Freight grant scrapped

[Railway]

http://rail-news.com/2011/01/26/dismay-as-freight-facilities-grant-scrapped/

 

[Ticket Man]

DFT strikes again, if they didn't have so many kit kats at their meeting they probably could have saved that! :roll:

 

[Metroland]

It's nothing to do with the DFT, more government policy to cut back any spending, however small where possible.

 

[Ticket Man]

It's nothing to do with the DFT, more government policy to cut back any spending, however small where possible.

didnt it say in the article about the decision by the DFT

I bet the DFT didn't make the decision for a 5% pay reduction and no bonuses for high level execs, no no that would be absurd

 

[Metroland]

Yep, but the DFT is the civil service, it would be working under directions given by the government to look for money savings.

I suspect the hope is the rise in fuel prices, which have no hope of falling for the foreseeable future, will make more companies consider rail. The freight grant is quite small anyway, just a few million toward otherwise commercial operations.

 

[Ticket Man]

I know where they could save a few quid!

The business expenses of DfT permanent secretary Robert Devereux - the department's top civil servant - included £18,870.88 between April and June last year for the use of an "official secure car".

The cost of the car was £18,408.34 between July and September in 2009 for Mr Devereux, who earns up to £165,000 a year

 

[Old Timer]

It's nothing to do with the DFT, more government policy to cut back any spending, however small where possible.

No-one said much when Labour withdrew the Section 5 Rail Freight Grants back in 2002, at a time when the economy was being artificially boosted.

 

[plannerman]

Time to play devil's advocate here....
I work (very hard ) for a road haulage firm, which makes a tiny profit - profit margins of 1-3% of turnover are the norm now in transport. Why should my taxes then subsidise a competitor, which is aiming to take my firm's work off it and put me out of work?
Modal shift in the UK is firmly in pigs-might-fly territory - a combination of the small size of our island, and the lack of a proper rail network making most freight origin and destination points unable to be rail-linked have seen to that.
For example, my firm shift over a dozen loads a day, every day, from Wrexham to a site in the Forest of Dean. The goods are delivered to the destination on a just-in-time basis ready for a production line. If we were forced to use rail, we'd still need to road the goods out of our factory to a suitable railhead, and road them the other side from a railhead to the destination. We'd need to construct a big warehouse at the destination to take big loads, rather than delivering little and often as we do now. It just ain't gonna happen.
I firmly believe that most flows where rail makes sense are already using it - big heavy coal and steel flows, and non-urgent container moves. As such I believe the DFT was wasting its time and money trying to encourage new traffic.

 

[WatcherZero]

The entire grant nationally was only £8m a year, they probably axed it just to save on administration costs :P

 

[GearJammer]

Time to play devil's advocate here....
I work (very hard ) for a road haulage firm, which makes a tiny profit - profit margins of 1-3% of turnover are the norm now in transport. Why should my taxes then subsidise a competitor, which is aiming to take my firm's work off it and put me out of work?
Modal shift in the UK is firmly in pigs-might-fly territory - a combination of the small size of our island, and the lack of a proper rail network making most freight origin and destination points unable to be rail-linked have seen to that.
For example, my firm shift over a dozen loads a day, every day, from Wrexham to a site in the Forest of Dean. The goods are delivered to the destination on a just-in-time basis ready for a production line. If we were forced to use rail, we'd still need to road the goods out of our factory to a suitable railhead, and road them the other side from a railhead to the destination. We'd need to construct a big warehouse at the destination to take big loads, rather than delivering little and often as we do now. It just ain't gonna happen.
I firmly believe that most flows where rail makes sense are already using it - big heavy coal and steel flows, and non-urgent container moves. As such I believe the DFT was wasting its time and money trying to encourage new traffic.

Well said Sir

 

[Invincibles]

The entire grant nationally was only £8m a year, they probably axed it just to save on administration costs :P

I think this is the point, there are far too many initiatives that need a lot of paperwork.

Funds would be better directed to simple interventions like making rail petrol cheaper (if indeed it can be made into a different product to avoid any competition distortion legislation)

The point made above about the different natures of freight jobs are right. Many jobs can not shift to rail and it is more about making sure that those that could use rail do and not harming the companies that provide the "short and often" service.