Rover was and still is 20% better on fuel consumption. So yes , here in Herefordshire we have had fuel go up about 20%. That's not too startling as the average fuel price annually has gone up 15%. That was quoted by a fuel watch dog.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Jonny,

Yes you are right about Diesel technology also improving, so perhaps the efficiency differential will remain similar, but diesels continue to cost more to buy, and service, so from an overall cost perspective my guess is that for the average driver (and caravanner) the benefit is only likely to be between 10 to 12%.

Bringing this back to the point of the thread, many of us we will not be changing our cars at the moment, so we will not benefit from the latest technology, so the rise in fuel costs will affect us. There will be some who feel the need to economise, and that might impact holiday travelling, fro others they may have enough spare cash to cover the rise.