Re: Truckers
Simian
> Whinging again, I see.
>
> What makes them so special? If the costs of doing business in my
> industry rise, we have to cut our costs elsewhere or pass them onto
> our customers. Why shouldn't haulage firms have to do this?
There was a chap on R4 the other day saying that for smaller operators
especially, what they needed was a steady price. If they agreed a price
on Monday, but the fuel costs were an extra 300 quid on Friday, then
they would make no money, and thus go out of business. The larger
companies could ride out this sort of problem in the short term.
> And saying that foreign firms can undercut them is a non-argument,
> IMO. We have to compete with foreign outsourcing companies
> undercutting us to the tune of about 90% on a daily rate. Can't see
> the IT industry begging the government to lower tax, we just make sure
> we can do it better.
Hah! The IT industry gets R&D tax benefits (where, for example, pretty
much any line of code counts as R&D) and has been moaning for years
about not being allowed to import as many cheap IT people from abroad
as they would like to. Until recently there were also tax-exempt
investment schemes for IT start-ups (similar to the UK film industry
ones) that allowed the government to get round the EU anti-subsidy
rules.
Simian
> Which is why they all put a fuel escalator clause in their contracts.
> Well. all the smart ones, anyway.
Maybe, but these _are_ truck drivers we're talking about.
Colin Irvine
<grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> squeezed out the following:
>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember Ben <ben@bensales_DOT_ME.uk> saying
>something like:
>
>>Whinging again, I see.
>>
>>What makes them so special? If the costs of doing business in my
>>industry rise, we have to cut our costs elsewhere or pass them onto
>>our customers. Why shouldn't haulage firms have to do this?
>>
>>And saying that foreign firms can undercut them is a non-argument,
>>IMO. We have to compete with foreign outsourcing companies
>>undercutting us to the tune of about 90% on a daily rate. Can't see
>>the IT industry begging the government to lower tax, we just make sure
>>we can do it better.
>
>The main problem as I see it, is that many owner-operators are/were
>taking home only about £300 per week, and a rise of about £250 in the
>weekly cost of filling the tank is a killer blow for many of them.
>The larger companies with a bit of muscle will be able to ride it out
>and negotiate increased charges, but the small guys are fucked up the
>arse, again.
The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
lorries and drivers. I don't know how this can be managed other than
by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
--
Colin Irvine
BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
Tim
<simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> writes
annoyed that folks would rather join a phone/video conference than sit
in the traffic for 2 hours to visit face-to-face.
--
Tim
http://www.pitfieldbeershop.co.uk/
Ofnuts
> There was a chap on R4 the other day saying that for smaller operators
> especially, what they needed was a steady price. If they agreed a price
> on Monday, but the fuel costs were an extra 300 quid on Friday, then
> they would make no money, and thus go out of business. The larger
> companies could ride out this sort of problem in the short term.
There are financial products to protect one's rear (or company rear)
against unforeseen increase or decrease of commodity prices. Airlines
buy them by the truckload. However, when nothings happens, the big
companies don't give a hoot but the small truck owner would feel ripped
off. The same is also true of agricultural products, btw, and not also
not used by the farmers, for about the same reasons.
--
Bd.
o.f.n...@la.poste.net (drop dots except last)
TDM850/UKRMMA#2
HeffaLump
> Whinging again, I see.
>
> What makes them so special? If the costs of doing business in my
> industry rise, we have to cut our costs elsewhere or pass them onto
> our customers. Why shouldn't haulage firms have to do this?
Have a think about what costs a haulage company faces then suggest which
of these should be cut to offset the fuel price rise. Perhaps they
should all operate 20yr old trucks with bald tyres & faulty brakes,
driven by a fat slob who hasn't slept for 48hrs & earns Ł5.50 ph !!!
>
> And saying that foreign firms can undercut them is a non-argument,
> IMO. We have to compete with foreign outsourcing companies
> undercutting us to the tune of about 90% on a daily rate. Can't see
> the IT industry begging the government to lower tax, we just make sure
> we can do it better.
A haulage company offers a service moving product 1 from A to B. Please
suggest ways to improve this service . . . actually don't, at least not
on a public forum. I will purchase your idea's for an astronomical
amount of ŁŁŁmoney & start my own haulage Co', I'll IPO within 2yrs &
make Łmillions, retiring to my own island somewhere in the Carribean
after revolutionising a mature industry which is obviously still getting
it wrong.
The haulage industry is very very much differant to what it appears you
consider it to be.
If someone says they're drowning would you stand on the bank & suggest
they get out of the water ???
HeffaLump
>
> The main problem as I see it, is that many owner-operators are/were
> taking home only about £300 per week, and a rise of about £250 in the
> weekly cost of filling the tank is a killer blow for many of them.
> The larger companies with a bit of muscle will be able to ride it out
> and negotiate increased charges, but the small guys are fucked up the
> arse, again.
Why be an owner/operator & only take home £300pw?
I know quite a few 8 wheel tipper owner/operators taking home £800pw. I
know of one artic owner/operator making approx £1500pw. If there's
anyone out there struggling by on £300pw then they're doing something
drastically wrong & by the rules of commerce, deserve to fall by the
wayside.
