its all very well to say slow down ,the lorry i had behind me was a foot away from the back of the caravan the slightest slowing would have caused a crash ,the only option i had was to increase my speed to over 70 and overtake ,my normal speed now is about 65 or faster on a motorway and now the problem does not arise
Juggernaut sandwich - now THAT'S dangerous...
Page 2 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Now far be it from me to to pour cold water on your claims Joby, but I've been a professional driver since 1983 and I still can't say that I am definitely a foot away from something that's following me. I might well be able to park the back of a trailer within a 2 foot box when reversing with nice big mirrors, which is part of the test, but it's not so easy with the silly little mirrors fitted to most modern private vehicles.
Scotch Lad adds fuel to the anti-hgv fire by stating that he "objects to the desire of trucks to travel in convoys, usually tailing each other in the middle, or outer lanes and ensuring a large tailback is created. Invariably as soon as one passes and pulls in, the next man in line pulls out and the process is repeated."
You can't have it all your own way. What do you want to do?
Limit HGV's to 40mph?
That way you'll have convoys on the roads at 40 rather than 56mph. The fact that some desk jockey thought up the speed limiter is proved by the fact that they don't actually work to anyone's advantage!
The trucks can't reach the magical mile a minute or their legal 60 mph on motorways and are hampered in their overtaking because they can't pass quickly enough not to cause other motorists to have to wait a few moments. Woe betide any lorry driver that might slow a car driver down for a few seconds despite the fact that slowing the lorry will result in far greater increases in fuel consumption and thus increased emissions.
Maybe we should ban all hgv's from the roads then perhaps the two of you will be happy.
Scotch Lad adds fuel to the anti-hgv fire by stating that he "objects to the desire of trucks to travel in convoys, usually tailing each other in the middle, or outer lanes and ensuring a large tailback is created. Invariably as soon as one passes and pulls in, the next man in line pulls out and the process is repeated."
You can't have it all your own way. What do you want to do?
Limit HGV's to 40mph?
That way you'll have convoys on the roads at 40 rather than 56mph. The fact that some desk jockey thought up the speed limiter is proved by the fact that they don't actually work to anyone's advantage!
The trucks can't reach the magical mile a minute or their legal 60 mph on motorways and are hampered in their overtaking because they can't pass quickly enough not to cause other motorists to have to wait a few moments. Woe betide any lorry driver that might slow a car driver down for a few seconds despite the fact that slowing the lorry will result in far greater increases in fuel consumption and thus increased emissions.
Maybe we should ban all hgv's from the roads then perhaps the two of you will be happy.
Oh and then I forgot the other quote, "Lorries tailing each other in the middle or outer lanes".
No HGV is allowed in outside lane of a motorway except when it is 2 lane such as the Donny bypass.
No HGV is allowed in outside lane of a motorway except when it is 2 lane such as the Donny bypass.
Hi Deano - you have hit upon a subject which has annoyed me since the Earnest Marples and Doctor Beeching days. In my opinion all heavy freight should be transported by rail with regular distribution points whereby smaller trucks could pick up the freight and deliver locally. Ford had a new factory constucted in Bridgend and also paid to have a rail link so as to deliver materials in and goods out without the need to use the highways. Now if any thing was counter productive to a business this could be considered so as they manufacture the lorries and then use other forms of transport. A case of shooting themaselves in the foot.
id like to say that ive got all the time in the world for hgvs on the motorway.slowing these guys down unnecessarily can cost them their profit in extra fuel costs(which are allready monstous).when youre caravanning youre on holiday,youre in no hurry give these guys trying to earn a hard living a break.
I must agree with Craig even if my previous reply might appear to have a different understanding. The majority of HGV drivers are the salt of the earth who are out there to do a job and should be given all the respect possible even though they have all modern technology such as automatic gears, power steering, etc., at their fingertips. My grouse is with the law which gives transport companies the right to use these monster trucks on the roads. This is where the problem lies and not with rank and file HGV drivers.
