How will any blockade of refineries affect the trains, if it all?

My girlfriend is due to travel Derby to Newcastle next Monday, and of course 
Voyagers run on Diesel.

Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
rail????

Certainly with so much internal traffic now moved by road - vehicles
for repair and scrap, Railpart, etc etc, there is every chance that
fuel has been lost to rail given the less than trainload quantities
needed per week.

If that is the case, then if the protestors do successfully blockade
refineries, as they did five years ago, there could be a bite on
supplies after a week or so, but not immediately.

We will have to wait and see if there is a real protest level, as in
2000 it was against government imposed rises. These rises are market
imposed accompanied by slight stealth tax increases in the accompanying
VAT so the anti government stance may not be so strong as last time -
although that is no reason for the level of tax on travel that the UK
government takes from it's citizens

"TBirdFrank"  wrote in message 
news:1126516887.581969.53230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
> rail????
>
> Certainly with so much internal traffic now moved by road - vehicles
> for repair and scrap, Railpart, etc etc, there is every chance that
> fuel has been lost to rail given the less than trainload quantities
> needed per week.
>
> If that is the case, then if the protestors do successfully blockade
> refineries, as they did five years ago, there could be a bite on
> supplies after a week or so, but not immediately.
>
> We will have to wait and see if there is a real protest level, as in
> 2000 it was against government imposed rises. These rises are market
> imposed accompanied by slight stealth tax increases in the accompanying
> VAT so the anti government stance may not be so strong as last time -
> although that is no reason for the level of tax on travel that the UK
> government takes from it's citizens
>

There is certainly some rail-borne fuel traffic for depots still- Laira and 
Long Rock, for example.
Brian

TBirdFrank wrote:

> Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
> rail????
>
> Certainly with so much internal traffic now moved by road - vehicles
> for repair and scrap, Railpart, etc etc, there is every chance that
> fuel has been lost to rail given the less than trainload quantities
> needed per week.
>
> If that is the case, then if the protestors do successfully blockade
> refineries, as they did five years ago, there could be a bite on
> supplies after a week or so, but not immediately.
>
> We will have to wait and see if there is a real protest level, as in
> 2000 it was against government imposed rises. These rises are market
> imposed accompanied by slight stealth tax increases in the accompanying
> VAT so the anti government stance may not be so strong as last time -
> although that is no reason for the level of tax on travel that the UK
> government takes from it's citizens



It will depend on whether it's politically expedient.  It wasn't really
plausible that a few people outside the gates really intimidated any
oil companies last time, but for political reasons a crisis was
artificially created.  The situation is different and complicated at
the moment.

A good comment I heard recently was that the real looters in New
Orleans were the oil companies, putting up their prices to gain from
the disaster.

TBirdFrank wrote:

> Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
> rail????
>

Fuel to the EWS depot at Warrington is delivered by rail all the rest
of the depots in the Northwest/North Wales (crewe Holyhead Manchester
etc)is delivered by road.

TBirdFrank wrote:


> Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
> rail????
> 


How do train crews get to work?

Charlie

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:01:04 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
<AnjVe.4239$Q%2.3814@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> TBirdFrank wrote:
> 
> > Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
> > rail????
> 
> How do train crews get to work?


If it comes to it, I expect that we'll be designated "essential
workers" so we can get fuel, as happened last time we saw the road
hauliers hold the country to ransom.


The amusing thing is that the tactics being used by the road hauliers
are precisely those you'll see lambasted in the tabloids when they're
used by French farmers, but you won't see the tabloids lambasting the
hauliers. Lionising them, maybe, and claiming that they're standing up
for "the people", but certainly not lambasting them.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

Ross wrote:


> If it comes to it, I expect that we'll be designated "essential
> workers" so we can get fuel, as happened last time we saw the road
> hauliers hold the country to ransom.


How does that work? I recall long queues at filling stations, many with 
no fuel left, Buxton line trains cancelled for lack of staff, and the 
worry that my mother's home help would not be able to attend.


> The amusing thing is that the tactics being used by the road hauliers
> are precisely those you'll see lambasted in the tabloids when they're
> used by French farmers, but you won't see the tabloids lambasting the
> hauliers. Lionising them, maybe, and claiming that they're standing up
> for "the people", but certainly not lambasting them.
> 


I'd best refrain from expressing my views on this topic.

Charlie

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:47:18 +0100 someone who may be Ross
 wrote this:-


>The amusing thing is that the tactics being used by the road hauliers
>are precisely those you'll see lambasted in the tabloids when they're
>used by French farmers, but you won't see the tabloids lambasting the
>hauliers. Lionising them, maybe, and claiming that they're standing up
>for "the people", but certainly not lambasting them.


Five years ago the Tories amused me, calling the protestors "fine
upstanding people". Not the sort of phrase they usually use for
protestors, except for those "encouraged" by their employers to take
part in the fox hunting march.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In article <AnjVe.4239$Q%2.3814@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Charlie Hulme
 writes

>TBirdFrank wrote:
>
>> Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
>> rail????
>> 
>
>How do train crews get to work?
>
>Charlie
>
>

I believe if the 2000 protest had gone on any longer diesel rail
services would have been disrupted. I think the local TOC was arranging
transport for its essential staff.
The worst problem was bus services which were decimated a 10-15 minute
interval service was reduced to at best a 1/2 hourly service, which
being one man operated were seriously delayed with one driver collecting
fares for a full double-decker. I presume there was some reason that
some of the drivers which had no bus to drive could have become on-board
conductors.

This time it is just supposed to be a 3 day refinery protest so things
should soon get back to normal, just depends whether lorry drivers
escalate this with blockades.

I personally do not mind paying a high fuel tax, if the Chancellor is
forced to reduce it, he must raise taxes elsewhere to balance the books.
So the non-motorist might start paying additional taxes.
USA have cheap petrol (although I understand it is rocketing in price at
a much faster rate than over here) but they go without other government
services e.g. NHS, we might ridicule it but it is better than enforced
private treatment.

Sorry to get a bit political.
 
-- 
Alan

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:11:04 +0100 someone who may be Alan Osborn
 wrote this:-


>I believe if the 2000 protest had gone on any longer diesel rail
>services would have been disrupted.


They were about to be disrupted in Scotland I gather. Fuel had been
switched to the roads a few years earlier.

There are other problems too. If one does lineside maintenance from
motor vans then that will come to a standstill without fuel for the
vans. If one transports spare parts around the UK by lorry then
guess what happens without fuel for the lorries.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

>Five years ago the Tories amused me, calling the protestors "fine
>upstanding people". Not the sort of phrase they usually use for
>protestors, except for those "encouraged" by their employers to take
>part in the fox hunting march.