HeffaLump
>
> The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
> travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
> lorries and drivers. I don't know how this can be managed other than
> by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
>
Please stop buying goods which are moved by road, it's a supply & demand
thing. If people would stop buying things then there'd be no need to
transport them to the feckin shops.
Stop buying things & save the planet !!!
Colin Irvine
Engineering"> squeezed out the following:
No sensible rebuttal to offer?
As it happens there is already a growing trend to buy local produce,
which I assume is only the thin edge of the wedge. As fuel costs
become prohibitive so manufacturers and suppliers will redesign their
working methods to involve less transport.
Fr Jack
>Perhaps they
>should all operate 20yr old trucks with bald tyres & faulty brakes,
>driven by a fat slob who hasn't slept for 48hrs & earns £5.50 ph !!!
I thought they already did.
--
Fr. Jack
The ex(un)civil servant
Bear
Oh do fuck off, you brain-dead idiot.
--
Bear
Hog
<sigh>
as our mainline rail network is close to capacity that would mean a
shrinking economy.
What we need is a huge increase and a subsequently much larger economy.
About the only underused potential capacity is costal shipping, if you
moved some industry sectors to the coast.
Not a problem as long as the freight moves at night, load sizes are
optimised/consolidated and point to point routing is used, along with
efficient engines and particulate traps.
Some of the long haul railfreight capacity does need huge works. Pretty
much all container traffic from/to Northern England, Scotland, NI and
Wales up and down the main trunk routes should be moving by rail/sea.
Use the M6/M74 and A1 and this is patently not happening.
--
Hog
'06 ST4-S '03 ST4-S
'96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
Hog
Oi Monz want to buy a couple of 40 tonners with me?
Hog
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:17:59 +0100, HeffaLump <"Percussion
> Engineering"> wrote:
>
>> Ben wrote:
>>> Whinging again, I see.
>>>
>>> What makes them so special? If the costs of doing business in my
>>> industry rise, we have to cut our costs elsewhere or pass them onto
>>> our customers. Why shouldn't haulage firms have to do this?
>>
>> Have a think about what costs a haulage company faces then suggest
>> which of these should be cut to offset the fuel price rise. Perhaps
>> they should all operate 20yr old trucks with bald tyres & faulty
>> brakes, driven by a fat slob who hasn't slept for 48hrs & earns
>
> Don't be so dense. It's a business, and like any other business if
> the cost of performing it is more than you're charging for it then you
> either charge more or lower your costs. Expecting someone else to
> lower your costs for you is a bit cheeky.
>
> And anyway, suppose the government had a sudden fit of generosity and
> removed all tax from fuel. The fuel is still going to go up in price
> and in a couple of years, they'd be back where they are now. And
> there'd be nothing to cut off it.
>
> They should buy cheaper trucks, lower wages, be more efficient in
> their route planning, I dunno what else, I don't work in that
> industry. But there are always ways of cutting costs.
>
> And if you can't, then you don't stay in business. Dead simple.
> Businesses are not charities.
>
>>> And saying that foreign firms can undercut them is a non-argument,
>>> IMO. We have to compete with foreign outsourcing companies
>>> undercutting us to the tune of about 90% on a daily rate. Can't see
>>> the IT industry begging the government to lower tax, we just make
>>> sure we can do it better.
>>
>> A haulage company offers a service moving product 1 from A to B.
>> Please suggest ways to improve this service . . . actually don't, at
>> least not on a public forum. I will purchase your idea's for an
>> within 2yrs & make £millions, retiring to my own island somewhere in
>> the Carribean after revolutionising a mature industry which is
>> obviously still getting it wrong.
>>
>> The haulage industry is very very much differant to what it appears
>> you consider it to be.
>>
>> If someone says they're drowning would you stand on the bank &
>> suggest they get out of the water ???
>
> they can't make money, then they don't stay in business. Simple.
Transport sector, local and long haul, has needed effective regulation
for a long long long time. It has never recieved it. A proper operator
licencing scheme. Covering all things from driving standards to truck
maintenance to financial viability and customer service.
SteveH
> Whinging again, I see.
>
> What makes them so special? If the costs of doing business in my
> industry rise, we have to cut our costs elsewhere or pass them onto
> our customers. Why shouldn't haulage firms have to do this?
>
> And saying that foreign firms can undercut them is a non-argument,
> IMO. We have to compete with foreign outsourcing companies
> undercutting us to the tune of about 90% on a daily rate. Can't see
> the IT industry begging the government to lower tax, we just make sure
> we can do it better.
What pisses me off about the protest (and I got stuck behind the inbreds
on the M4 today) is that they have been asking the public to join their
protests and looking for the support of the general public, but are
willing to sell us all down the river by accepting an 'essential users
rebate' whilst the rest of us carry on paying full whack.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200
Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE
Colin Irvine
squeezed out the following:
>Colin Irvine wrote:
>> The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
>> travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
>> lorries and drivers. I don't know how this can be managed other than
>> by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
>
><sigh>
>as our mainline rail network is close to capacity that would mean a
>shrinking economy.