G
Guest
To my mind there are 2 parallel threads running here. The pro's and con's of HGV's and the good and bad of the drivers themselves.
As far as the first part is concerned we have created for ourslves a whole industry based on moving anything from one place to another, without any real regard of whether it is necessary, or dare I say it environmentally friendly. The nub of the problem are distribution centres. Everything goes into these places and comes out again, even if the centre is at the other end of the country from where the goods originated, or are even being delivered.
For example. The Turnberry Hotel (the one beside the chapioship golf course) has for many years specialised in serving local shellfish. These have up till now, been delivered from local fishermen in Girvan 6 miles from Turnberry. Under the new rules (the EU again) only seafood purchased from a dealer can be sold to a commercial business. So the seafood is sold by the fisherman in Girvan to a trader. The product is delivered by truck to London (Billingsgate) where it is booked in and out, transferred to another truck and delivered to Eyemouth. The process is repeated and the goods are driven to Glasgow. The process is repeated again and the final truck delivers the seafood to Turnberry. By which time the seafood is rotten and has to be all thrown away. So 4 trucks are required to deliver goods 6 miles. Now there is logic for you.
No doubt the drivers in each leg were told that this was perishable goods and drove like the clappers to each destination.
Supermarkets are primary culprits for this trick. Scotch beef is sent to England for re-shipment back to supermarkets in Scotland. The only ones who seem to be happy are the trucking companies who are coining it in doing the work and possibly the drivers who are making a good living. The customer pays for all the transportation and the various profit margins. To keep the price acceptable the supermarket screws the supplier (farmer) to the wall. The exeption, at least in part is ASDA, who have re-introduced a rail link between England and Scotland.
Go back to the old system of local suppliers supplying local markets and a lot of trucks would be redundant. Will it happen?? I doubt it.
I agree with Colin (Brigend). In the old days the railways delivered everything (usually overnight) and small trucks (remember the Scammel Horse?) delivered locally. No fuss, much lower pollution.
As far as the first part is concerned we have created for ourslves a whole industry based on moving anything from one place to another, without any real regard of whether it is necessary, or dare I say it environmentally friendly. The nub of the problem are distribution centres. Everything goes into these places and comes out again, even if the centre is at the other end of the country from where the goods originated, or are even being delivered.
For example. The Turnberry Hotel (the one beside the chapioship golf course) has for many years specialised in serving local shellfish. These have up till now, been delivered from local fishermen in Girvan 6 miles from Turnberry. Under the new rules (the EU again) only seafood purchased from a dealer can be sold to a commercial business. So the seafood is sold by the fisherman in Girvan to a trader. The product is delivered by truck to London (Billingsgate) where it is booked in and out, transferred to another truck and delivered to Eyemouth. The process is repeated and the goods are driven to Glasgow. The process is repeated again and the final truck delivers the seafood to Turnberry. By which time the seafood is rotten and has to be all thrown away. So 4 trucks are required to deliver goods 6 miles. Now there is logic for you.
No doubt the drivers in each leg were told that this was perishable goods and drove like the clappers to each destination.
Supermarkets are primary culprits for this trick. Scotch beef is sent to England for re-shipment back to supermarkets in Scotland. The only ones who seem to be happy are the trucking companies who are coining it in doing the work and possibly the drivers who are making a good living. The customer pays for all the transportation and the various profit margins. To keep the price acceptable the supermarket screws the supplier (farmer) to the wall. The exeption, at least in part is ASDA, who have re-introduced a rail link between England and Scotland.
Go back to the old system of local suppliers supplying local markets and a lot of trucks would be redundant. Will it happen?? I doubt it.