It was funny how live animal exporters could happily drive over animal
rights protesters with their trucks around that time, but put a couple
of the right sort of chaps at the gates and the oil companies were
quaking in their boots and deciding not to dare drive out of the
refineries.

That was clearly some kind of protest by the oil companies against the
Government, the details of which are outside of my small sphere of
understanding, but the stories about "blockades" certainly didn't add
up.  The oil companies had their own reasons for deciding not to drive
the tankers.

Alan Osborn wrote:

> The worst problem was bus services which were decimated a 10-15 minute
> interval service was reduced to at best a 1/2 hourly service, which
> being one man operated were seriously delayed with one driver collecting
> fares for a full double-decker. I presume there was some reason that
> some of the drivers which had no bus to drive could have become on-board
> conductors.


I was on holiday in Yorkshire at the time - luckily we had access to a 
tank of diesel for the minibus that we were using, so we were about the 
only people on the roads by the end of the week! The main problem we had 
was being rationed bread at the supermarket. No amount of explaining 
that we were buying stuff for a dozen people would let us buy more than 
a couple of loaves. In the end, a few people in the group went into the 
supermarket and bought a couple of loaves each!

Just about managed to get home - National Express were cancelling 
coaches by that point, but my coach from Harrogate to Birmingham still 
ran. The local bus service between Birmingham and Tamworth also ran 
normally, but there were notices on the shelters to expect delays and 
cancelled services.

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

Alan Osborn wrote:

> I believe if the 2000 protest had gone on any longer diesel rail
> services would have been disrupted. 


Shame it didn't, it would have been nice to have seen the strategic reserve put 
into action.

Alan

Aah!

But then you would have had to re-open the pits - and Woodhead!

How come the fuel lobby can get away with their disruptive, antisocial
act? Personally,  I don't like the minimum-fare policy on the Network
Railcard and the hideously expensive fares to travel across London from
one part of southern England to another in the morning rush hour - but
that doesn't give me licence to stand outside a rail depot and disrupt
the railway system. Why do the fuel lobby seem to get special treatment
in the eyes of the law?

Nick

>The worst problem was bus services which were >decimated a 10-15 minute
>interval service was reduced to at best a 1/2 hourly >service, which
>being one man operated were seriously delayed with >one driver collecting>fares for a full double-decker.


The selfishness of the fuel lobby knows no bounds. What are you
supposed to do if you rely on bus (or car, or diesel train) to get to
work? These people just don't give a damn. All they care about are
their own narrow, selfish interests. Most people would be prosecuted
for this sort of thing but the fuel lobby? No. 

Nick

>I'd best refrain from expressing my views on this topic.


Selfish in the extreme? Anti-social? Disruptive? There seems to be a
growing body of reactionary right-wingers who just can't stand having a
Labour government (even though that government is arguably right-wing -
in another way - itself....) and they just want to cause trouble and to
hell with everyone else. Doesn't seem to matter that the root causes
are increases in the *international* price of oil, caused in part by a
hurricane. No, let's make the British people suffer so we can have our
own way.

Nick

On 13 Sep 2005 06:37:24 -0700 someone who may be
nick150971@yahoo.co.uk wrote this:-


>Why do the fuel lobby seem to get special treatment
>in the eyes of the law?


The idea that the law is independent of government is a convenient
myth. In reality the law is heavily in bed with government and
doesn't go too far outside what government wants. The blind eye
turned by the police a couple of years ago to illegal landmines (and
other things) in the arms fair in London is just one of many
examples. This attitude to those inside the tent was in marked
contrast to their activities against protestors outside, which was
certainly illegal in my view though the courts claimed otherwise.

The end result of no justice is no peace.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1568496,00.html
compares the fool protestors with the miners and it makes an
interesting comparison.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

So you are quite happy to have taxation of a minority and share in the
benefits. Fuel taxation is just as wrong as Council Tax or as was the
Poll Tax.

If there is a taxation burden to be borne it should be shared by all of
the earning population, not on the whim of how they choose to spend, or
how many of them live together, after they have paid tax on what they
have earned.

As for "if you travel by car or bus or coach or train" - think of what
if you own the car, bus, coach but not the train which uses "red" and
your overheads are going inexorably up and your patronage down as
spending power is syphoned into the tank and not into the paybox.

Not just travel, but employment, service levels etc all decline
markedly.

The point of the fuel lobby is to retain the capacity for present
service levels in the long term, not to see them priced out of
existence.

>Five years ago the Tories amused me, calling the protestors "fine
>upstanding people".


Yes, ironic really. Somewhat at odds with "law and order" and "old
fashioned values", isn't it? It's disgusting that a priest goes to jail
because he can't afford to pay council tax (or so I heard), yet this
gang of wanton troublemakers can carry out their morally-bankrupt acts
without fear of as much as an on-the-spot fine. Time for the law to
align with good old fashioned morals if you ask me...

Nick

In message , at 
06:53:35 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, nick150971@yahoo.co.uk remarked:

>It's disgusting that a priest goes to jail
>because he can't afford to pay council tax (or so I heard)


There's no suggestion he can't afford it. He's making a protest that the 
council tax has increased above inflation. While I have much sympathy 
for this point of view, the balance between local and national tax 
gathering is bound to swing towards the local, when the government is 
under such pressure not to increase national tax.
-- 
Roland Perry

wrote in message 
news:1126618644.799923.56050@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> How come the fuel lobby can get away with their disruptive, antisocial
> act? Personally,  I don't like the minimum-fare policy on the Network
> Railcard and the hideously expensive fares to travel across London from
> one part of southern England to another in the morning rush hour - but
> that doesn't give me licence to stand outside a rail depot and disrupt
> the railway system. Why do the fuel lobby seem to get special treatment
> in the eyes of the law?


It can't be because they are all taking orders from a political direction 
opposed to the current government as I suspected last time it happened! 
Narrrr, couldn't be, could it?

Leave it to the Freemason Constabulary to sort it out, like they did when 
giving "Slow escorts" to trucks on the Motorway and NOT protecting the 
Drivers of Watson Fuels (Small Northwest petroleum distributor) who were 
defying the "no deliveries" policy of the large companies.

The FIRST thing that should happen at any protest is... Get the ministry 
fuel dippers to test for "Red Diesel" on the vehicles, should prove 
interesting.

