-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why Is Railfreight So Expensive?
- Thread starter RichmondCommu
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
GearJammer
Member
How is overtaking being inconsiderate? Do people call you inconsiderate when you overtake something?
Are you sugesting that HGVs should not be allowed to overtake because its inconsiderate..... so that you CAN overtake the HGV? Sorry but thats just being two faced in my books.
And as for not using indicators again thats just being two faced, car drivers are far worse at all aspects of driving than your average HGV driver.
The skills of your average HGV driver are way and beyond the skills of the average car driver!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Very very few i should imagine in relation to the amount of RTAs that happen on any given day.
Buttsy
Established Member
Both bases of freight movement on land are subsidised in some form or another. Surely the way forward to get a level playing field is to work out which mode is getting the greater subsidy and increase the other to equal that, as everyone will be up in arms if a subsidy is reduced and they have to pay more for goods. Human nature is such that the majority will agree with something providing it doesn't adversely affect them, such as new rail line, new Motorway, new housing, new industrial estate, etc.
Its not being two faced as I do use my indicators and I don't block or hold anyone else up when I overtake. I'm well aware there are plenty of car drivers that are d1ks, that was never disputed. Please also kindly note that I did not say all HGV drivers were inconsiderate.
NSEFAN
Established Member
We should be aiming to move both people and goods in the most efficient ways possible. As it stands, it's easier to make more room for passengers than freight on our railways because of our restrictive loading guage.
Certain lines in mainland Europe have rolling highways which make it easy to take trucks off the roads. There might possibly scope for these in the UK but only on particular routes, and it certainly wouldn't be possible without a lot of infrastructure upgrades.
Certain lines in mainland Europe have rolling highways which make it easy to take trucks off the roads. There might possibly scope for these in the UK but only on particular routes, and it certainly wouldn't be possible without a lot of infrastructure upgrades.
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/media/21-10-2013-lorry-fatalities-research
Makes for interesting reading....
Makes for interesting reading....
moggie
Member
Indeed, very interesting. So we are lead to believe that a 44 tonne HGV using the road network each day of a year is assessed as causing an average £1000 worth of wear and tear (damage) to the whole of the road network over which it travels (including structures, drains and buried services).
Of course in truth the figure has to be an average as without road pricing at the point of use (unlike rail) it is impractical to account for the classes of road traversed, the type of load carried, the speed of travel or the number of actual journey's made. Then of course there's the excise license fee.
But there we have it, it is an assessment, not a true cost of the damage inflicted. One thing is not uncertain, it is the HGV's that cause the majority of the damage to the road network as it is only they which have the heavy axle loading compared with other road users.
In other words the road haulage industry is no less subsidised against the damage inflicted by its operations than the track access charge paid by rail freight to use a path. This also being an assessment of the proportion of wear and tear inflicted in the context of the economics they operate within.
The true comparison of precisely what level of 'subsidy' is received by the road haulage industry would only be known when the true value of repairs and renewals is costed and apportioned by what has caused the wear and tear, never mind about the cost of congestion and damage to neighbouring properties caused. That won't happen either.
Donny Dave
Established Member
GearJammer
Member
Its not interesting its a load of s**t!
'Lorries are involved in a increasing percentage of fatal traffic accidents on Britain's roads. New analysis has shown that last year HGVs were implicated in more than half of fatal motorway accidents and one-in-five fatal accidents on A-roads, continuing negative trends over the last five years.
Campaign for Better Transport, who commissioned the research, have called on Government to introduce measures to limit accidents caused by heavy lorries and make roads safer for all users.'
So is this report saying that HGVs are 'involved' or 'cause' more than half of accidents, if they are 'involved' in more than half of the accidents than what is the 'cause'?
Sorry but most of what is written there is rubbish!
So its a load of rubbish eh.......I ll assume you have reached that conclusion because of the narrow minded view you take to this issue......?? So can you explain why the general consensus is to attract more freight to rail?
GearJammer
Member
Im not narrow minded at all, i just spend enough time on the road doing the job to see where the problems are.
The reason 'the general consensus' want freight on the railways is because they are car drivers who want to fly around like there ass is on fire, they are selfish and narrow minded and do not accept that they have to share the roads with other users. Get rid of trucks, then what? They'll want to get rid of buses, tractors, mobile cranes or anything else they see as an inconvinience.
Like i said, people are two faced, they want trucks off the road, they say its better for the environment then they go and get in there cars, there all two faced, but they think because they are the largest group of users on the roads that they are right, sorry, but you ain't!
Just dug out the following from a government report.....