I agree with Colin (Brigend). In the old days the railways delivered everything (usually overnight) and small trucks (remember the Scammel Horse?) delivered locally. No fuss, much lower pollution.
excuse my naivety Colin (Bridgend), but as a beginner I wonder what you mean exactly by "the drivers aim is to get as many caravaners as possible". Just wonder what I shd expect!I was given to understand that all commercial vehicles over 7.5 tonnes were governed to 56 mph (80kmph) and the driver's time when driving controlled by a tachograph. However I have heard of late of drivers of articulated lorries disconnecting the governor and also removing the tachograph, which are both illegal. I know this for a fact as there is a transport firm in south Wales with 38/44 tonnes artics who travel the length and breadth of the Uk with boxed refrigerated units (company name will remain anonymous) and the drivers aim is to get as many caravaners as possible. They compare results at stop overs. The caravner or normal motorists do not stand a chance when there is this type of so called professional road user on the road with the sole aim to get as many niles in as possible and annoy other road users as much as possible.
No doubt there will be many commercial drivers who will deny this, however I have heard it myself from a HGV driver who had great delight in boasting of his "kill".
Another Colin...!
The rail system in this country cannot cope with the volume of goods that would need railed, and I was told that from the horses mouth , so to speak. I suppose if you consider the state of our roads nowadays, where is the millions needed to improve rail systems, going to come from ?
Unfortunately this is true and is a result of the privatisation of the rail network. Under the old days where there was four regional networks but all under the umbrella of British Rail the system was running far smoother than the money grabing privateers of today. This is one area that nationalisation will be necessary in my opinion. How can an industry survive and prosper when the Minister within the Government can try to renationalise it and blatently lie to both his Government and shareholders and then admit at later date what happened and still get away scott free. What chance have we got with a government like this? The same can be said about public transport with the bus services nowadays.
Colin, I think its pretty obvious, trucks as we know them, are here to stay, unless a complete new rail system covering the country for goods transportation.The Edinburgh - London passenger train for example takes 5hrs for the journey, what happens when we stick goods trains on the same lines ( M25 on rails I suppose )doesnt bear thinking about.
As for the speed issue, I tend to drive at a speed that enables me to pass trucks rather than the opposite, and I am no boy racer. I think you will find truckers have a greater understanding of how caravans react to conditions as opposed to caravanner's knowledge about how to drive a truck. No two trucks will operate in the same manner for various reasons ( engine output, weight carried etc, etc ) so sitting in a line of trucks is only putting obstacles in your way( no pun intended ).If for example, you sit behind a truck that starts to climb even a slight gradient, it will start to slow very quickly so you have to slow down or pass, but when back on the level that truck will catch you again and probably pass you if its on a roll, and your back where you started waiting on the next gradient to do the same all over again. No thanks, a couple of mph more and you can have a pleasant stress free drive. There will be those who cant see the woods for the trees,and they are the ones who do the moaning, and thats a fact! Trucks have been about longer than me, driving on roads that were damn site more dangerous than we have on offer nowadays,so us caravanners are the ones that need to sit back and learn a few things before we preach to others how to do anything. PS, ask car drivers what they think of caravans?
G
Guest
This thread is either going to get real interesting, or will die the death. There have been some pretty inflammatory comments made, more I assume in the hope that reactions will be forthcoming, rather than necessarily representing a factual point of view.
One thing that is correct is the comment that the railway network in its current state cannot hope to move all the goods around that are carried by trucks. However, I don't recall anyone ever actually suggesting that all goods should immediately be transferred to rail. Other countries in Europe have implemented a policy where many, not all, trucks are carried themselves in rail wagons with the drivers sleeping in a carriage at the front. Think what that could do to ease the north-south traffic. Even if 20% was removed from the motorways we wouldn't have to look at destroying even more of the countryside for new roads.