Acceptable shrinkage IMHO.
>What we need is a huge increase and a subsequently much larger economy.
WE don't NEED anything of the sort, however much you might wish it..
Hog
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:33:53 +0100, "Hog" <hog...@freenetCHIPS.co.uk>
> squeezed out the following:
>
>> Colin Irvine wrote:
>>> The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
>>> travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
>>> lorries and drivers. I don't know how this can be managed other than
>>> by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
>>
>> <sigh>
>> as our mainline rail network is close to capacity that would mean a
>> shrinking economy.
>
> Acceptable shrinkage IMHO.
>
>> What we need is a huge increase and a subsequently much larger
>> economy.
>
> WE don't NEED anything of the sort, however much you might wish it..
Thats all very well for a retired accountant with a pension. It's no
fucking use for anyone of working age, particularly those under 30. You
grow and develop or you die in this business world.
OTOH the population of the UK is about 150% of where I would like to see
it so as you were.
Catman
Good lord. Is it?
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
Colin Irvine
<cat...@rustcuore-sportivo.co.uk> squeezed out the following:
>Hog wrote:
>> <sigh>
>> as our mainline rail network is close to capacity
>
>Good lord. Is it?
That's my understanding as well. I think the problem is trains of very
different speeds trying to share the same track. However, I'm sure an
expert will be along shortly to put us right!
Hog
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 17:09:14 GMT, Catman
> <cat...@rustcuore-sportivo.co.uk> squeezed out the following:
>
>> Hog wrote:
>
>>> <sigh>
>>> as our mainline rail network is close to capacity
>>
>> Good lord. Is it?
>
> That's my understanding as well. I think the problem is trains of very
> different speeds trying to share the same track. However, I'm sure an
> expert will be along shortly to put us right!
He did that some weeks ago.
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
The simple solution to over population of GB is to seperate the
rubbish from the rest.
We could start by giving them their own parliaments so they're the
only ones that can vote on matters concerning their country and then
let them stand on their own two feet without any subsidies from the
rest of the us and without any right to vote on things that don't
affect *their country*.
Sound ideal? It would be if the cunts didn't want the best of both
fucking worlds and expect to be allowed to vote on external affairs
and receive subsidies from other countries.
Sean Hamerton
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:17:59 +0100, HeffaLump <"Percussion
>
> Engineering"> wrote:
> >> Whinging again, I see.
>
> >> What makes them so special? If the costs of doing business in my
> >> industry rise, we have to cut our costs elsewhere or pass them onto
> >> our customers. Why shouldn't haulage firms have to do this?
>
> >Have a think about what costs a haulage company faces then suggest which
> >of these should be cut to offset the fuel price rise. Perhaps they
> >should all operate 20yr old trucks with bald tyres & faulty brakes,
>
> Don't be so dense. It's a business, and like any other business if
> the cost of performing it is more than you're charging for it then you
> either charge more or lower your costs. Expecting someone else to
> lower your costs for you is a bit cheeky.
>
> And anyway, suppose the government had a sudden fit of generosity and
> removed all tax from fuel. The fuel is still going to go up in price
> and in a couple of years, they'd be back where they are now. And
> there'd be nothing to cut off it.
>
> They should buy cheaper trucks,
That's a bit of a false economy though, isn't it.
> lower wages,
That's clearly already happening for owner/operators.
--
SeanH - '01 Fazer 600 in black.
Tim
<cat...@rustcuore-sportivo.co.uk> writes
England line that was previously closed and all it needs is 3 compulsory
purchase orders to get all the track bed available.
--
Tim
http://www.pitfieldbeershop.co.uk/
The Older Gentleman
> There's always the option of laying new tracks. IIRC there's a central
> England line that was previously closed and all it needs is 3 compulsory
> purchase orders to get all the track bed available.
They tried to get a new rail link from the NW down to the Channel ports,
by plotting a new loop around the west of London. The NIMBYs and
tree-huggers put an early stop to that.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
The Older Gentleman
> The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
> travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
> lorries and drivers.
Actually, that is *exactly* what has been happening over the last
several decades. OK, more goods moved by road, but definitely fewer
vehicles and fewer drivers, as distribution gets more efficient and as
truck payloads go up.
The Older Gentleman
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 17:09:14 GMT, Catman
> <cat...@rustcuore-sportivo.co.uk> squeezed out the following:
>
> >Hog wrote:
>
> >> <sigh>
> >> as our mainline rail network is close to capacity
> >
> >Good lord. Is it?
>
> That's my understanding as well. I think the problem is trains of very
> different speeds trying to share the same track. However, I'm sure an
> expert will be along shortly to put us right!
From what I remember from my days at the Freight Transport Association,
yes, this is exactly the point.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<Colin....@seebottomof.home.page> saying something like:
>
>The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
>travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
>lorries and drivers.
That's very true, also.
> I don't know how this can be managed other than
>by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
Well, the small guys are dropping out anyway, and have been for years.
Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to become an owner-operator,
unless it's the thrill of the open road and the freedom to wear makeup,
perched high above the traffic.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House
Paul Corfield
>Whinging again, I see.
Yes - fun isn't it? Still the loony press seem to be of the view that
they'll help bring down the government so they're getting lots of column
and website inches.
>What makes them so special? If the costs of doing business in my
>industry rise, we have to cut our costs elsewhere or pass them onto
>our customers. Why shouldn't haulage firms have to do this?
The country is very heavily reliant on the road haulage industry and it
wouldn't take very much for the very finely balanced distribution and
logistics process to collapse. This, of course, has been created through
decades of very effective lobbying by the RHA and other bodies as well
as the expansion of the supermarkets (again heartily encouraged by
government). One day we will reap what we sow off the back of this lop
sided transport system. The same applies when people find they can't
afford to use their cars and suddenly demand bus, tram and train
services where they don't exist today. Someone has to pay.
I'm not for one moment saying rail can do it all - it clearly can't but
there are alternatives to what we have now. To pick up on comments
elsewhere there are some parts of the rail system where capacity for
freight is at a premium - ironically through North London and into the
Essex and Suffolk ports as well as the Midlands to Southampton. There
are proposals to improve capacity and route clearance (for bigger
containers) but these are crawling their way through the appraisal and
approval process. The UK has a huge disadvantage because the loading
gauge is constrained as we built our rail lines first - we really need a
better gauge on key freight routes but that could be massively
expensive.
Private sector rail freight *seems* to have grown the market but from
what I read it is still quite fragile and adverse movements on costs /
price could see the market shrink again. There is also a significant
problem with rail freight through the Channel Tunnel due to the charging
regime and removal of subsidies. Still our rail freight business is in
better financial shape than in France for example. There is also a move
to massive consolidation between rail freight companies on the continent
and that has crept across to us - English, Welsh and Scottish Rail
(EWS), the biggest UK freight operator, is owned by German State
Railways (DB). They are busy buying up operations all over the place. I
suspect Sweller will have an opinion or three about this.
I think we will need to see a national strategy for freight transport
that rebalances the distribution of road and rail freight. In places
that will mean investment in new lines, depots and sidings. Ideally I'd
like to see a big programme of electrification to increase both freight
and passenger capacity but I think current financial woes will stop that
happening even though the whole basis of the government's evaluation
model for such schemes is flawed.
>And saying that foreign firms can undercut them is a non-argument,
>IMO. We have to compete with foreign outsourcing companies
>undercutting us to the tune of about 90% on a daily rate. Can't see
>the IT industry begging the government to lower tax, we just make sure
>we can do it better.
Well the above may be true but every industry lobbies government for
exemptions and subsidies. I think transport is a strategic industry and
I think we do face some important questions about who owns it, who
controls it and whether we retain a domestic industry. It's not
dissimilar to where we are on energy - no real policy, dire forecasts as
to the future provision and real concerns over security of supply. Do
we really want foreign owners to be able to stop our lorry and rail
freight with no ability to control this resource? No different to
Russia / Iran / Iraq over oil and gas at a strategic level.
--
Paul C - "the big camp bastard" (tm d.a.r.s.y)
VFR800 | ZX6R | R1150GS
BOD#5, two#4, BOTAFOT#23, BOTAFOF#4, URMSBC#09, COFF#09
Admits to working for London Underground!
platypus
>
> Well, the small guys are dropping out anyway, and have been for years.
> Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to become an
> owner-operator, unless it's the thrill of the open road and the
> freedom to wear makeup, perched high above the traffic.
My father and another guy ran their own haulage business[1] in Belfast back
in the '70s, had half a dozen artics[2], seemed to go well enough until his
health took a turn for the worse and he had to give it up. He'd been a
transport manager for Cawoods for years previously, so he knew his stuff.
[1]Expressways Ltd
[2]I remember at least a couple of Atkinsons.
Simian
>
> I think we will need to see a national strategy for freight transport
> that rebalances the distribution of road and rail freight. In places
> that will mean investment in new lines, depots and sidings. Ideally
> I'd like to see a big programme of electrification to increase both
> freight and passenger capacity but I think current financial woes
> will stop that happening even though the whole basis of the
> government's evaluation model for such schemes is flawed.
I was drunkenly opining the other day to someone that what we need(ed)
to do was only allow out of town shopping centres if they were next to
a rail line and the plans included a new freight siding, and the lease
a small maximum number of freight trucks pa.
> Do we really want foreign owners to be able to stop our lorry and rail
> freight with no ability to control this resource?
Well that's not going to happen though is it? If some foreign company
said "No more trains on the Paddington line. Bwahahaha!" they'd quickly
find themselves the ex-owner. Surely all the people that matter to the
running of the system don't care who pays their wages, as long as
they're paid?
> No different to
> Russia / Iran / Iraq over oil and gas at a strategic level.
That's a bit different, in that the resource is not capital, but goods.
The Older Gentleman
> [2]I remember at least a couple of Atkinsons.
Ooh! Seddies!
The Older Gentleman
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:45:34 +0100, Ben <ben@bensales_DOT_ME.uk> wrote:
>
> >Whinging again, I see.