In 2010, there were 7,103 accidents involving at least one HGV, with 9,686 casualties. Of those casualties, 263 were fatalities.
Now can you tell me how many freight trains either caused or were involved in an accident that caused a fatality in that year. And can you also find out just what was the cost imposed on non logistical agencies such as the NHS, Police, Fire etc ( all paid for by the state ). Please note I am not having a go at HGV drivers here, I m only interested in the stats as published.
moggie
Member
I think you may just be in a minority there!
Donny Dave
Established Member
Does that report mention how many accidents there was that did not involve a HGV and how many injuries and fatalities there were?
GearJammer
Member
No, because to be frank, i can't be bothered! just like you probably won't be bothered to find out how many of those 7,103 accidents (and 263 fatalities) was caused by a direct result of the HGV or driver doing something wrong and how many were caused by the actions of a car drivers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just because someone is in the minority it does'nt mean there in the wrong does it!
If everybody turned round and said murdering people and raping young children was perfectly acceptable it would'nt make it right would it!
If thats the basis of your argument your going nowhere!
No, because to be frank, i can't be bothered! just like you probably won't be bothered to find out how many of those 7,103 accidents (and 263 fatalities) was caused by a direct result of the HGV or driver doing something wrong and how many were caused by the actions of a car drivers.
Like I said, i m not having a go at HGV drivers......cause and effect is for another debate. But the hard facts speak for themselves. And the hard facts are that accidents involving HGVs impose a cost on the state that rail freight doesnt from accident issues......because freight trains dont interact with other road vehicles AND also operate in what you might call a sterile environment. Clealry HGVs are exposed to issues such as car drivers that trains are almost ( but not entirely ) exempt from...
Like I said, i m not having a go at HGV drivers......cause and effect is for another debate. But the hard facts speak for themselves. And the hard facts are that accidents involving HGVs impose a cost on the state that rail freight doesnt from accident issues......because freight trains dont interact with other road vehicles AND also operate in what you might call a sterile environment. Clealry HGVs are exposed to issues such as car drivers that trains are almost ( but not entirely ) exempt from...
GearJammer
Member
Well if were going to play on a level playing field theres only one of two things to do then is'nt there, either ban all cars from the road so HGVs can operate in a 'sterile' environment or let every tom dick and harry go out a buy there own train to drive themselves on the network.
Clearly banning all cars isnt practical, just like banning all HGVs isnt practical either. The general approach however is to encourage BOTH car user and freight onto rail. And this seems to be working judging by BOTH passenger and freight growth over the last 10 years or so.....
Now I know for an absolute fact that Rail Freight Companies are screaming for more paths on the rail network......because there is demand for it.
GearJammer
Member
Totally agree to an extent, rail freight companies can scream and shout all they like that they want paths, but if there not available there not available.
So why does everybody keep going on about getting freight onto the rails? The people that are complaining are the car drivers who WON'T use rail as an alternative, but expect freight to do so, that is what gets up my nose, along with them coming up with pitifull excuses for doing so.
I ll just post this below .......have a look at the comment made by a member of the public called Peter Marton at the bottom.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rror-smash-HGVs-collide-dual-carriageway.html
Now as I said , the consensus ( both political and public ) is to encourage freight onto rail.....whether you agree with that is actually irrelevant as its there in black and white.
As far as rail paths go , they are indeed at a premium....but with such plans as HS2 in the pipeline, clearly this isnt a situation that wont change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rror-smash-HGVs-collide-dual-carriageway.html
Now as I said , the consensus ( both political and public ) is to encourage freight onto rail.....whether you agree with that is actually irrelevant as its there in black and white.
As far as rail paths go , they are indeed at a premium....but with such plans as HS2 in the pipeline, clearly this isnt a situation that wont change.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Motorists want lorries off the roads because they are a very visible issue on trunk roads (especially when it takes a long time for one to overtake another) - I think a lot of motorists get nervous dealing with bigger vehicles on the roads (rightly or wrongly).
So it sounds nice to get lorries off the roads, and making them the railway's problem sounds nice and green. Unfortunately, only certain types of "flow" work on the railway (large volumes of stable product all heading on the same journey, without an "urgent" delivery date - which is why coal moves by train but milk doesn't) , and most of the Eddie Stobarts (etc) that you see on the motorway couldn't easily be converted to train services.
Another problem is that whilst motorists notice the big lorries on "their" motorways (and whatever problems they cause), people don't notice freight trains and the problems they cause on the rails.