One of the reasons the railways are so stretched, is lack of investment since before the War. During the Second World War the railways carried so much goods and personnel that without them the war effort would probably have been a failure. After the war they were so run down that massive amounts of money were required just to restore them to the pre-war standard. The Labour government of the time refused to pay the money due and nationalised the railways instead. From that point on until privatisation the railways were a constant drain on the public purse and all governments looked for ways to solve the problem. One of the big problems was the original Railways Act which insisted that railways had to transport any, yes any, goods presented to them, while truck companies could pick and choose. This meant the railways had to keep rolling stock and equipment that might only be used once in a lifetime. Barbara Castle did not originate, but did implement the Beeching Report as a method of stopping the huge losses. Unfortunately, it forced even more freight on to the roads, and so more roads had to be built, and more trucks were required. Privatisation by the last government did not close any raillinks, in fact a number were re-opened. Passenger numbers rose by over 20% within the first few years so somebody liked the new system. In fact part of the problem now is the railways are too popular and trains are running on the East Coast mainline with less than 7 minutes between them, and this is at speeds of over 150mph. Also a lot of freight does use the line as well, although much of it is during the night.
Anyway, here endeth the railway lesson. I would like to go back to a point I raised in a previous post in that how many of the current number of truck journeys are absolutely necessary, or are merely the result of moving goods backwards and forwards across the country?
One thing that is correct is the comment that the railway network in its current state cannot hope to move all the goods around that are carried by trucks. However, I don't recall anyone ever actually suggesting that all goods should immediately be transferred to rail. Other countries in Europe have implemented a policy where many, not all, trucks are carried themselves in rail wagons with the drivers sleeping in a carriage at the front. Think what that could do to ease the north-south traffic. Even if 20% was removed from the motorways we wouldn't have to look at destroying even more of the countryside for new roads.
One of the reasons the railways are so stretched, is lack of investment since before the War. During the Second World War the railways carried so much goods and personnel that without them the war effort would probably have been a failure. After the war they were so run down that massive amounts of money were required just to restore them to the pre-war standard. The Labour government of the time refused to pay the money due and nationalised the railways instead. From that point on until privatisation the railways were a constant drain on the public purse and all governments looked for ways to solve the problem. One of the big problems was the original Railways Act which insisted that railways had to transport any, yes any, goods presented to them, while truck companies could pick and choose. This meant the railways had to keep rolling stock and equipment that might only be used once in a lifetime. Barbara Castle did not originate, but did implement the Beeching Report as a method of stopping the huge losses. Unfortunately, it forced even more freight on to the roads, and so more roads had to be built, and more trucks were required. Privatisation by the last government did not close any raillinks, in fact a number were re-opened. Passenger numbers rose by over 20% within the first few years so somebody liked the new system. In fact part of the problem now is the railways are too popular and trains are running on the East Coast mainline with less than 7 minutes between them, and this is at speeds of over 150mph. Also a lot of freight does use the line as well, although much of it is during the night.
Anyway, here endeth the railway lesson. I would like to go back to a point I raised in a previous post in that how many of the current number of truck journeys are absolutely necessary, or are merely the result of moving goods backwards and forwards across the country?
If it is my comments you are pointing the finger at with regards reactions , then you fall into the category I said needs to learn a few things about other road vehicle users.This doesnt bother me in the slightest because some of the posts on here defy belief, if not , then disregard the above comment.
Regards
Regards
Dear Colin,
I have followed this thread with interest mostly to see how informed people are or not on the subject your point about cutting off the hand that feeds you is an interesting one.
If you take Michelin as a company - massive amounts of raw products go to their factory by rail - they produce their tyres and are finished (sent) all over Europe again by train. The same with VAG, Toyota etc
I'm lucky despite my age (32) I have worked for the railways in the privatisation period; I have then worked for the likes of Tesco's and British Airways in various logistics and fleet management roles and so have seen life from very different side of fences.
One thing I can point to is that under privatisation rail freight has become strong again. It has identified niches and has targeted them well. In the BR day's freight was starved of investment and so both moral and its service went down hill under the likes of GBRF it's profitable, well managed and if it could get more capacity would be even stronger.
I wouldn't give the supermarkets such a hard time, the majority use what's known as factory gate pricing i.e. if Brains in Cardiff sell SA to Tesco's @
I have followed this thread with interest mostly to see how informed people are or not on the subject your point about cutting off the hand that feeds you is an interesting one.
