Bridge-Bash at Kew on the South Circular Road (22/02)

[WelshBluebird]

Any driver who hits a bridge where the strike was their own fault (e.g. it wasn't a misleading height sign etc) should be able to be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, careless driving or dangerous driving and the appropriate penalty points, fines, or prison sentences awarded. I don't see how or why we let HGV drivers get away with this! The laws are already there and surely must cover these kind of incidents?

 

[furnessvale]

I actually understand the logistics business - you clearly don't.

If you genuinely believe that the taxation applied to HGVs covers all the external costs they apply to the roads network and the country in general, then you clearly don't understand haulage as well as you think.

In the year 2000 NERA produced a report for the government which clearly showed that HGVs do not cover their costs. Since then taxation on HGVs has been frozen, and even reduced in the case of VED, whilst inflation has increased the cost of road provision and maintenance. The latest estimates show that HGVs only pay 30% of their external costs.

The 70% subsidy this indicates does not come directly from the government. Instead it comes from the private motorist who, in comparison to HGVs, is massively overtaxed for political and environmental reasons. If those motorists were asked if they preferred some of that subsidy to be given to the railways to increase capacity and move some freight off the roads, I think the haulage industry could be shocked at the answer.

 

[furnessvale]

Any driver who hits a bridge where the strike was their own fault (e.g. it wasn't a misleading height sign etc) should be able to be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, careless driving or dangerous driving and the appropriate penalty points, fines, or prison sentences awarded. I don't see how or why we let HGV drivers get away with this! The laws are already there and surely must cover these kind of incidents?

They are already prosecuted where they can be traced. I stated earlier that if the vehicle can be driven from the scene, 9 times out of 10 it is driven away.

What is needed is joint liability for the haulage company as well as the driver so the company also receives a fine, and a large one at that, which cannot be reclaimed on insurance.

 

[Ken H]

They are already prosecuted where they can be traced. I stated earlier that if the vehicle can be driven from the scene, 9 times out of 10 it is driven away.

What is needed is joint liability for the haulage company as well as the driver so the company also receives a fine, and a large one at that, which cannot be reclaimed on insurance.

if an employer employs someone to drive and that employee commits a motoring offence, the employer is also liable for prosecution for the same offence as the driver. not sure if its the directors or the company.
Dont know if this is ever used.

 

[sprunt]

For the likes of Tesco, with perishable items which need to be temperature controlled, the railways can't even begin to offer a viable service.

If we're talking about the needs of Tesco then let Tesco pay for it. They already avoid enough tax that we shouldn't be even vaguely taking their needs into account when considering how to spend public money.

As a more general point, would it not be cheaper as a rule to increase bridge clearance by lowering the road than raising the bridge? That way, the railways needn't be inconvenienced for the benefit of the road haulage industry.

 

[AndyW33]

As a more general point, would it not be cheaper as a rule to increase bridge clearance by lowering the road than raising the bridge? That way, the railways needn't be inconvenienced for the benefit of the road haulage industry.

Very much depends on local geography. In quite a few places where this has been done already, a significant dip has been created under the bridge which floods during heavy rain. You might expect that locations where it hasn't been done yet are those where it is possibly even more likely to happen. This doesn't help the rail industry if as a result pedestrians are unable to get to a nearby station, or if raised footpaths are provided, still get severely splashed by passing vehicles.

 

[furnessvale]

if an employer employs someone to drive and that employee commits a motoring offence, the employer is also liable for prosecution for the same offence as the driver. not sure if its the directors or the company.
Dont know if this is ever used.

You are talking about "use, cause or permit". This only covers certain offences such as lack of insurance or the condition of the vehicle. It does not cover offences involving the way that vehicle is being driven.

 

[furnessvale]

Which means you'll still have large - in some cases double-deck - trailers doing deliveries. Because that's what will be needed to make it efficient. For the likes of Tesco, with perishable items which need to be temperature controlled, the railways can't even begin to offer a viable service. They can just about offer something where you have non-perishable goods arriving in containers from the Far East or Eastern Europe - but even then it will be shipped from the container to a 'Hub' warehouse which in turn will break that bulk down to deliveries for a group of stores. The railway network can't operate logistics in that way - it would be better to keep them focussed on what they need to do now, not trying to get them to do other stuff which they won't do very well.

What the railways do now, as you put it, includes at least eight trains a day for Tesco.