>
> Yes - fun isn't it? Still the loony press seem to be of the view that
> they'll help bring down the government so they're getting lots of column
> and website inches.
>
> >What makes them so special? If the costs of doing business in my
> >industry rise, we have to cut our costs elsewhere or pass them onto
> >our customers. Why shouldn't haulage firms have to do this?
>
> The country is very heavily reliant on the road haulage industry and it
> wouldn't take very much for the very finely balanced distribution and
> logistics process to collapse.
Yes. Agree absolutely. This was shown at the time of the fuel blockades
in, erm, 2001?
>This, of course, has been created through
> decades of very effective lobbying by the RHA and other bodies as well
> as the expansion of the supermarkets (again heartily encouraged by
> government).
Er, no, not completely. It was also a conscious decision by the then
government to prune the rail network in order to help stimulate the then
motor industry. And road transport *is* more efficient than rail, for
almost everything. But fragile, as you say.
>One day we will reap what we sow off the back of this lop
> sided transport system. The same applies when people find they can't
> afford to use their cars and suddenly demand bus, tram and train
> services where they don't exist today. Someone has to pay.
Disagree here.
>
> I'm not for one moment saying rail can do it all - it clearly can't but
> there are alternatives to what we have now. To pick up on comments
> elsewhere there are some parts of the rail system where capacity for
> freight is at a premium - ironically through North London and into the
> Essex and Suffolk ports as well as the Midlands to Southampton. There
> are proposals to improve capacity and route clearance (for bigger
> containers) but these are crawling their way through the appraisal and
> approval process. The UK has a huge disadvantage because the loading
> gauge is constrained as we built our rail lines first - we really need a
> better gauge on key freight routes but that could be massively
> expensive.
This seems to disregard the fact that you still need road vehicles to
get the goods from the railheads to the stores (or whatever).
>
> Private sector rail freight *seems* to have grown the market but from
> what I read it is still quite fragile and adverse movements on costs /
> price could see the market shrink again. There is also a significant
> problem with rail freight through the Channel Tunnel due to the charging
> regime and removal of subsidies. Still our rail freight business is in
> better financial shape than in France for example. There is also a move
> to massive consolidation between rail freight companies on the continent
> and that has crept across to us - English, Welsh and Scottish Rail
> (EWS), the biggest UK freight operator, is owned by German State
> Railways (DB). They are busy buying up operations all over the place. I
> suspect Sweller will have an opinion or three about this.
Good insight.
>
> I think we will need to see a national strategy for freight transport
> that rebalances the distribution of road and rail freight. In places
> that will mean investment in new lines, depots and sidings. Ideally I'd
> like to see a big programme of electrification to increase both freight
> and passenger capacity but I think current financial woes will stop that
> happening even though the whole basis of the government's evaluation
> model for such schemes is flawed.
As far as freight goes, forget it. Rail can't do it. Not any more,
except for certain high-speed bulk loads moved during the hours of
darkness.
cat
> What I don't understand is at work we have a manager who gets really
> annoyed that folks would rather join a phone/video conference than sit
> in the traffic for 2 hours to visit face-to-face.
There was that advert a little while back on the tellybox where some guy
spent a while using ace computer software to bundle up some funky
documents into a cool presentation and then used miracle fiber
technology to send it tens of thousands of miles in a couple of seconds
so some chubby exec could read it on the other side of the world.
I recall thinking it was pretty cool what IBM could do, and how cute
their advert was till three sharply dressed twats walked into the dudes
office and won the contract because they'd used BA's super duper polluty
flying train service to go and shake his hand. What a waste of 14 hours
of three people's time.
It's hugely depressing that that's 'what smacks of quality' and would
get rewarded over actual intelligent content. However, since it's an
advert it's all fantasy anyway. I just hate flying and like emails.
Apologies for wasting so much of your time if you read this far.
platypus
I remember that advert. What it didn't show you was that the three SDTs won
the contract on the basis of a product that wasn't actually ready, what they
did deliver was so underspecced to cut costs that the client was getting
enterprise-wide outages on three out of five days, and they were talking to
each other through lawyers within six months.
Grimly Curmudgeon
saying something like:
>There's always the option of laying new tracks. IIRC there's a central
>England line that was previously closed and all it needs is 3 compulsory
>purchase orders to get all the track bed available.
The Great Central Line? Yep, I used to pass over/under various parts of
it and found out a little bit about it years ago. Strikes me as a Good
Idea to get it working again, especially as I see a time when trains
will once again seem like a good thing.
cat
> I remember that advert. What it didn't show you was that the three SDTs
> won the contract on the basis of a product that wasn't actually ready,
> what they did deliver was so underspecced to cut costs that the client
> was getting enterprise-wide outages on three out of five days, and they
> were talking to each other through lawyers within six months.
>
yes, but they achieved it by wasting HUGE resources; which is the
measure of success. If you can afford to waste it, you must have TONS of
the stuff </battle of the sexes/argument for bling>
Also, I read that as STDs and assumed they caught them from all that
handshaking.