If you take Michelin as a company - massive amounts of raw products go to their factory by rail - they produce their tyres and are finished (sent) all over Europe again by train. The same with VAG, Toyota etc
I'm lucky despite my age (32) I have worked for the railways in the privatisation period; I have then worked for the likes of Tesco's and British Airways in various logistics and fleet management roles and so have seen life from very different side of fences.
One thing I can point to is that under privatisation rail freight has become strong again. It has identified niches and has targeted them well. In the BR day's freight was starved of investment and so both moral and its service went down hill under the likes of GBRF it's profitable, well managed and if it could get more capacity would be even stronger.
I wouldn't give the supermarkets such a hard time, the majority use what's known as factory gate pricing i.e. if Brains in Cardiff sell SA to Tesco's @
Unfortunately Monkey's Husband is correct as far as today is concerned and the real world of commerce - it is a dog eat dog situation. However there are goods being transported by road which would be far more suited to the rail system. Even the Royal Mail has admitted it had it wrong and are going back to the mail trains on long haul journies. Therefore there has to be common sense prevailing regarding the economics of road and rail freight haulage. The likes of Tesco is probably a good case where road freight is preferable for distribution from their depots to the shop, however in south Wales the distribution depot is at Chepstow - how are the goods delivered initially to this depot from the manufacturer/ supplier? For this purpose perhaps rail would be more suitable.
My apologies to both Monkey and her husband - the opening line of my posting was not intended to cast any slur on their personality in any way. It was that I agreed with his response which is correct but an unfortunate state of being that this country is now in. Once again sorry if I caused either of you any personal offence.Unfortunately Monkey's Husband is correct as far as today is concerned and the real world of commerce - it is a dog eat dog situation. However there are goods being transported by road which would be far more suited to the rail system. Even the Royal Mail has admitted it had it wrong and are going back to the mail trains on long haul journies. Therefore there has to be common sense prevailing regarding the economics of road and rail freight haulage. The likes of Tesco is probably a good case where road freight is preferable for distribution from their depots to the shop, however in south Wales the distribution depot is at Chepstow - how are the goods delivered initially to this depot from the manufacturer/ supplier? For this purpose perhaps rail would be more suitable.
G
Guest
It is nice to see some support for the railways, they have had a pretty hard time of it over the years. My own son, who is a train driver (I know, some kids never grow up) has worked through the ranks of British Rail and is now on his second private Company. He tells me he is quite happy with the current set up and has no desire to go back, although he does appreciate what he learned from BR. Funnily enough a lot of that was reprints of the old pre-nationalisation literature. If anyone needs to see haulage efficiency then look at the power required to move a 500 ton train as compared to the equivalent road vehicle. The coefficient of friction of steel upon steel will always win by a very large margin which is why the early engineers looked at rail first. As far as space is concerned, a twin track railway line occupies a width of 14 feet, what does a motorway occupy?
I will admit to not being a supporter of Tesco, I feel they destroy towns even more than the other supermarket chains. However, it should be noted they are only number 1 in the UK. If ASDA for instance is taken as part of Walmart then a completely different picture emerges. It is quite ironic I think that here in Scotland Morrisons are now waving the Scottish flag on all their stores and packaging, yet they are as Yorkshire as you can get. Good on them.
However, the point of the thread was juggernauts, or HGV's or whatever you wish to call them. One interesting thing I notice is that on a Sunday when a great number of trucks are off the roads, how much easier it is to get around, unless of course you are near an IKEA.
I will admit to not being a supporter of Tesco, I feel they destroy towns even more than the other supermarket chains. However, it should be noted they are only number 1 in the UK. If ASDA for instance is taken as part of Walmart then a completely different picture emerges. It is quite ironic I think that here in Scotland Morrisons are now waving the Scottish flag on all their stores and packaging, yet they are as Yorkshire as you can get. Good on them.
However, the point of the thread was juggernauts, or HGV's or whatever you wish to call them. One interesting thing I notice is that on a Sunday when a great number of trucks are off the roads, how much easier it is to get around, unless of course you are near an IKEA.