The railways also move millions of tonnes of aggregates. More than 50% of the output of the Peak District quarries moves by rail. Even so, more than half of the HGVs on the A6 north from the quarries carry aggregates and most of them pass rail depots that receive stone by rail from the self same quarries.

Much more of that sort of traffic can go by rail and at the same time free up HGV drivers to cover this shortage of 50,000 drivers we apparently have in the UK.

 

[Llanigraham]

Any driver who hits a bridge where the strike was their own fault (e.g. it wasn't a misleading height sign etc) should be able to be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, careless driving or dangerous driving and the appropriate penalty points, fines, or prison sentences awarded. I don't see how or why we let HGV drivers get away with this! The laws are already there and surely must cover these kind of incidents?

I know from 3 occurrences of this type locally in the last 6 months, that all the drivers were given Fixed Penalty Notices, and DVLC were informed and their Operators Licences "noted". I also understand that NR are pursuing for damages.
NR are starting to get even tougher with these incidents!

 

[Antman]

What the railways do now, as you put it, includes at least eight trains a day for Tesco.

The railways also move millions of tonnes of aggregates. More than 50% of the output of the Peak District quarries moves by rail. Even so, more than half of the HGVs on the A6 north from the quarries carry aggregates and most of them pass rail depots that receive stone by rail from the self same quarries.

Much more of that sort of traffic can go by rail and at the same time free up HGV drivers to cover this shortage of 50,000 drivers we apparently have in the UK.

What are we going to have, a railway siding at every supermarket?

Questions need to be asked as to why so few people want to drive lorries.

 

[A0wen]

What the railways do now, as you put it, includes at least eight trains a day for Tesco.

The railways also move millions of tonnes of aggregates. More than 50% of the output of the Peak District quarries moves by rail. Even so, more than half of the HGVs on the A6 north from the quarries carry aggregates and most of them pass rail depots that receive stone by rail from the self same quarries.

Much more of that sort of traffic can go by rail and at the same time free up HGV drivers to cover this shortage of 50,000 drivers we apparently have in the UK.

I have no problems with the likes of aggregates going by rail - in fact if you look at my post #52 - that's exactly what I said.

What the rail network is moving for Tesco though is quite limited - and will tend to be containerised loads from the Far East or East Europe - so not food, not perishable items. It will be containers of clothes, homewares etc. And when that containers is undocked from the rail network it will be taken by road to another warehouse where it will be broken down either for shipment to further warehouses or direct fulfillment to the stores. The rail network can only remove the 'port' to near to the 'break' point leg of the network - they can't remove the other legs. And those will continue to use large HGVs, in some cases double-deck trailers, because it remains the most efficient way to do so.

And I doubt Tesco are fully utilising 8 trains a day - I suspect you're looking at half a dozen containers a day - so you're losing fewer than 50 HGV trips - which are tending to go from a port to either DIRFT or Mossend.

Given that the WCML and ECML are pretty much at capacity, can I ask how you propose to add even more freight onto the rail network?

 

[Antman]

if an employer employs someone to drive and that employee commits a motoring offence, the employer is also liable for prosecution for the same offence as the driver. not sure if its the directors or the company.
Dont know if this is ever used.

Absolute nonsense, the driver commits the offence and the buck stops with them.

 

[A0wen]

What are we going to have, a railway siding at every supermarket?

Thank you for making the point which seems to be eluding alot of other posters.

Questions need to be asked as to why so few people want to drive lorries.

Because it's not that well paid, because it's still a tough job - not as tough as in the 50s or 60s when my late grandfather did it - but still tough compared to many other jobs. Long hours, potentially time away from home, not brilliantly paid and let's be honest, hardly a bundle of laughs driving on British roads nowadays.

 

[A0wen]

if an employer employs someone to drive and that employee commits a motoring offence, the employer is also liable for prosecution for the same offence as the driver. not sure if its the directors or the company.
Dont know if this is ever used.

I'm not sure that's correct. I think that's only the case IF the employer has actually encouraged the driver to break the law or has taken action which has led the driver to break the law - for example, setting an unrealistic schedule which encourages a driver to speed.

If an employer can demonstrate that they have told their drivers they must obey traffic regulations and a breach would consist of a disciplinary offence, then I can't see how the employer would be held culpable.