KW

In message 
          nick150971@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


> > The worst problem was bus services which were >decimated a 10-15 minute
> > interval service was reduced to at best a 1/2 hourly >service, which
> > being one man operated were seriously delayed with >one driver
> > collecting>fares for a full double-decker.
> 
> The selfishness of the fuel lobby knows no bounds. What are you
> supposed to do if you rely on bus (or car, or diesel train) to get to
> work? These people just don't give a damn. All they care about are
> their own narrow, selfish interests. Most people would be prosecuted
> for this sort of thing but the fuel lobby? No. 
> 


The 'organiser' appears to be a failed politician, trying an alternative way
to get elected.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:25:50 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>>It's disgusting that a priest goes to jail
>>because he can't afford to pay council tax (or so I heard)
>
>There's no suggestion he can't afford it.


That is my recollection of one of the things he is quoted as saying.


>He's making a protest that the council tax has increased above inflation.


Unlike his pension. Jobsworth officials with salaries that rise in
line with inflation tend to forget that not everyone is as lucky.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:34:39 GMT someone who may be "Ken Ward"
 wrote this:-


>The FIRST thing that should happen at any protest is... Get the ministry 
>fuel dippers to test for "Red Diesel" on the vehicles, should prove 
>interesting.


It was suggested five years ago, as farmers are provided with this
for farming and not for protesting. However, those that claim to
enforce the law were notably reluctant to do this.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

wrote in message
news:1126619615.624899.244380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> >Five years ago the Tories amused me, calling the protestors "fine
> >upstanding people".
>
> Yes, ironic really. Somewhat at odds with "law and order" and "old
> fashioned values", isn't it? It's disgusting that a priest goes to jail
> because he can't afford to pay council tax (or so I heard), yet this
> gang of wanton troublemakers can carry out their morally-bankrupt acts
> without fear of as much as an on-the-spot fine. Time for the law to
> align with good old fashioned morals if you ask me...
>
> Nick


He went to jail for not obeying a court order. Not because he refused to pay
council tax. It's a very significant difference.

>

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message
news:Pkxon90uFuJDFAMi@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message , at
> 06:53:35 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, nick150971@yahoo.co.uk remarked:
> >It's disgusting that a priest goes to jail
> >because he can't afford to pay council tax (or so I heard)
>
> There's no suggestion he can't afford it. He's making a protest that the
> council tax has increased above inflation. While I have much sympathy
> for this point of view, the balance between local and national tax
> gathering is bound to swing towards the local, when the government is
> under such pressure not to increase national tax.
> -- 
> Roland Perry


And also why does being a priest have anything to do with the matter? Or is
it because if  he was a C of E priest he has only come up against the
reality of paying property taxes since retirement?

wrote in message
news:1126618644.799923.56050@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> How come the fuel lobby can get away with their disruptive, antisocial
> act? Personally,  I don't like the minimum-fare policy on the Network
> Railcard and the hideously expensive fares to travel across London from
> one part of southern England to another in the morning rush hour - but
> that doesn't give me licence to stand outside a rail depot and disrupt
> the railway system. Why do the fuel lobby seem to get special treatment
> in the eyes of the law?
>
> Nick


You can protest all you like outside a rail depot if you want to.

>

In message , at 17:28:27 on 
Tue, 13 Sep 2005, David Hansen  
remarked:

>>>It's disgusting that a priest goes to jail
>>>because he can't afford to pay council tax (or so I heard)
>>
>>There's no suggestion he can't afford it.
>
>That is my recollection of one of the things he is quoted as saying.


Then you must have listened to different reports. I happened to be "on 
the road" that day, and listening to the news. There was no suggestion 
that this was anything other than a "matter of principle" over inflation 
rates.


>>He's making a protest that the council tax has increased above inflation.
>
>Unlike his pension. Jobsworth officials with salaries that rise in
>line with inflation tend to forget that not everyone is as lucky.


Priests are "officials" are they? And what makes you think they have a 
pension that's inflation proof?
-- 
Roland Perry

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:39:41 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>Priests are "officials" are they?


I don't think so.


>And what makes you think they have a 
>pension that's inflation proof?


It is not something I think.

The jobsworth officials are the ones in the council and "legal"
"system" who are responsible for sending the man to prison.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message <weDVe.24400$k22.13054@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at 
16:36:44 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Tom Haliax  
remarked:

>And also why does being a priest have anything to do with the matter?


The idea that you only send "crooks" to jail, and someone who has 
dedicated his entire life to community service shouldn't be designated a 
"crook" on such a flimsy pretence.


>Or is it because if  he was a C of E priest he has only come up against 
>the reality of paying property taxes since retirement?


That may be part of the practical reality.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <veDVe.24399$k22.23268@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at 
16:36:43 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Tom Haliax  
remarked:

>He went to jail for not obeying a court order. Not because he refused to pay
>council tax. It's a very significant difference.


Listening to him on the day, it wasn't a difference, He agreed he had 
the money, but was refusing to pay on a "matter of principle".
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:51:04 on 
Tue, 13 Sep 2005, David Hansen  
remarked:

>The jobsworth officials are the ones in the council and "legal"
>"system" who are responsible for sending the man to prison.


They were claiming they had "no alternative". It did sound strange, as 
far worse infringements get 10hrs community service.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at 17:51:04 on 
> Tue, 13 Sep 2005, David Hansen  remarked:
> 
>> The jobsworth officials are the ones in the council and "legal"
>> "system" who are responsible for sending the man to prison.
> 
> They were claiming they had "no alternative". It did sound strange, as 
> far worse infringements get 10hrs community service.


The magistrates don't have a choice.  Under the The Council Tax 
(Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, If they find the 
debtor guilty of failing pay due to "wilful refusal or culpable neglect" 
then all they can do is either committ them to prison for up to three 
months or give them a suspended sentence and an order to pay so much a 
week/month.

In case like the vicar who was refusing to pay, it was going to be a 
waste of everybody's time handing down a suspended sentence and an order 
to pay by instalments, so magistrates did the only other thing they 
could do which is send him to prison.

On 13 Sep 2005 03:40:13 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:


>That was clearly some kind of protest by the oil companies against the
>Government, the details of which are outside of my small sphere of
>understanding, but the stories about "blockades" certainly didn't add
>up.  The oil companies had their own reasons for deciding not to drive
>the tankers.


And, one would suspect, the Government for "giving in" rather than
sending in the Army.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:11:04 +0100, Alan Osborn
 wrote:


>The worst problem was bus services which were decimated a 10-15 minute
>interval service was reduced to at best a 1/2 hourly service, which
>being one man operated were seriously delayed with one driver collecting
>fares for a full double-decker. I presume there was some reason that
>some of the drivers which had no bus to drive could have become on-board
>conductors.