Scotch Lad - you are partially correct in what you say about the Sunday driving when very few artics are on the road. The other reason for this is that there are no namby pamby mothers driving their children a few hundred yards to and from school each day. The schools should insist that the children either walk to school, cycle as I used to, or go by bus. The chaos caused by doting little mummies at school time is far more serious than the majority of artic drivers.
youre right colin.ive said before i would charge every schoolrun a fiver a day congestion charge.when the schools are on holiday the roads in my town are dead at 9am.
I smell 'Anti-HGV' however it's dressed up, whch I suppose takes the heat off the 4 wheelers for a while.
Juggernauts is a deliberately imflammatory term, which ranks along with Monster trucks (4x4's) and 'showmans/pikey vans' for anything larger than a 16' caravan that are starting to be banned from certain campsites (their loss of revenue).
I will stick with my argument.
When the train stops at the railhead, the weight of goods is still the same, so you still need lorries to transport it. Either 1 'juggernaut' or artic hauling 40 tonnes or at least eight 7
Juggernauts is a deliberately imflammatory term, which ranks along with Monster trucks (4x4's) and 'showmans/pikey vans' for anything larger than a 16' caravan that are starting to be banned from certain campsites (their loss of revenue).
I will stick with my argument.
When the train stops at the railhead, the weight of goods is still the same, so you still need lorries to transport it. Either 1 'juggernaut' or artic hauling 40 tonnes or at least eight 7
No worries Colin no offence was taken.My apologies to both Monkey and her husband - the opening line of my posting was not intended to cast any slur on their personality in any way. It was that I agreed with his response which is correct but an unfortunate state of being that this country is now in. Once again sorry if I caused either of you any personal offence.
Take care Monkeys husband
G
Guest
Actually I only mentioned the word 'juggernaut' because it was in the title of the thread. We had kinda got lost along the way. However, I also note it is listed in the Oxford dictionary, as a perfectly legally acceptable word, as a noun meaning 'large heavy motor vehicle' so I am not sure how you can describe it as being inflammatory.
I don't dispute your reasoning that goods would always need to be delivered locally from any central railhead ( carters wagaons have done that since the invention of the steam engine), however, that is indeed what happens nowadays with trucks, except the 'railheads' or distribution centres can be long distances away from where the goods are actually required. So to follow your reasoning it is better to have 40 artics running up the country instead of one trainload of 40 truck carrying wagons? Whether loading up smaller trucks is less polluting is indeed arguable, although John Lewis seem to think it is a worthwhile exercise. Ironically many cities in France and Holland currently ban trucks over 7.5 tonnes from entering the precincts so the transfer in those cases is essential. It does annoy me I will admit, to see a 40 foot truck parked in the middle of our cities, usually causing a blockage, and wearing a non-UK numberplate, and I know full well the same truck is banned from doing the same in its home country. Just have a lookout for the Dutch flower trucks.
However, I will return to my original point. I did not state that all trucks should be banned, merely that if there was advantages, not necessarily profit related, to be gained by combining trucks into trainloads then it should be explored., and it was to put the actual truck onto the train, not tranship. If by doing so benefits were obtained, not only by other motorists, but by the country in general, then I cannot really see why anyone would wish to object. As I also mentioned in a previous post ASDA have now decided that it is in their business interest to run a train solely of their wagons between England and Scotland, and they argue that not only is it more environmentally acceptable, it is also financially attractive.
Finally, while I admire your stamina in the trips you describe, I have to hope your concentration at the end of such an ardous journey was as sharp as it was at the beginning. Also the train driver has a load significantly heavier than yours, he has much greater stopping distances to allow for, and always has to assume some lunatic will have decided to jump the warning lights at unmanned level crossings. In addition if he does not acknowledge any warning light within a matter of seconds, all alarms go off and his train automatically stops. That then causes major congestion when the next train is only 7 minutes behind him, so I am sorry the train driver is giving just as much input as you. It takes him/her over 1 year to get his/her licence, and then has to complete another 300 hours before he/she is allowed out alone.