Grimly Curmudgeon
Older Gentleman) saying something like:
>platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> [2]I remember at least a couple of Atkinsons.
>
>Ooh! Seddies!
Foden. The one true lorry.
Monz
> HeffaLump" <"Percussion Engineering wrote:
>> Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The main problem as I see it, is that many owner-operators are/were
>>> taking home only about £300 per week, and a rise of about £250 in
>>> the weekly cost of filling the tank is a killer blow for many of
>>> them. The larger companies with a bit of muscle will be able to
>>> ride it out and negotiate increased charges, but the small guys are
>>> fucked up the arse, again.
>>
>>
>> I know quite a few 8 wheel tipper owner/operators taking home £800pw.
>> I know of one artic owner/operator making approx £1500pw. If there's
>> anyone out there struggling by on £300pw then they're doing something
>> drastically wrong & by the rules of commerce, deserve to fall by the
>> wayside.
>
> Oi Monz want to buy a couple of 40 tonners with me?
Let's do it, but let's have 44 tonners instead
--
Monz
K7 GSX-R 1000
ANORAK#16 | BOTAFOT #135 | BREast#2 | MIRTTH#25 | BoB#16 | IBB#11 |
Hog
Is there money to be made!
--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
platypus
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
> (The Older Gentleman) saying something like:
>
>> platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> [2]I remember at least a couple of Atkinsons.
>>
>> Ooh! Seddies!
>
> Foden. The one true lorry.
I remember seeing an ERF with <pERFick!> painted on it.
platypus
> platypus wrote:
>
>
>> I remember that advert. What it didn't show you was that the three
>> SDTs won the contract on the basis of a product that wasn't actually
>> ready, what they did deliver was so underspecced to cut costs that
>> the client was getting enterprise-wide outages on three out of five
>> days, and they were talking to each other through lawyers within six
>> months.
> yes, but they achieved it by wasting HUGE resources; which is the
> measure of success. If you can afford to waste it, you must have TONS
> of the stuff </battle of the sexes/argument for bling>
Well, I thought that they're not going to be doing much business without an
office in-country staffed with people who can go in front of the customer
without making fools of themselves.
> Also, I read that as STDs and assumed they caught them from all that
> handshaking.
Heh. I've been working for an outfit that does water treatment and
legionella compliance and stuff. These guys /know/ about aerosols and
organisms in water droplets and similar, yet /none of them/ closed the lid
on the toilet in the office before flushing.
muddy cat
Ben <ben@bensales_DOT_ME.uk> wrote:
> Whinging again, I see.
Point of order. Shouldn't this have been x-posted to uk.whining.truckers
or whatever?
--
Mike
In the end there is one dance you'll do alone
skype: muddycat
http://picasaweb.google.com/bammynmuddy/VisorSock
Colin Irvine
<grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> squeezed out the following:
>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>Older Gentleman) saying something like:
>
>>platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> [2]I remember at least a couple of Atkinsons.
>>
>>Ooh! Seddies!
>
>Foden. The one true lorry.
Nah. Atkinson 8-wheeler.
Monz
There is in the game I am in at the moment... see you on the island for a
chat
Monz
> Colin Irvine <Colin....@seebottomof.home.page> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 17:09:14 GMT, Catman
>> <cat...@rustcuore-sportivo.co.uk> squeezed out the following:
>>
>>> Hog wrote:
>>
>>>> <sigh>
>>>> as our mainline rail network is close to capacity
>>>
>>> Good lord. Is it?
>>
>> That's my understanding as well. I think the problem is trains of
>> very different speeds trying to share the same track. However, I'm
>> sure an expert will be along shortly to put us right!
>
> From what I remember from my days at the Freight Transport
> Association, yes, this is exactly the point.
What tickles me is everyone keeps harping on about moving containers and the
like by rail/coastal shipping or whatever, but what vehicle will they be
relying on for the last leg of the journey, I'm guessing it wont be a tree
hugger on a bicycle.
From my experience I would say the largest business sector creating the need
for road haulage is the supermarket chains and this is driven by the
consumers need to be able to buy whatever they want to round the corner at
the supermarket. In summary, the very people that do all the shouting are
the ones creating the demand. [1]
[1] I know it's over simplified but it's not that wide of the mark
Monz
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:25:44 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
> <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> squeezed out the following:
>
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) saying something like:
>>
>>> platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [2]I remember at least a couple of Atkinsons.
>>>
>>> Ooh! Seddies!
>>
>> Foden. The one true lorry.
>
> Nah. Atkinson 8-wheeler.
Nah sod that old bollox...
http://www.marleneogpeter.dk/man%20tgx%20xlx%20480.jpg (this is the diego
version obv)
480 horses, 12 speed auto, climate control, built in fridge, double bunks,
walk through cab.
Easier than a car to drive as long as you dont forget the bit in the
mirrors.
The Older Gentleman
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> > They tried to get a new rail link from the NW down to the Channel ports,
> > by plotting a new loop around the west of London. The NIMBYs and
> > tree-huggers put an early stop to that.