Hence "getting freight off the roads" being a nice easy story to "spin", which explains the reasons why were are spending a disproportionate amount of time on the "electric spine" to allow a relatively small number of freight trains per week to be converted to electric haulage.
moggie
Member
But the majority of sane people think exactly the opposite don't they? And they would of course be right. So, using your analogy I suggest the majority of car users think HGV's are a necessary PIA and MORE (note; not all) trunk haul freight should be moved by rail which would lead to a lessening (note; not eradication) of road congestion. On the basis of probability that suggests that the majority are more likely to be right than the minority view of Stobart spotters and truck drivers?
The point being that rather spending vast sums of money solving road pinch points to accommodate more freight on road and the ever increasing number of cars it's high time the road Haulage industry joined force with the rail freight industry to move whatever makes sense in the wider scheme of things to transfer to rail. That in turn means that the rail industry together with the logistics sector has to do more to provide for that transfer, be it more large scale centres like Daventry and the train paths when and where needed. There is simply too much of short term, half hearted approach to this at present which either fails to inspire confidence in the user. It's good to see Stobarts making a serious attempt at correcting this but much more needs to be done.
Take the A14, why does it make sense to provide more capacity around Huntingdon to Cambridge when the line from Felixstowe to Leicester remains absolute block signalling with single line. No wonder there remains a constant flow of HGV's carrying containers using the A14 to and fro and creating mobile traffic jams in their wake. Just one example of many.
Last edited:
GearJammer
Member
Im not really sure what your getting at with that, im sure if i could be bothered to dig around on the WWW i could find numerous accidents that had fatalities involving just cars.... probably far more that involve just cars than just trucks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think that would work..... but i like ya logic!
Im not really sure what your getting at with that, im sure if i could be bothered to dig around on the WWW i could find numerous accidents that had fatalities involving just cars.... probably far more that involve just cars than just trucks.
You probably could.......however i was highlighting the point that a HGV accident ( and lets not forget the sterile environment issue I mentioned earlier ) imposes a cost on the state that rail freight doesnt.
You probably could.......however i was highlighting the point that a HGV accident ( and lets not forget the sterile environment issue I mentioned earlier ) imposes a cost on the state that rail freight doesnt.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I'd argue the opposite.
Assuming it is correct that road hauliers don't pay their fare share of repair costs. If their taxes and charges were increased (including those paid by foreign operators) to reflect the actual cost, then clearly everything that is hauled by road would cost more (and that means most things). But since the state pays for highway maintenance today, then other taxation would go down by the same amount. Most people, who are both taxpayers and consumers of goods hauled by road, would be affected only a little.
However hauliers would have a much bigger incentive to reduce use of HGVs, or (if the charging mechanism provided appropriate incentives) to use HGV types that cause less damage or confine them more to roads less prone to be damaged. This would make it worthwhile to transfer some freight onto rail, reducing the need for rail freight grants, and in the long run ought to result in a reduction in highway damage. The same principle could be extended to other impacts of road transport such as pollution, noise and congestion - and even to cars...
Ah ha.......at last ......a fellow forumite has posted the very same point I ve been regularly banging on about over the last few weeks. This is a point which is little understood by a lot of rail enthusiasts. This defo applies to passenger traffic as well......but currently we are blind to 50% of what the true price the market will bear. This is one of the reasons why UK rail is carrying record amounts of traffic.....
GearJammer
Member
Yes but you still need the truck to do the last few miles of haulage from the rail terminal to the end user coz not every house, shop, industrial unit and factory is rail connected, in fact some are miles from ANY railway, so railways would still need the grants to pay for that last bit of road haulage? Or will you subsidise the road haulage industry to do that bit?
Buttsy
Established Member
We already subsidise the road haulage industry to do that, but rather than from a terminal, we subsidise it all the way.
If we use a simplistic basis of calculation and assume VED on a 2 axle, 1 tonne car is £200, ergo £100 per 0.5 tonne axle, therefore, to pay the same amount of VED for a 4 axle HGV (including trailer), the tax should be 176 times higher, £35200 pa. If that is approximately the tax on a HGV pa, then at least you're paying the same as a car driver whose vehicle causes less damage to the road based on axle weight alone.
I have not factored in any enviromental costs for either vehicle. As I stated, it is a SIMPLISTIC calculation to give an idea of the potential size of the effective subsidy to the road haulage industry. I also appreciate that this form of calculation may make smaller lorries cheaper from the VED viewpoint.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
No, the peple doing the transporting would have to bear costs and taxes on that too (though probably less because of the shorter distance), and pass them on to their customers in the same way as they would with other costs. If the incentives are set correctly then this will result in the least damaging mode of distribution being chosen, whether this is road throughout, rail to a nearby intermodal terminal then road, or the market devises something new that we haven't even thought of.
- Status