Carryfast and that Elite transport post

[skoowif]

I followed the post on the argument of road versus rail with interest and some comments were valid. When the new terminal at Felixstowe is up and running,it can only be trouble for all box hauliers around Felixtowe, yet strangely,a boom for hauliers in the midlands. The new terminal at Nuneaton, now being constructed.

The new terminal at Felixstowe will have 6 rmg cranes and double the 750.000 moves that was achieved last year.
That is something to worry any haulier portoffelixstowe.co.uk/press … px?pid=365

[saaamon]

Its ok because they’ll all jump on the ferry trailer band wagon.

[wheel_nut]

skoowif:
I followed the post on the argument of road versus rail with interest and some comments were valid. When the new terminal at Felixstowe is up and running,it can only be trouble for all box hauliers around Felixtowe, yet strangely,a boom for hauliers in the midlands. The new terminal at Nuneaton, now being constructed.

The new terminal at Felixstowe will have 6 rmg cranes and double the 750.000 moves that was achieved last year.
That is something to worry any haulier portoffelixstowe.co.uk/press … px?pid=365

I am at a loss why you didn’t continue with the Elite posting rather than build another terminal, (sorry thread).

You still have the problem when the weather is bad in Felixstowe, the cranes cannot operate, they cannot load the trains, ships or even the lorries. The regional line from Felixstowe is too small, just like the A14. Ipswich becomes a bottleneck for all the railfreight.

I have been working with intermodal systems since the road going locomotives were being used. The days then where a driver had to wait at the factory for a Network Rail inspector come and observe his container being stuffed before sealing it. Granted a lot of this extra work was for Channel Tunnel Freight but the queues were still happening in Manchester, Willesden and Wishaw. I worked for one of the first haulage companies who were certified to inspect our own vehicles, observe the loading process and seal our own containers. The main stipulation was not to let anyone put a bomb inside

The rail infrastucture could not cope then, it cannot cope now, in your link it mentions 2 spoors using 30 wagon-length trains holding 45 containers!!! Hang on you say, it didn’t say that. No it said 90 20’ TEU. Look around you at the nearest container, is it 20 or is it 40/45’?

I bet it is the longer one, each wagon could carry 3x 20’ boxes or only one 45’.

What you are talking about is a drop in the ocean and will affect a few movements. Nuneaton will help rail as it allows oversize boxes to go direct rather than have to head into that London to get to the Midlands. Doubling the track from Soham to Ely will help, as will dualling it at Wigston. However the more freight using the Midlands route to head North will further impact on passenger trains, probably forcing more cars onto the M6. However even with these improvements which will take until 2030 to be in operation will only give you a capacity of 56 trains per day from your 30 you have now.

I hope you have more faith in 5 new park and ride schemes around Bar Hill and Willingham.

You mentioned Carryfast so I will. He thinks i want to see the roads grassed over and turned into cycle tracks, he is so wrong. I want to see a transport infrastructure like they have in Holland and Germany, one which is shared by all and used to its best advantage. I would like to see the end of Just in Time logistics, that would cut congestion by half overnight but it would also remove a lot of pointless journeys from the roads. There is no need to move 7 loads of canned goods from Kitt Green to Manchester every 3 hours or to move 6000 broom handles from Scunthorpe to Newark.

[carryfast]

It seems to me that the best way forward at present would be for as few hauliers as possible to co operate with intermodal work and just deal direct with the shipping lines on the basis of taking the whole freight journey or not at all and then take court action against the government and the EU itself for anti competitive trading and taxation policies directed against the road transport industry.Without such action the road transport industry is just helping the rail freight industry to put itself out of business.

The question is what changed between the attitude of the industry’s representatives such as that of the US ATA of the mid 20th century compared to the US and European road transport industry’s attitude towards their relationship with the rail freight industry today .

fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/freight.htm

It also seems obvious that trade representatives like the FTA are in a conflict of interest situation being that it represents ( what should be ) two opposing competing industries which ( should be ) at each others throats not co operating with each other’s interests especially being that the relationship is obviously all about growth for the rail freight industry at the road trasnport industry’s expense anyway.Probably because the rail freight industry seems to have been much more vociferous in recent years in looking after it’s own interests than the road transport industry has been.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

skoowif:
I followed the post on the argument of road versus rail with interest and some comments were valid. When the new terminal at Felixstowe is up and running,it can only be trouble for all box hauliers around Felixtowe, yet strangely,a boom for hauliers in the midlands. The new terminal at Nuneaton, now being constructed.