One would presume that some of them had trouble getting to work if
they had to drive the first bus of the day, or if they lived nowhere
near the bus route.  That said, a bit of creative diagramming using
those drivers who lived within walking distance of the depot to sign
on early and pick the others up would solve that.

However, the other problem is that if you crush-load, you'd never get
a conductor round.

Digressing a bit, I'd be in support of the protests if they were in
favour of the Government changing their transport and energy policy
drastically with the aim to reduce dependence on oil.  Tuppence off a
litre of petrol is neither here nor there for me given the very low
mileage I do in my car, and isn't really helping anyone.

Meanwhile, the road haulage lobby think they're the be-all-and-end-all
of transport, which gets on my nerves.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message
news:DV57rrIMMwJDFAOz@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message <weDVe.24400$k22.13054@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at
> 16:36:44 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Tom Haliax 
> remarked:
> >And also why does being a priest have anything to do with the matter?
>
> The idea that you only send "crooks" to jail, and someone who has
> dedicated his entire life to community service shouldn't be designated a
> "crook" on such a flimsy pretence.
>
> >Or is it because if  he was a C of E priest he has only come up against
> >the reality of paying property taxes since retirement?
>
> That may be part of the practical reality.
> -- 
> Roland Perry


I'm not sure being a nice chap is a don't go to jail card, but I would have
thought that if it was within the magistrates powers it would have been
better to give a non custodial sentence.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Neil Williams wrote:

[of heavily loaded buses]

> However, the other problem is that if you crush-load, you'd never 
> get a conductor round.


When I were a lad, in that situation the conductor/tress stood on the 
platform selling tickets to the passengers who'd just boarded, 
before directing them upstairs (if there were still seats) or packing 
them into the saloon. 

I noted that on conductor-operated Amsterdam trams, the passengers 
entered a boarding space at the rear, and then had to file past the 
conductor's desk (buying a ticket as necessary on the way) to reach 
the body of the tram.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:45:06 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
 wrote:


>I noted that on conductor-operated Amsterdam trams, the passengers 
>entered a boarding space at the rear, and then had to file past the 
>conductor's desk (buying a ticket as necessary on the way) to reach 
>the body of the tram.


Yep, I was rather surprised by that as well.  It was apparently their
answer to astronomical fare evasion rates.

I wasn't too keen on it, TBH, I'd rather a roving conductor, as the
"conductor in a box" had all the boarding delay problems of having the
driver take fares due to the layout, while none of the staff cost
savings of doing so.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

>I'm not sure being a nice chap is a don't go to jail >card


I think it is if the idea of jail is to keep people who are a danger to
the public out of the public's way....

Nick

In message , at 18:42:04 on Tue, 13 Sep 
2005, Mark Morton  remarked:

>In case like the vicar who was refusing to pay, it was going to be a 
>waste of everybody's time handing down a suspended sentence and an 
>order to pay by instalments, so magistrates did the only other thing 
>they could do which is send him to prison.


Could they choose the length of time?
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at 18:42:04 on Tue, 13 Sep 
> 2005, Mark Morton  remarked:
> 
>> In case like the vicar who was refusing to pay, it was going to be a 
>> waste of everybody's time handing down a suspended sentence and an 
>> order to pay by instalments, so magistrates did the only other thing 
>> they could do which is send him to prison.
> 
> Could they choose the length of time?


Yes, IIRC.  It's five years since I stopped working in local government 
finance but I remember some sentences being only a few days (if it 
wasn't for much money) or being the full three months (for those who 
obviously have lots of money but who just don't like paying or wanted to 
put off paying it as long as possible).

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:05:22 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
<CYmVe.12671$7p3.183@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> 
> > If it comes to it, I expect that we'll be designated "essential
> > workers" so we can get fuel, as happened last time we saw the road
> > hauliers hold the country to ransom.
> 
> How does that work? I recall long queues at filling stations, many with 
> no fuel left, Buxton line trains cancelled for lack of staff, and the 
> worry that my mother's home help would not be able to attend.


Last time special letters were issued, which I think had to be backed
up with ID, and which I assume allowed use of the "restricted" filling
stations used by the police and so on. 

 

> > The amusing thing is that the tactics being used by the road hauliers
> > are precisely those you'll see lambasted in the tabloids when they're
> > used by French farmers, but you won't see the tabloids lambasting the
> > hauliers. Lionising them, maybe, and claiming that they're standing up
> > for "the people", but certainly not lambasting them.
> 
> I'd best refrain from expressing my views on this topic.


I suspect they're the same as mine.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
news:AnjVe.4239$Q%2.3814@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

> TBirdFrank wrote:
>
> > Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
> > rail????
> >
>
> How do train crews get to work?


Dunno about crews but last time Railtrack got a very large tank of petrol
(or diesel?) delivered to a location in Manchester for key vehicles to use,
and "management" just hired cars with full tanks from hire companies who
also had large stocks to hand. They reckoned on being self-sufficient for
seveal weeks..!

TM

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:10:26 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>They were claiming they had "no alternative".


Jobsworths tend to. After all they are only doing their job.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:42:04 +0100 someone who may be Mark Morton
 wrote this:-


>The magistrates don't have a choice.


Really. You then continued with an "if", which implies they did not.

Given that Mr Liar and his cronies committed offences under the
Terrorism Act 2000 when they invaded Iraq, Mr Prudent committing
more than most due to his financing of the terrorism, yet the
"legal" "system" has not lifted a finger against them, I conclude
that it is only "little people" who are singled out. Classic
bullying behaviour.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:36:00 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
 wrote this:-


>The 'organiser' appears to be a failed politician, trying an alternative way
>to get elected.


And one of the 'organisers' last time has become a party politician
and is distancing himself from the current "protest". I am not a
mind reader so don't pretend to know whether this distancing is just
for show or real.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

TBirdFrank wrote:

> 
> So you are quite happy to have taxation of a minority and share in the
> benefits. Fuel taxation is just as wrong as Council Tax or as was the
> Poll Tax.


Fuel tax is there to discourage use of a scarce and harmful resource.
View it like tobacco and alcohol tax.

Cheers

mark-r

-- 
"Let's meet the panel. You couldn't ask for four finer comedians -
so that answers your next question..."
 -- Humphrey Lyttleton

MIG wrote:

> 
> That was clearly some kind of protest by the oil companies against the
> Government, the details of which are outside of my small sphere of
> understanding, but the stories about "blockades" certainly didn't add
> up.  The oil companies had their own reasons for deciding not to drive
> the tankers.


Maybe the oil companies did not want to provoke an all-out strike by the
tanker drivers? That would have made a bad situation even worse.