So I respect your input, but don't assume that it has to be the only argument in town.
Cheers
I don't dispute your reasoning that goods would always need to be delivered locally from any central railhead ( carters wagaons have done that since the invention of the steam engine), however, that is indeed what happens nowadays with trucks, except the 'railheads' or distribution centres can be long distances away from where the goods are actually required. So to follow your reasoning it is better to have 40 artics running up the country instead of one trainload of 40 truck carrying wagons? Whether loading up smaller trucks is less polluting is indeed arguable, although John Lewis seem to think it is a worthwhile exercise. Ironically many cities in France and Holland currently ban trucks over 7.5 tonnes from entering the precincts so the transfer in those cases is essential. It does annoy me I will admit, to see a 40 foot truck parked in the middle of our cities, usually causing a blockage, and wearing a non-UK numberplate, and I know full well the same truck is banned from doing the same in its home country. Just have a lookout for the Dutch flower trucks.
However, I will return to my original point. I did not state that all trucks should be banned, merely that if there was advantages, not necessarily profit related, to be gained by combining trucks into trainloads then it should be explored., and it was to put the actual truck onto the train, not tranship. If by doing so benefits were obtained, not only by other motorists, but by the country in general, then I cannot really see why anyone would wish to object. As I also mentioned in a previous post ASDA have now decided that it is in their business interest to run a train solely of their wagons between England and Scotland, and they argue that not only is it more environmentally acceptable, it is also financially attractive.
Finally, while I admire your stamina in the trips you describe, I have to hope your concentration at the end of such an ardous journey was as sharp as it was at the beginning. Also the train driver has a load significantly heavier than yours, he has much greater stopping distances to allow for, and always has to assume some lunatic will have decided to jump the warning lights at unmanned level crossings. In addition if he does not acknowledge any warning light within a matter of seconds, all alarms go off and his train automatically stops. That then causes major congestion when the next train is only 7 minutes behind him, so I am sorry the train driver is giving just as much input as you. It takes him/her over 1 year to get his/her licence, and then has to complete another 300 hours before he/she is allowed out alone.
So I respect your input, but don't assume that it has to be the only argument in town.
Cheers
Not at all, but as I said, that's my argument no one elses, as is yours, and I'm sticking with it. Some years ago there were plans to metal some of Beechings victims for use as HGV routes. Nice idea until you realise that there is only room for single line running in either direction. The problem being that Bloggs Haulage with their super-powered 320hp ERF or Foden are holding up the rest of the Europe who are running 500hp+ rigs. I'm sure there were other more pressing arguments, but that was the view of the driving fraternity at the time.
I tend to consider the railways over road freight issue as a rose coloured spectacles exercise. Nice in theory but will never happen. Having said that, Ipswich tunnel had it's bed lowered recently so that 9' 6" boxes could go on the railway. Previous to that, all overheight boxes would go by road so that is an improvement I suppose. We used to do a regular run with overheights to Holyhead from Felixstowe. That was a fair old run on such a cr*p road as the A5 and the treatment from other motorists on the stretch through Capel Curig was unbelievable. Hostile or what! They must have been train lovers too.
I tend to consider the railways over road freight issue as a rose coloured spectacles exercise. Nice in theory but will never happen. Having said that, Ipswich tunnel had it's bed lowered recently so that 9' 6" boxes could go on the railway. Previous to that, all overheight boxes would go by road so that is an improvement I suppose. We used to do a regular run with overheights to Holyhead from Felixstowe. That was a fair old run on such a cr*p road as the A5 and the treatment from other motorists on the stretch through Capel Curig was unbelievable. Hostile or what! They must have been train lovers too.
In Canada many cities , and towns , only allow lorries to make deliveries during the night thus relieving the traffic loads during the day. Also in one way makes it easier for the lorry drivers as they don't have the amount of traffic to contend with .
Regards
Tony
Regards
Tony
Practical Caravan is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
Facebook
Twitter