The new terminal at Felixstowe will have 6 rmg cranes and double the 750.000 moves that was achieved last year.
That is something to worry any haulier portoffelixstowe.co.uk/press … px?pid=365

I am at a loss why you didn’t continue with the Elite posting rather than build another terminal, (sorry thread).

You still have the problem when the weather is bad in Felixstowe, the cranes cannot operate, they cannot load the trains, ships or even the lorries. The regional line from Felixstowe is too small, just like the A14. Ipswich becomes a bottleneck for all the railfreight.

I have been working with intermodal systems since the road going locomotives were being used. The days then where a driver had to wait at the factory for a Network Rail inspector come and observe his container being stuffed before sealing it. Granted a lot of this extra work was for Channel Tunnel Freight but the queues were still happening in Manchester, Willesden and Wishaw. I worked for one of the first haulage companies who were certified to inspect our own vehicles, observe the loading process and seal our own containers. The main stipulation was not to let anyone put a bomb inside

The rail infrastucture could not cope then, it cannot cope now, in your link it mentions 2 spoors using 30 wagon-length trains holding 45 containers!!! Hang on you say, it didn’t say that. No it said 90 20’ TEU. Look around you at the nearest container, is it 20 or is it 40/45’?

I bet it is the longer one, each wagon could carry 3x 20’ boxes or only one 45’.

What you are talking about is a drop in the ocean and will affect a few movements. Nuneaton will help rail as it allows oversize boxes to go direct rather than have to head into that London to get to the Midlands. Doubling the track from Soham to Ely will help, as will dualling it at Wigston. However the more freight using the Midlands route to head North will further impact on passenger trains, probably forcing more cars onto the M6. However even with these improvements which will take until 2030 to be in operation will only give you a capacity of 56 trains per day from your 30 you have now.

I hope you have more faith in 5 new park and ride schemes around Bar Hill and Willingham.

You mentioned Carryfast so I will. He thinks i want to see the roads grassed over and turned into cycle tracks, he is so wrong. I want to see a transport infrastructure like they have in Holland and Germany, one which is shared by all and used to its best advantage. I would like to see the end of Just in Time logistics, that would cut congestion by half overnight but it would also remove a lot of pointless journeys from the roads. There is no need to move 7 loads of canned goods from Kitt Green to Manchester every 3 hours or to move 6000 broom handles from Scunthorpe to Newark.

Sorry wheelnut but the idea of co operation between road and rail is a mugs game.I suggest you read that article related to how the two industry’s viewed eaxch other during the growth years when road transport started decimating rail’s market share from the point of view of those all important growth figures.The fact is the road transport industry’s future isn’t with helping the rail freight industry to grow it’s market share of the long haul market.It’s time that those who think that the future is co operation took their heads out of the sand.

[switchlogic]

Christ as if Carryfast needed yet another post to post his repetitive misinformed rants on. Its amazing that a man who hasn’t worked in this industry for 14 years knows more about all aspect of it than all the members on here combined! But he’s got Harry Monk on his side so thats the main thing

[alte_hase]

…

[wheel_nut]

alte hase:
Didn’t read the Elite thread in any depth, rail overall can’t rob road of haulage, most containers will be eventually transferred from rail to road , needing just as many trucks as ever, just different distances involved, every nail in the coffin of trucks is a nail in the coffin of railfreight, the ‘local’ trucks serving the railheads are paying the same insurances,taxes and duties as those doing long distance container haulage, to match the fuel effeciency of a train, a 44ton truck would need to do 20+mpg, and we all know there is very little duty on rail fuel, so every train journey represents a truly massive loss of diesel duty to the government, cant see them celebrating over that.

That is the alternative view to carryfast who is convinced the government want to park all the revenue raising lorries up and let the trains have all the tax perks

From my very first days showing an interest in road haulage, I lived on a main road which backed onto a railway line, there were still steam trains using it, many pulling insulated vans loaded with fish from Hull Docks, at the same time more and more flat fish wagons were appearing with refrigerated box bodies or demountable rail freight vans. This was the start of containerisation for me. The rot set in then, there were container hauliers going out of business, they have been doing it ever since, they get replaced, they get old or they expire.

Key Warehousing and Transport (Hull)
Link Transport
Wakes
Bogg Holdings
Spear Transport
Springfield Haulage
Atkins of Derby
Newell & Wright
Sanmar Services
NedLloyd
P&O Containers
Les Sampson
Russell Davies
S Jones Aldridge

There are many many more missing from that list, Elite is a relatively new name to the game

[dew]

My bad, I had the wrong Russell - Edited

[shytalk]

Newel and Wright are still operating…granted not out of Felixstowe anymore.