>
> ...more likely the cost. Just the TH and NIMBY's were blamed. If "they"
> want to build something they will. cf. Airport expansion.
Not necessarily, in this case. Not when they planned the line to run
through some of the most affluent areas in the UK. As they did.
Pip
<Colin....@seebottomof.home.page> wrote:
>The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
>travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
>lorries and drivers. I don't know how this can be managed other than
>by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
And thus we see the localvore, emerging from the undergrowf.
--
Pip: B12
The Older Gentleman
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> > > ...more likely the cost. Just the TH and NIMBY's were blamed. If
> > > "they" want to build something they will. cf. Airport expansion.
> >
> > Not necessarily, in this case. Not when they planned the line to run
> > through some of the most affluent areas in the UK. As they did.
>
> IME - and I have quite a bit in this department - the limiting factor is
> financial.
Hokay!
Colin Irvine
<gingerbl...@NOSPAMgmail.com> squeezed out the following:
<g>
Tim
<grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember Tim <t...@nospam.osvif.demon.co.uk>
>saying something like:
>
>>There's always the option of laying new tracks. IIRC there's a central
>>England line that was previously closed and all it needs is 3 compulsory
>>purchase orders to get all the track bed available.
>
>The Great Central Line? Yep, I used to pass over/under various parts of
>it and found out a little bit about it years ago. Strikes me as a Good
>Idea to get it working again, especially as I see a time when trains
>will once again seem like a good thing.
It was recently discussed as a mechanism to relieve pressure on the one
of the lines going north while an extra 2 tracks were added. The extra
tracks were to allow "fast" trains to overtake local and E-W ones.
--
Tim
http://www.pitfieldbeershop.co.uk/
darsy
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > > ...more likely the cost. Just the TH and NIMBY's were blamed. If
> > > "they" want to build something they will. cf. Airport expansion.
>
> > Not necessarily, in this case. Not when they planned the line to run
> > through some of the most affluent areas in the UK. As they did.
>
> financial.
aren't you just really agreeing i.e. there wasn't enough money to pay
the NIMBYs off?
--
d.
darsy
> He'd been a
> transport manager for Cawoods for years previously, so he knew his stuff.
"knowing your stuff" would have been pretty rare for Cawoods
employees, though to be honest my experience of dealing with them was
in the early 90s, not the 70s.
--
d.
platypus
"Localvores are people committed to eating and learning about foods grown
within their local food shed."
PP, BA, spiders etc?
platypus
Just so - after my father had left, and had, in fact, died.
Bear
says...
Kinell. Harsh employers or what.
--
Bear
ginge
wrote:
>I suspect there isn't the will to do this and the race to the bottom
>seems so much more attractive. The current EU and World Bank route.
Well, there aren't many executives that recieve incentives based on
improving the remuneration of their workforce.
darsy
> In article <N29%j.10520$DZ6....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, platypus
Oil and Coal distribution in N.I. is a cut-throat business.
--
d.
Bear
d06d03...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, darsy says...
I can only imagine :)
--
Bear
Hog
> sweller <swe...@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>
>>>> ...more likely the cost. Just the TH and NIMBY's were blamed. If
>>>> "they" want to build something they will. cf. Airport expansion.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, in this case. Not when they planned the line to run
>>> through some of the most affluent areas in the UK. As they did.
>>
>> IME - and I have quite a bit in this department - the limiting
>> factor is financial.
>
> Hokay!
We lack the political will to take possession of the land needed at a
minimised financial recompense to the "squatters".
--
Hog
'06 ST4-S '03 ST4-S
'96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
Hog
How much are those MAN tractor units you mentioned up there!
Hog
> Paul Corfield wrote:
>
>> English, Welsh and Scottish Rail
>> (EWS), the biggest UK freight operator, is owned by German State
>> Railways (DB). They are busy buying up operations all over the
>> place. I suspect Sweller will have an opinion or three about this.
>
> Having seen how they operate abroad (Railion) we suspect that if the
> contract doesn't return 8% EWS will walk away from it.
>
> Shifting more freight onto the road.
>
> They've already introduce companies within companies - EWS has split
> its operation along sector lines (coal="Energy",
> ballast/maintenance="Network", aggregates="Construction" etc)
> operating an internal market.
>
> To the extent its almost cheaper from one EWS sector to hire in
> drivers from a competing railfreight operator rather than another EWS
> sector.
>
> There is an alternative, rather than use Ben's model of a rush to the
> bottom (cut wages, increase hours, reduce equipment investment)
> another approach is all companies have to meet minimum requirements
> to operate - restrictions on hours, provision of pension, minimum
> salary etc.
>
> Level the playing field upwards across the whole transport sector.
I am completely in agreement with you. I said as much ^^^ there
somewhere. You also need a maintenance of minimum rates to customers and
proof of financial standing. The Van/Bike courier market is a perfect
example of how it all goes wrong without.
The free market is the correct model but it must be a Regulated free
market.
> The same could be applied to the international labour markets - outlaw
> sweat shops, child labour and exploitation of migrant labour. So
> everyone meets minimum standards and development loans are
> conditional on this rather than (currently) opening immature local
> markets to large corporations.