-- 
John Ray, London UK.

With respect Mark - Bxxxxxks

Tax is there to raise revenue for the treasury.

They can't see further than the next 31st March!

TBirdFrank wrote:


> Tax is there to raise revenue for the treasury.


Correct, and it's needed to pay for the huge costs of the police, NHS and Social 
Services generated by people who misuse tobacco, alcohol and motor vehicles.

In message <dg96ln$lic$1@fantastix.bangor.ac.uk>, at 13:56:23 on Wed, 14 
Sep 2005, A.C.P. Crawshaw  remarked:

>> Tax is there to raise revenue for the treasury.
>
>Correct, and it's needed to pay for the huge costs of the police, NHS 
>and Social Services generated by people who misuse tobacco, alcohol and 
>motor vehicles.


Except, as we've seen before, the cost of the police (to take one 
example) is a *total* of about a tenth of the tax gathered, and they are 
dealing with lots of things *as well* as the misuse of motor vehicles.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Ross"  wrote in message
news:1mbei1d9f2uk6f4okfm2db12hgc57ngbq8@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:05:22 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
> <CYmVe.12671$7p3.183@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:
> > Ross wrote:
> >
> > > If it comes to it, I expect that we'll be designated "essential
> > > workers" so we can get fuel, as happened last time we saw the road
> > > hauliers hold the country to ransom.
> >
> > >
>
> > > The amusing thing is that the tactics being used by the road hauliers
> > > are precisely those you'll see lambasted in the tabloids when they're
> > > used by French farmers, but you won't see the tabloids lambasting the
> > > hauliers. Lionising them, maybe, and claiming that they're standing up
> > > for "the people", but certainly not lambasting them.
> >
> > I'd best refrain from expressing my views on this topic.
>
> I suspect they're the same as mine.
>
> -- 
> Are they the same about well paid railway staff going on strike for more

money?
My view is that groups can do what they like so long as they don't break the
law - which makes protesting and going on strike for whatever reason OK.

In message <PIVVe.68133$2n6.20444@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at 
13:37:51 on Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Tom Haliax  
remarked:

>My view is that groups can do what they like so long as they don't break the
>law - which makes protesting and going on strike for whatever reason OK.


Except secondary strikes are against the law.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message
news:m6mCQM69ADKDFAgY@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message <PIVVe.68133$2n6.20444@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at
> 13:37:51 on Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Tom Haliax 
> remarked:
> >My view is that groups can do what they like so long as they don't break
the
> >law - which makes protesting and going on strike for whatever reason OK.
>
> Except secondary strikes are against the law.
> -- 
> Roland Perry


Yes. I should have linked "don't break the law" with second part of the
sentence.

TBirdFrank wrote:

> 
> With respect Mark - Bxxxxxks
> 
> Tax is there to raise revenue for the treasury.


*Taxation* is there to raise revenue for the treasury, yes, but how
the government chooses to levy taxes is far more complex. Taxes can
be divided roughly into 2 catagories:

1) Those that tax according to a measure of [disposable] wealth -
income tax, property taxes, VAT, etc.

2) Those that tax to discourage use - tobacco, alocohol, fuel duty,
climate change levy, etc.

Both are perfectly fair means of raising taxes.

Cheers

mark-r  

-- 
"Let's meet the panel. You couldn't ask for four finer comedians -
so that answers your next question..."
 -- Humphrey Lyttleton

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:37:51 GMT, Tom Haliax wrote in
<PIVVe.68133$2n6.20444@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> "Ross"  wrote in message
> news:1mbei1d9f2uk6f4okfm2db12hgc57ngbq8@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:05:22 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
> > <CYmVe.12671$7p3.183@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:
> > > Ross wrote:
[...]
> > > > The amusing thing is that the tactics being used by the road hauliers
> > > > are precisely those you'll see lambasted in the tabloids when they're
> > > > used by French farmers, but you won't see the tabloids lambasting the
> > > > hauliers. Lionising them, maybe, and claiming that they're standing up
> > > > for "the people", but certainly not lambasting them.
> > >
> > > I'd best refrain from expressing my views on this topic.
> >
> > I suspect they're the same as mine.
> >
> Are they the same about well paid railway staff going on strike for more
> money?


No. Railway staff going on strike _directly_ affect only the railway
industry. They don't go out and block roads to ensure that unaffected
businesses are also directly disrupted, which is what the fuel
protestors are doing/threatening to do.



> My view is that groups can do what they like so long as they don't break the
> law - which makes protesting and going on strike for whatever reason OK.


I'm all for legal protests and strikes being acceptable; what I am not
willing to accept is secondary action being passed off as public
protest when it is nothing of the sort.

A RHA rep was interviewed on BBC News 24 and said that the road
haulage industry should be subsidised by the government in order that
the industry didn't lose money, and (inter alia) that such subsidy
would negate the 'need' for protests. I'm pretty sure that if railway
staff were to blockade the country in a campaign to obtain more
subsidy for their industry, we wouldn't see the tabloid press
lionising them as fighting for "the people", unlike the impression I
receive of the tabloid attitude towards the fuel lobby.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:iivdi1d02cejin6kr3u41majt71vrss6f6@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:34:39 GMT someone who may be "Ken Ward"
>  wrote this:-
>
>>The FIRST thing that should happen at any protest is... Get the ministry
>>fuel dippers to test for "Red Diesel" on the vehicles, should prove
>>interesting.
>
> It was suggested five years ago, as farmers are provided with this
> for farming and not for protesting. However, those that claim to
> enforce the law were notably reluctant to do this.


So can anyone explain what the farmers were protesting about, as they 
weren't paying the tax anyway?

Do *not* get me started on farmers...

"A.C.P. Crawshaw"  wrote in message 
news:dg6gom$c45$1@fantastix.bangor.ac.uk...

> Alan Osborn wrote:
>> I believe if the 2000 protest had gone on any longer diesel rail
>> services would have been disrupted.
>
> Shame it didn't, it would have been nice to have seen the strategic 
> reserve put into action.
>
> Alan


Nobody expects the S******** R******!

John Tattersall wrote:

>Do *not* get me started on farmers...


Need a cure?
<http://www.preparationh.co.uk/>


Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: Colin Blunstone - She Loves The Way They Love Her (from the album 'Some Years: It's the Time of Colin Blunstone')

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:48:25 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
<dga2ap$5m5$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> "David Hansen"  wrote in message 
> news:iivdi1d02cejin6kr3u41majt71vrss6f6@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:34:39 GMT someone who may be "Ken Ward"
> >  wrote this:-
> >
> >>The FIRST thing that should happen at any protest is... Get the ministry
> >>fuel dippers to test for "Red Diesel" on the vehicles, should prove
> >>interesting.
> >
> > It was suggested five years ago, as farmers are provided with this
> > for farming and not for protesting. However, those that claim to
> > enforce the law were notably reluctant to do this.
> 
> So can anyone explain what the farmers were protesting about, as they 
> weren't paying the tax anyway?