 

[Ken H]

If we're talking about the needs of Tesco then let Tesco pay for it. They already avoid enough tax that we shouldn't be even vaguely taking their needs into account when considering how to spend public money.

As a more general point, would it not be cheaper as a rule to increase bridge clearance by lowering the road than raising the bridge? That way, the railways needn't be inconvenienced for the benefit of the road haulage industry.

then it fills up with water when it rains

 

[yorksrob]

So please explain to me how the railways - already at capacity - are going to deliver the goods to my local Tesco without incurring massive costs ?

The railways are fine for shipping large quantities of bulky products from one point to another. They are not in any way efficient at delivering smaller quantities or handling multiple drops. The kind of stuff in that DPD lorry is a case in point - almost certainly palletised, very possibly multi-drop i.e. picking up from one or two warehouses and dropping off at many others.

I actually understand the logistics business - you clearly don't.

Haulage companies aren't forced to buy ever larger vehicles. They do so because it is profitable. It is profitable because the increased cost in road maintenance is distributed to other road users. They should not receive a further subsidy from the rail budget in the form of rebuilt bridges.

 

[A0wen]

If we're talking about the needs of Tesco then let Tesco pay for it. They already avoid enough tax that we shouldn't be even vaguely taking their needs into account when considering how to spend public money.

As a more general point, would it not be cheaper as a rule to increase bridge clearance by lowering the road than raising the bridge? That way, the railways needn't be inconvenienced for the benefit of the road haulage industry.

Tesco are paying tax on their profits of circa 25% - I suspect they are contributing rather more than you are.

The only claims of Tesco off-shoring tax were made by the Guardian back in 2008 - and that really is a case of people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, because the Graun's parent group off-shored its tax and reported a loss in the UK so as to avoid paying UK tax - it used the Cayman Islands IIRC.

 

[A0wen]

Haulage companies aren't forced to buy ever larger vehicles. They do so because it is profitable. It is profitable because the increased cost in road maintenance is distributed to other road users. They should not receive a further subsidy from the rail budget in the form of rebuilt bridges.

They also do so because they are under pressure to reduce the number of movements and CO2 output - and larger trailers, efficiently operated achieve this.

As ever, your answer is unless it runs on rails it's the wrong answer. That and your predilection for slam door stock.

I'm surprised you don't want us to revert to burning coal and using incandescent lightbulbs.

 

[Ken H]

I'm not sure that's correct. I think that's only the case IF the employer has actually encouraged the driver to break the law or has taken action which has led the driver to break the law - for example, setting an unrealistic schedule which encourages a driver to speed.

If an employer can demonstrate that they have told their drivers they must obey traffic regulations and a breach would consist of a disciplinary offence, then I can't see how the employer would be held culpable.

health and safety at work act says

It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

So if an employer route their vehicles along roads not suitable for them, like under a low bridge, then they would be held liable. they miust take reasonable precautions to ensure their drivers dont try and use routes under bridges that are too low, so as to keep their employee and the public safe.

 

[yorksrob]

They also do so because they are under pressure to reduce the number of movements and CO2 output - and larger trailers, efficiently operated achieve this.

As ever, your answer is unless it runs on rails it's the wrong answer. That and your predilection for slam door stock.

I'm surprised you don't want us to revert to burning coal and using incandescent lightbulbs.

An irrelevant post, not once have you justified your position as to why you think road hauliers deserve a hidden subsidy from the rail budget in the form of rebuilt bridges.

 

[Antman]

health and safety at work act says

So if an employer route their vehicles along roads not suitable for them, like under a low bridge, then they would be held liable. they miust take reasonable precautions to ensure their drivers dont try and use routes under bridges that are too low, so as to keep their employee and the public safe.

Employers don't normally route their vehicles anywhere, they give the driver the paperwork and leave them to get on with it and obviously they don't want their lorries hitting low bridges anymore than NR do.

 

[Antman]

Thank you for making the point which seems to be eluding alot of other posters.



Because it's not that well paid, because it's still a tough job - not as tough as in the 50s or 60s when my late grandfather did it - but still tough compared to many other jobs. Long hours, potentially time away from home, not brilliantly paid and let's be honest, hardly a bundle of laughs driving on British roads nowadays.

Exactly and the CPC course is another nail in the coffin, all it's actually done is create such a shortage of drivers that employers can't afford to be selective and have to pretty much take whoever they can get and drivers are expected to work longer hours.