TBF there is quite a lot of global effort along those lines.
Joseph Alois Ratzinger
<Colin....@seebottomof.home.page> wrote:
>The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
>travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
>lorries and drivers. I don't know how this can be managed other than
>by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
How can increasing the cost of fuel be helpful in reducing the
distances items need to travel? Goods are made at A. Customers live at
Z. The goods, be it food or HDTV's need to travel this distance from
maker to consumer.
Fitting more onto bigger trucks reduces the costs where lots needs to
be moved a long way, but the local distribution still needs to be done
and this CAN'T be cost reduced this way as far as I can see.
Supermarkets are ideal distribution centres and the products move to
them already in the most cost effective way. But you still have the
cost of getting to and from them, which conveniently is now on the
backs of the consumer.
--
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Bishop of Rome
Vicar of Jesus Christ
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
Primate of Italy
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province
Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City
Servant of the Servants of God
Simon Wilson
> Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:25:44 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
>> <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> squeezed out the following:
>>
>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>>> (The Older Gentleman) saying something like:
>>>
>>>> platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [2]I remember at least a couple of Atkinsons.
>>>> Ooh! Seddies!
>>> Foden. The one true lorry.
>> Nah. Atkinson 8-wheeler.
>
> Nah sod that old bollox...
> http://www.marleneogpeter.dk/man%20tgx%20xlx%20480.jpg (this is the diego
> version obv)
>
> 480 horses, 12 speed auto, climate control, built in fridge, double bunks,
> walk through cab.
>
--
/Simon
Colin Irvine
<bened...@vatican.va> squeezed out the following:
>On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:11:27 +0100, Colin Irvine
><Colin....@seebottomof.home.page> wrote:
>
>>The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
>>travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
>>lorries and drivers. I don't know how this can be managed other than
>>by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
>
>How can increasing the cost of fuel be helpful in reducing the
>distances items need to travel? Goods are made at A. Customers live at
>Z. The goods, be it food or HDTV's need to travel this distance from
>maker to consumer.
That only applies to the very last stage - getting the goods to the
consumer.
Take your average supermarket carrot. It could well have been
transported several hundred miles just to be washed, because the cost
of a giant washer plus fuel is less than the cost of several small
washers. Once fuel is dear enough this logic will be reversed.
Eddie
>
> How can increasing the cost of fuel be helpful in reducing the
> distances items need to travel?
You should stick to the religious stuff, you're much better at it.
Funnier, too.
--
Eddie ed...@deguello.org
His: ZX-9R, Elefant 900 http://www.last.fm/group/ukrm
Hers: Monster S4R, GSX600F (breaking, everything must go!)
Krusty
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:11:27 +0100, Colin Irvine
> <Colin....@seebottomof.home.page> wrote:
>
> > The main problem as I see it is that the number of goods-miles
> > travelled by road needs to be reduced, which in turn means fewer
> > lorries and drivers. I don't know how this can be managed other than
> > by market forces such as rising fuel costs.
>
> How can increasing the cost of fuel be helpful in reducing the
> distances items need to travel? Goods are made at A. Customers live at
> Z. The goods, be it food or HDTV's need to travel this distance from
> maker to consumer.
The goods may be made at A (or at least assembled), but how many
needless miles are driven prior to that in order to give them pretty
packaging? Chemicals to the plastics factory, wood to the cardboard
factory, cardboard to the printers, then plastics & printed cardboard
to the packaging plant or location where the goods are made.
Get rid of that lot & you make a massive saving in goods-miles, not to
mention landfill space. As an added bonus, we the consumers may be able
to open our next widget without resorting to Semtex or angle
grinders[1] to break open the skin-shredding bubble pack.
[1] Not that any reduction in the use of angle grinders should be
encouraged, naturally.
--
Krusty
www.MuddyStuff.co.uk
Off-Road Classifieds
'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger 955i '96 Tiger '79 Fantic Hiro 250
Grimly Curmudgeon
<gingerbl...@NOSPAMgmail.com> saying something like:
>And thus we see the localvore, emerging from the undergrowf.
>
>http://www.localvore.co.uk/
It's absurd that some items are air-freighted up to 5000 miles to be
packed and shipped back here to be sold, all in order to save a few
cents per kilo. It totally robs the local pikeys of the opportunity to
scale the fence at night and help themselves.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House
wessie
news:1PKdncG_Ovk5bqHV...@bt.com:
> Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:25:44 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
>> <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> squeezed out the following:
>>
>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>>> (The Older Gentleman) saying something like:
>>>
>>>> platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [2]I remember at least a couple of Atkinsons.
>>>>
>>>> Ooh! Seddies!
>>>
>>> Foden. The one true lorry.
>>
>> Nah. Atkinson 8-wheeler.
>
> Nah sod that old bollox...
> http://www.marleneogpeter.dk/man%20tgx%20xlx%20480.jpg (this is the diego
> version obv)
>
heh
not a bad guess the other day that you pump juice into a MAN
Have you had a Guy before?
--
wessie at tesco dot net
BMW R1150GS