I've been taken to task on another group for pointing out about
farmers and red diesel, as apparently farmers fuel costs have risen by
50% over the past couple of years (just as it has for everyone else).

My response can best be summed up as a total lack of sympathy. 

 

> Do *not* get me started on farmers...


What, not even if I provide you with suitable weaponry? ;-) 

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"John Tattersall"  wrote

>
> Nobody expects the S******** R******!
>

Nobody expects the S****** I********** ;-)

Peter

In Newton-le-Willows tonight, 2 of the 3 filling stations
were open at 20.45 with no queues, no flared tempers
and no rationing or minimum/maximum spend limits.

I happened to be out walking, not driving, and spoke to
a counter assistant who is a near neighbour of mine.
She was most relieved after her trauma on Monday, when
all the tanks were drained by 18.00. They were replenished
this morning and business is now almost at normal level.


Regards,

DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass)

Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:48:25 +0100, "John Tattersall"
 wrote:


>
>"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
>news:iivdi1d02cejin6kr3u41majt71vrss6f6@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:34:39 GMT someone who may be "Ken Ward"
>>  wrote this:-
>>
>>>The FIRST thing that should happen at any protest is... Get the ministry
>>>fuel dippers to test for "Red Diesel" on the vehicles, should prove
>>>interesting.
>>
>> It was suggested five years ago, as farmers are provided with this
>> for farming and not for protesting. However, those that claim to
>> enforce the law were notably reluctant to do this.
>
>So can anyone explain what the farmers were protesting about, as they 
>weren't paying the tax anyway?
>

They are if it's in the tanks of any vehicle used on a public road
otherwise things are going to get interesting when some of HM's
servants start dipping their tanks.


>Do *not* get me started on farmers...
>

A painful point ?
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Ross wrote:


> No. Railway staff going on strike _directly_ affect only the railway
> industry. They don't go out and block roads to ensure that unaffected
> businesses are also directly disrupted, which is what the fuel
> protestors are doing/threatening to do.


Let it be understood that I'm on your side, Ross, but your argument is
compromised by the fact that if a rail strike is effective, the roads
get snarled up by the railway's customers making other arrangements,
leading to much the same outcome.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632815.html
(31 409 at Birmingham New Street, Jun 1985)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:04:09 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote in
<1gdtj787q7ate$.gt64shukprcz.dlg@40tude.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> 
> > No. Railway staff going on strike _directly_ affect only the railway
> > industry. They don't go out and block roads to ensure that unaffected
> > businesses are also directly disrupted, which is what the fuel
> > protestors are doing/threatening to do.
> 
> Let it be understood that I'm on your side, Ross, but your argument is
> compromised by the fact that if a rail strike is effective, the roads
> get snarled up by the railway's customers making other arrangements,
> leading to much the same outcome.


Being me and aware of the effects, I specifically used the wording I
did to emphasise the difference in intention; the railway staff
striking don't directly intend to cause road disruption, unlike the
fuel protestors go-slows and refinery blockades.

To reverse it, had the fuel protestors successfully blockaded the
refineries, rail service would have been affected, but it would not
have been the intention of those protestors to cause that.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:39:41 UTC, Roland Perry  
wrote:

: >>He's making a protest that the council tax has increased above inflation.
: >
: >Unlike his pension. Jobsworth officials with salaries that rise in
: >line with inflation tend to forget that not everyone is as lucky.
:  
: Priests are "officials" are they? And what makes you think they have a 
: pension that's inflation proof?

I suspect that the words "unlike" and "his" may have been relevant.

Ian


--

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:03:25 UTC, Ross  
wrote:

: I've been taken to task on another group for pointing out about
: farmers and red diesel, as apparently farmers fuel costs have risen by
: 50% over the past couple of years (just as it has for everyone else).
:  
: My response can best be summed up as a total lack of sympathy. 

Five years ago we were assured that every hill farmer in the country 
was about to go out of business. Anyone seen an abandoned hill farm 
since then?

Ian

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:03:25 +0100 someone who may be Ross
 wrote this:-


>I've been taken to task on another group for pointing out about
>farmers and red diesel, as apparently farmers fuel costs have risen by
>50% over the past couple of years (just as it has for everyone else).


Including those railway companies who were so keen to build diesel
trains instead of electrifying.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

There is one massive weakness in your argument about subsidy though.

Hauliers aren't subsidised - no matter how environmental flat earthers
may try to bend statistics to say they are.

The railways are subsidised massively - to the tune of roundly £90.00
per annum per every man woman and child in the UK.

It is that and the fact that rural transport can be bought much more
cheaply per capita than by a rural branch line which is predicating the
presaged next round of closures.

ACoRP are doing a sterling job trying to raise the profile of many
branch lines around the country, but if it comes to a 142 nodding down
a basic railway three times a day, or a road vehicle essentially on
call to do the same job at a lesser cost you can see clearly which way
the Civil Servants are likely to lean.

TBirdFrank wrote:

> Hauliers aren't subsidised - no matter how environmental flat earthers
> may try to bend statistics to say they are.


Of course they are. Hauliers don't have to build, fence, signal or 
maintain the roads they work on. That's the main reason why:

> The railways are subsidised massively

.... because the railways do have to do so. If the maintenance of the
railway infrastructure were carried out by national and local government
on the same terms as it is for the roads, railways would appear to be
very much cheaper to run and use, just like roads.

But of course, you knew your argument was weak otherwise you wouldn't
have inserted the pre-emptive insults suggesting that anyone who
disagreed would be "environmental flat earthers".
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632812.html
(31 406 at Birmingham New Street, 4 Oct 1981)

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:CYmVe.12671$7p3.183@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> Ross wrote:
>
>> If it comes to it, I expect that we'll be designated "essential
>> workers" so we can get fuel, as happened last time we saw the road
>> hauliers hold the country to ransom.
>
> How does that work? I recall long queues at filling stations, many with no 
> fuel left, Buxton line trains cancelled for lack of staff, and the worry 
> that my mother's home help would not be able to attend.



Red diesel for the most part. The memo I saw said that as long as records 
were kept of the quantites used then the revenue would catch up with the tax 
later. Dunno how that would work when in 5 years some poor unsuspecting sod 
got pulled due to traces of red diesel in the tank thou ;-o

Jeff.