[carryfast]

alte hase:
Didn’t read the Elite thread in any depth, rail overall can’t rob road of haulage, most containers will be eventually transferred from rail to road , needing just as many trucks as ever, just different distances involved, every nail in the coffin of trucks is a nail in the coffin of railfreight, the ‘local’ trucks serving the railheads are paying the same insurances,taxes and duties as those doing long distance container haulage, to match the fuel effeciency of a train, a 44ton truck would need to do 20+mpg, and we all know there is very little duty on rail fuel, so every train journey represents a truly massive loss of diesel duty to the government, cant see them celebrating over that.

Er no not exactly.Basic maths says that a wagon that’s doing round trips from Southampton to the Midlands or the length of the country for example isn’t going to be shifting many boxes over the course of a day/week because it’s going to be spending most of it’s time hauling one box ( maybe two if LHV’s are allowed ) over a longer distance than more boxes over less distance.

As for the fuel efficiency of the train yes it’s better but it doesn’t look so good when you factor in the road sector of an intermodal journey together with the rail sector especially if we’re comparing an intermodal road/rail journey with a decent LHV set up used over long distances which of course scares the zb out of the rail freight lot which is why the government won’t allow them.Yes you’re right about the tax isue.Every train movement is effectively a tax avoidance scam that’s being encouraged by the government to help it’s big business cronies in the rail freight industry at the expense of the nation’s tax take.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

alte hase:
Didn’t read the Elite thread in any depth, rail overall can’t rob road of haulage, most containers will be eventually transferred from rail to road , needing just as many trucks as ever, just different distances involved, every nail in the coffin of trucks is a nail in the coffin of railfreight, the ‘local’ trucks serving the railheads are paying the same insurances,taxes and duties as those doing long distance container haulage, to match the fuel effeciency of a train, a 44ton truck would need to do 20+mpg, and we all know there is very little duty on rail fuel, so every train journey represents a truly massive loss of diesel duty to the government, cant see them celebrating over that.

That is the alternative view to carryfast who is convinced the government want to park all the revenue raising lorries up and let the trains have all the tax perks

I think the facts show that the government’s plan is to let the trains have all the tax perks while piling as much taxation as it takes on what remains of the road transport industry.In this case mostly all those who are mug enough to keep paying it without complaint and who are happy to co operate with the government’s big business cronies by keeping on shifting loads of boxes a few miles up the road to deliver intermodal loads for quarter of a mars bar.

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:

Wheel Nut:

alte hase:
Didn’t read the Elite thread in any depth, rail overall can’t rob road of haulage, most containers will be eventually transferred from rail to road , needing just as many trucks as ever, just different distances involved, every nail in the coffin of trucks is a nail in the coffin of railfreight, the ‘local’ trucks serving the railheads are paying the same insurances,taxes and duties as those doing long distance container haulage, to match the fuel effeciency of a train, a 44ton truck would need to do 20+mpg, and we all know there is very little duty on rail fuel, so every train journey represents a truly massive loss of diesel duty to the government, cant see them celebrating over that.

That is the alternative view to carryfast who is convinced the government want to park all the revenue raising lorries up and let the trains have all the tax perks

I think the facts show that the government’s plan is to let the trains have all the tax perks while piling as much taxation as it takes on what remains of the road transport industry.In this case mostly all those who are mug enough to keep paying it without complaint and who are happy to co operate with the government’s big business cronies by keeping on shifting loads of boxes a few miles up the road to deliver intermodal loads for quarter of a mars bar.

That goes against what you have already read or ignored to read, that the haulier doing four loads into Basildon per day made more profit than the one who went from Felixstowe to Tamworth.

For all these train journeys to work, the government will have to close roads, knock down stately homes, castles and palaces to put a railway embankment through the gardens and that would never do in the stockbroker belt of Croydon.

[mickyblue]

I swear half of the stuff typed in this thread is googled

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Carryfast:

Wheel Nut:

alte hase:
Didn’t read the Elite thread in any depth, rail overall can’t rob road of haulage, most containers will be eventually transferred from rail to road , needing just as many trucks as ever, just different distances involved, every nail in the coffin of trucks is a nail in the coffin of railfreight, the ‘local’ trucks serving the railheads are paying the same insurances,taxes and duties as those doing long distance container haulage, to match the fuel effeciency of a train, a 44ton truck would need to do 20+mpg, and we all know there is very little duty on rail fuel, so every train journey represents a truly massive loss of diesel duty to the government, cant see them celebrating over that.

That is the alternative view to carryfast who is convinced the government want to park all the revenue raising lorries up and let the trains have all the tax perks

I think the facts show that the government’s plan is to let the trains have all the tax perks while piling as much taxation as it takes on what remains of the road transport industry.In this case mostly all those who are mug enough to keep paying it without complaint and who are happy to co operate with the government’s big business cronies by keeping on shifting loads of boxes a few miles up the road to deliver intermodal loads for quarter of a mars bar.