 

[furnessvale]

And I doubt Tesco are fully utilising 8 trains a day - I suspect you're looking at half a dozen containers a day - so you're losing fewer than 50 HGV trips - which are tending to go from a port to either DIRFT or Mossend.

It would be helpful if you looked at the available information before making such comments.

All 8 trains are dedicated to Tesco for distribution from primary to secondary distribution centres.

One pair runs between DIRFT and Mossend daily with 38 Tesco containers on each train.

One pair runs between DIRFT and Tilbury with 40 Tesco containers on each train.

One pair runs between DIRFT and South Wales with 30 Tesco containers on each train.

The final pair runs between Central Scotland and Inverness with 22 Tesco containers on each train.

That is a total of 260 containers daily. All trains backload with goods from manufacturers to DIRFT.

Additionally Tesco buy space on other trains from the ports to DIRFT and on other trains from DIRFT to Scotland run by Russell or Malcolm as required.

 

[furnessvale]

What are we going to have, a railway siding at every supermarket?

Questions need to be asked as to why so few people want to drive lorries.

1. No one is suggesting direct delivery to every end location. To the vast majority of locations, final delivery will always be by road but that doesn't preclude trunk haul by rail. Even now cities are making moves to have freight delivered to break bulk centres outside town where even HGV loads are broken down for local delivery. Ensure those break bulk centres are also rail served and you have the makings of an integrated transport system.

2. Hauliers will not pay the right money for the job and are desperate to keep the flow of cheap labour from Eastern Europe which has kept pay and conditions depressed in the UK.

 

[Bald Rick]

That is a total of 260 containers daily. All trains backload with goods from manufacturers to DIRFT.

There is some backloading, but nowhere near 260 containers worth. And much of what there is is empty rollcages etc.

Anyway, back to the subject matter. Using the Tulse Hill Bridge as an example, the proposal there is (or at least was) not to raise the height of bridge, but to replace the metal deck and support columns with a ****ing great concrete single span deck. Then, if an errant lorry or bus does hit the bridge, a) the vehicle will come off rather worse, and b) the bridge will stay precisely where it was, and there would be no need to stop trains pending inspection.

The same could probably apply at Mortlake Rd in Kew, although that deck looks much newer.

 

[whhistle]

You should be aware of Jevon's Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox which states that when you make something more efficient it gets used more - to an extent outweighing the reduction in useage that might have been simplistically expected from the efficiency gain.

Perhaps in some things.
And I agree, when it's new you tend to use it more as it's a new toy.

I changed all my bulbs to LEDs a few years ago, but I haven't used them any more than I would using any other bulb.

 

[al78]

Tesco are paying tax on their profits of circa 25% - I suspect they are contributing rather more than you are.

The only claims of Tesco off-shoring tax were made by the Guardian back in 2008 - and that really is a case of people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, because the Graun's parent group off-shored its tax and reported a loss in the UK so as to avoid paying UK tax - it used the Cayman Islands IIRC.

 

[al78]

If we're talking about the needs of Tesco then let Tesco pay for it.

Tesco won't be paying for it, their customers will when they pass the costs on, which is what just about every industry does when their costs rise.

 

[al78]

If you genuinely believe that the taxation applied to HGVs covers all the external costs they apply to the roads network and the country in general, then you clearly don't understand haulage as well as you think.

In the year 2000 NERA produced a report for the government which clearly showed that HGVs do not cover their costs. Since then taxation on HGVs has been frozen, and even reduced in the case of VED, whilst inflation has increased the cost of road provision and maintenance. The latest estimates show that HGVs only pay 30% of their external costs.

The 70% subsidy this indicates does not come directly from the government. Instead it comes from the private motorist who, in comparison to HGVs, is massively overtaxed for political and environmental reasons. If those motorists were asked if they preferred some of that subsidy to be given to the railways to increase capacity and move some freight off the roads, I think the haulage industry could be shocked at the answer.

Motorists are not overtaxed, motoring is very cheap. Private motoring inflicts costs on society which are not covered by taxation, in particular, congestion when loads of people choose to live 50+ miles from work and all drive one car each into city centres, and unlike lorries, aren't all performing the vital economic function of transporting essential and consumer goods.

 

[theblackwatch]

People are veering off topic here. There is a 'Post new thread' function on the forum for those who are unaware...