TBirdFrank wrote:

> There is one massive weakness in your argument about subsidy though.
>
> Hauliers aren't subsidised - no matter how environmental flat earthers
> may try to bend statistics to say they are.


Several years ago the government commissioned a study which produced
the NERA report.  This clearly showed that HGVs did not cover their
costs and were cross subsidised by the private car.

Since then the only changes have been a massive REDUCTION in HGV excise
licence costs and a freezing of diesel duties.  Therefore the subsidy
for HGVs has grown rather than shrunk.

George

In message 
          "TBirdFrank"  wrote:


> There is one massive weakness in your argument about subsidy though.
> 
> Hauliers aren't subsidised - no matter how environmental flat earthers
> may try to bend statistics to say they are.


Yes they are, by the private motorist.


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On 15 Sep 2005 04:28:33 -0700, TBirdFrank wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:


> There is one massive weakness in your argument about subsidy though.


As you refuse to provide any context for your posts, I'm not sure what
argument you're referring to and I shall thus treat your post as an
entirely new one.
 


> Hauliers aren't subsidised - no matter how environmental flat earthers
> may try to bend statistics to say they are.


That's a point of view, certainly. I shall leave others to point out
why you are talking bollocks. 

 

> The railways are subsidised massively - to the tune of roundly 90.00
> per annum per every man woman and child in the UK.


Indeed. 

 
[...]

> ACoRP are doing a sterling job trying to raise the profile of many
> branch lines around the country, but if it comes to a 142 nodding down
> a basic railway three times a day, or a road vehicle essentially on
> call to do the same job at a lesser cost you can see clearly which way
> the Civil Servants are likely to lean.


And if it's a marginal constituency, you can see which way their
political masters will likely lean. They have, after all, done so
repeatedly in the past.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On 14 Sep 2005 23:22:24 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote in
<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-guf1QohwMzOD@localhost>, seen in uk.railway:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:03:25 UTC, Ross  
> wrote:
> 
> : I've been taken to task on another group for pointing out about
> : farmers and red diesel, as apparently farmers fuel costs have risen by
> : 50% over the past couple of years (just as it has for everyone else).
> :  
> : My response can best be summed up as a total lack of sympathy. 
> 
> Five years ago we were assured that every hill farmer in the country 
> was about to go out of business. Anyone seen an abandoned hill farm 
> since then?


Quite.

You see some very expensive cars in rural Lincolnshire, I know that
much.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

In message , Ross 
 writes

>On 14 Sep 2005 23:22:24 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote in
><cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-guf1QohwMzOD@localhost>, seen in uk.railway:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:03:25 UTC, Ross 
>> wrote:
>>
>> : I've been taken to task on another group for pointing out about
>> : farmers and red diesel, as apparently farmers fuel costs have risen by
>> : 50% over the past couple of years (just as it has for everyone else).
>> :
>> : My response can best be summed up as a total lack of sympathy.
>>
>> Five years ago we were assured that every hill farmer in the country
>> was about to go out of business. Anyone seen an abandoned hill farm
>> since then?
>
>Quite.
>
>You see some very expensive cars in rural Lincolnshire, I know that
>much.


But *surely* not many hill farms, Ross?   :-))

(Yes I know about the Wolds!)
-- 
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:32:02 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
 wrote this:-


>> Hauliers aren't subsidised - no matter how environmental flat earthers
>> may try to bend statistics to say they are.
>
>Of course they are. Hauliers don't have to build, fence, signal or 
>maintain the roads they work on. That's the main reason why:


There is another factor.

Imagine roads designed for cars. The lanes would be narrower, the
foundations much less. All in all roads would be far cheaper to
build and maintain. Designing and maintaining roads for lorries is
expensive and the lorry operators are certainly not paying these
extra costs.

Unlike their road competitors the railway freight companies pay for
the more robust infrastructure their operations demand.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:52:42 +0100 someone who may be Ross
 wrote this:-


>> The railways are subsidised massively - to the tune of roundly 90.00
>> per annum per every man woman and child in the UK.
>
>Indeed. 


As little as that. A bargain.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On 15 Sep 2005 04:28:33 -0700, "TBirdFrank"
 wrote:



>The railways are subsidised massively - to the tune of roundly 90.00
>per annum per every man woman and child in the UK.
>


And very good value at that........................

G

"TBirdFrank"  wrote:

>
>Yes - all very interesting but this started out as a financial
>statement and not a civil engineering one.



My post was a perfectly valid and useful reply to Ian's.  As you
clearly didn't like it, I will be happy to offer you a 100% refund of
what you paid for it, a figure which appears to be not unadjacent to
0.00 including VAT at 17.5%.

In order to avoid any further misunderstandings on your part, I
suggest you should put me in your kill file, as I have done with you.
Please do it now.  

;-)

TBirdFrank wrote:


> Q - Does HMG spend all the revenue raised in vehicle excise duty, fuel
> duty, testing fees etc - leaving aside entirely the question of VAT and
> Corporation Tax from the haulage sector on maintenance of the road
> network


You have a talent for making impressive-looking but essentially
meaningless points, but that, in itself, is not your problem. Your
problem is that your audience here includes many people with a talent
for spotting them.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683803.html
(153 370 at Llanelli, 3 Jul 1999)

On 16 Sep 2005 14:11:34 -0700, TBirdFrank wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:


> There's a lot of hills in Licolnshire too Ross - as you might have
> noticed as you speed across the sweeping plains in your 15?


<sigh>

I take it you've never tried cycling up onto the Wolds, then?


Y'know, at least Chippy is an interesting troll, and Polson has the
occasional useful information to impart. You're just boring, and
repeatedly so.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message
news:74ad41ab4d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...

> In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-oQflCUsddUdD@localhost>
>           "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:28:33 UTC, "TBirdFrank"
> >  wrote:
> >
> > : > Damage caused by vehicles is proportional to the cube of the weight
so a 44
> tonne lorry will cause 44 x 44 x 44 = 85184 times as much damage as a 1
tonne
> car.  Car tax is 160 quid, HGVs pay around a grand.
>
> Where did you get that info. from?  Was it an authoritive source?