That goes against what you have already read or ignored to read, that the haulier doing four loads into Basildon per day made more profit than the one who went from Felixstowe to Tamworth.

For all these train journeys to work, the government will have to close roads, knock down stately homes, castles and palaces to put a railway embankment through the gardens and that would never do in the stockbroker belt of Croydon.

You’re just stating the obvious in that it’s no surprise that ( in the short term ) there’d be ( relatively ) more money to be made doing short journeys than long haul ones,in a trading environment that has been purposely designed,by the government,to produce such a situation,by taxing road fuel to the point where it’s almost worthless for the use of long distance road transport operations.Which just leaves the overvalued short haul sector of the road transport industry that remains viable ( in the short term ).

That situation will obviously change as more and more of the long haul sector of the industry get taxed off the road and then tries to turn that capacity onto short haul zb work instead.Assuming they can be bothered to stay in the industry at all.By which point the rail freight industry will be calling the shots concerning who does what in the short haul intermodal road tranport sector and how much they’ll be paid for it.

thestar.com/business/article … n-terminal

But no Croydon doesn’t stand in the way of any required rail freight routes between the major uk ports and the North etc and there’s a lot more stockbrokers in Bucks etc on the route of HS2 who’ll be telling the tory zb’s to get stuffed at the next election than the South London population of Croydon who’ll just vote for whoever says that they’ll let the most immigration into the country.

[starfighter]

It makes perfect sense to me. Out of geographic necessity ports are on the coast. For a variety of reasons Felix and Southampton (i think) handle most container traffic. They aren’t the best served by motorways, so unloading the containers and sticking them on a train to DIRFT/BIFT/Coatbridge to be shipped onwards by truck is the ideal solution. The containers arrive at a central location and trucks can make relatively short journeys to delivery points, maybe getting three or four runs in a day. (Provided they aren’t ■■■■■■ around too much at drops).

Your hypothetical haulier can get several runs out of each truck per day and then use the unit on a night run, avoiding having the truck standing idle providing a bed for a driver (and probably having its diesel nicked)

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:
thestar.com/business/article … n-terminal

But no Croydon doesn’t stand in the way of any required rail freight routes between the major uk ports and the North etc and there’s a lot more stockbrokers in Bucks etc on the route of HS2 who’ll be telling the tory zb’s to get stuffed at the next election than the South London population of Croydon who’ll just vote for whoever says that they’ll let the most immigration into the country.

You just couldn’t make it up

Harjeet Singh say they are protesting a new three-year contract,

[the_maoster]

Well here’s yet another promising thread that I now merely scroll to the bottom of to make the red bit go out at the side.

[carryfast]

starfighter:
It makes perfect sense to me. Out of geographic necessity ports are on the coast. For a variety of reasons Felix and Southampton (i think) handle most container traffic. They aren’t the best served by motorways, so unloading the containers and sticking them on a train to DIRFT/BIFT/Coatbridge to be shipped onwards by truck is the ideal solution. The containers arrive at a central location and trucks can make relatively short journeys to delivery points, maybe getting three or four runs in a day. (Provided they aren’t [zb] around too much at drops).

Your hypothetical haulier can get several runs out of each truck per day and then use the unit on a night run, avoiding having the truck standing idle providing a bed for a driver (and probably having its diesel nicked)

So the hypothetical haulier has spent all day running a few miles between the customers and the rail head and then the rail freight operators decide to change the road sector sub contract pay structure to mileage rates instead of subsidising the the costs of a wagon that doesn’t really go anywhere.

While there isn’t going to be any point running that night trunk because most of the work that would have been trunked by road is now going by train.Not forgetting that loads of other hauliers ( and drivers ) are also looking for the same local zb work and non existent trunking because that’s more or less all that will remain of the uk road transport industry.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Carryfast:
thestar.com/business/article … n-terminal

But no Croydon doesn’t stand in the way of any required rail freight routes between the major uk ports and the North etc and there’s a lot more stockbrokers in Bucks etc on the route of HS2 who’ll be telling the tory zb’s to get stuffed at the next election than the South London population of Croydon who’ll just vote for whoever says that they’ll let the most immigration into the country.

You just couldn’t make it up

Harjeet Singh say they are protesting a new three-year contract

Probably now based on mileage rates instead of the over priced retainer which was the only thing which made the idea of using trucks as rail head shunters pay.

Some say that Harjeet has now given up and decided to go back home since that report.