In message <_VYWe.76111$2n6.74889@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
          "Tom Haliax"  wrote:


> 
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message
> news:74ad41ab4d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-oQflCUsddUdD@localhost>
> >           "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:28:33 UTC, "TBirdFrank"
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > : > Damage caused by vehicles is proportional to the cube of the weight
> > > so a 44
> > tonne lorry will cause 44 x 44 x 44 = 85184 times as much damage as a 1
> > tonne car.  Car tax is 160 quid, HGVs pay around a grand.
> >
> > Where did you get that info. from?  Was it an authoritive source?
> 
> 


From a text book on mechanics circa 1966, seems I misrembered it; according
to Tony Polson its the 4th power not the third.  In other words its 3,748,096
times as much damage.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:00:27 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>Where does one factor in the number of axles and wheels into a 
>calculation like that? Or is the damage caused by a 16-wheel HGV the 
>same as a hypothetical 4-wheel one?


That rather depends on what precisely one is looking at. I gather
that for much of the road network (measured by distance) the number
of axles is important. However, where the lorry is shorter than the
structure it is on then the number of axles become largely
irrelevant.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=654&id=1908462005 is an
illustration of the sort of thing the lorry industry doesn't like to
mention when they claim that heavier lorries on more axles cause
less damage to the roads. However, the story fails to mention that
the number of cars on the Forth Road Bridge has also increased since
opening and these must also be having an effect on the road surface.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message , at 08:45:44 on 
Sun, 18 Sep 2005, David Hansen  
remarked:

>>Where does one factor in the number of axles and wheels into a
>>calculation like that? Or is the damage caused by a 16-wheel HGV the
>>same as a hypothetical 4-wheel one?
>
>That rather depends on what precisely one is looking at. I gather
>that for much of the road network (measured by distance) the number
>of axles is important. However, where the lorry is shorter than the
>structure it is on then the number of axles become largely
>irrelevant.
>
>http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=654&id=1908462005 is an
>illustration of the sort of thing the lorry industry doesn't like to
>mention when they claim that heavier lorries on more axles cause
>less damage to the roads. However, the story fails to mention that
>the number of cars on the Forth Road Bridge has also increased since
>opening and these must also be having an effect on the road surface.


I really do think there are two different things being conflated here. 
While I can appreciate that the *structure* of a bridge (eg the 
suspension towers and cabling) might be damaged by the entire weight of 
a vehicle, the road *surface* is deflected and deformed by the local 
pressure of each wheel. What you end up with are furrows in the tarmac.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:53:47 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>I really do think there are two different things being conflated here. 


I think the answer is yes and no, but it is not something I know
much about. I suspect the flexing of a long structure has an effect
on how the surface attached to it wears out.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Alan Osborn"  wrote in message 
news:H1G+wiAo7eJDFw9b@burwellmdw.demon.co.uk...

> In article <AnjVe.4239$Q%2.3814@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Charlie Hulme
>  writes
>>TBirdFrank wrote:
>>
>>> Do depots now have their fuel delivered by road tanker rather than by
>>> rail????
>>>
>>
>>How do train crews get to work?
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>
> I believe if the 2000 protest had gone on any longer diesel rail
> services would have been disrupted. I think the local TOC was arranging
> transport for its essential staff.
> The worst problem was bus services which were decimated a 10-15 minute
> interval service was reduced to at best a 1/2 hourly service, which
> being one man operated were seriously delayed with one driver collecting
> fares for a full double-decker. I presume there was some reason that
> some of the drivers which had no bus to drive could have become on-board
> conductors.
>

<Snip>

Probably the lack of hand-held ticket machines.

A funny story form the bus world in the2000 difficulties - two operators 
with adjacent depots in a midlands city fell out when fuel destined for one 
was in fact delivered to the other by a tanker driver not familiar with the 
area. Led to all sorts of accusations and counter accusations - especially 
when the invoice arrived!

Sean

In message 
          Roland Perry  wrote:


> In message <74ad41ab4d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, at 11:54:59 on Fri, 
> 16 Sep 2005, Graeme Wall  remarked:
> > Damage caused by vehicles is proportional to the cube of the weight so a
> > 44 tonne lorry will cause 44 x 44 x 44 = 85184 times as much damage as a
> > 1 tonne car.
> 
> Where does one factor in the number of axles and wheels into a 
> calculation like that? Or is the damage caused by a 16-wheel HGV the 
> same as a hypothetical 4-wheel one?


That's when the equation becomes complicated, I gather the reduction in
damage is not a simple matter of dividing by the number of axles; and the
speed of the vehicle and the type of suspension also has an influence.  The
maths involved is way beyond me I'm afraid.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <74ad41ab4d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, at 11:54:59 on Fri, 
16 Sep 2005, Graeme Wall  remarked:

>Damage caused by vehicles is proportional to the cube of the weight so a 44
>tonne lorry will cause 44 x 44 x 44 = 85184 times as much damage as a 1 tonne
>car.


Where does one factor in the number of axles and wheels into a 
calculation like that? Or is the damage caused by a 16-wheel HGV the 
same as a hypothetical 4-wheel one?
-- 
Roland Perry

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:28:33 UTC, "TBirdFrank" 
> wrote:
>
>: Hauliers aren't subsidised - no matter how environmental flat earthers
>: may try to bend statistics to say they are.
>
>An HGV causes something like 10,000 times as much damage to roads as a
>car. Do HGV operators contribute 10,000 times more per vehicle than 
>car owners towards the cost of maintaining the road network?



Putting to one side whether your 10,000 multiplier is appropriate*,
that depends entirely on your point of view.  

Another point of view is that the motorways and trunk roads are built
primarily for commerce, and that the private car is an irritation that
gets in the way of lorries and buses transporting goods and providing
services.  That would imply that private car users should be taxed
much more highly than would seem to be indicated on the sole basis of
the relative damage they cause, because of their disproportionately
greater contribution to congestion.

I think that is - at the very least - an equally valid point of view.


* PS: The relative damage to roads caused by vehicles is said by
experts to be approximately proportional to the fourth power of the
ratio of the axle loads.  Try calculating the relative damage of the
0.7 tonne axle load of a typical car and the 11.5 tonne axle load of a
typical Class 1 LGV.  It's frightening!  Then add in the effect of the
greater average number of axles ...

;-)

Yes - all very interesting but this started out as a financial
statement and not a civil engineering one.

Q - Does HMG spend all the revenue raised in vehicle excise duty, fuel
duty, testing fees etc - leaving aside entirely the question of VAT and
Corporation Tax from the haulage sector on maintenance of the road
network

A - No

I ask again how much does the rail industry contribute to the
Treasury's gross annual income from all of it's combined efforts.

That is the crux of the horrible problem that we with a bias towards
the rail industry face.

This sent from an Internet Caff at Kings Cross after a splendid smooth
and on time run on a "White Rose" set

There's a lot of hills in Licolnshire too Ross - as you might have
noticed as you speed across the sweeping plains in your 15?