bigal55 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 we will never have a proper protest in this country unless the issue concerns the left, people are just too selfish when it comes to money issues , look at the replies on the council tax thread, no pension, change your job! as if there,s an abundance of jobs in this country with a company pension. why things will never change. today on greatwestern railways a no payment protest was organised against the abysmal service, only just over 100 refused to pay yet thousands had been complaining. the french would have burnt a few carriages. but we just moan on forums, i include myself in that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick H. Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Clive - 2008-01-26 6:31 PM Out today and I see diesel at 109.9. Why is nobody shouting? Why no truckers strikes? How much more abuse are we going to take? Just compare our prices to the USA for example. Why are we so gullible in Europe? I say enough is enough. C. The lorry drivers tried a few years back and didn't get enough support and I understand that the heavy mob were sent in and threatened their families.This is no longer a free state. Mick H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 Hi Janine, You are correct, railways are not cheap. But when for every person travelling probably on average over 3 tonne of train is required no wonder. Cars make much more sence. Even the carbon footprint arguement fails for the train in the UK. I don,t believe that our country is big enough to justify a rail network. France Germany Russia etc OK as the distances are so much more. In these examples it is sensible to truck to the railhead, trunk by rail and distribute the other end by road. But the UK is seriously questionable as the distances are so much less. No soon have you loaded its time to unload again . Materials Handling costs and takes time and adds nothing of value to the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Peters Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 everyone in the world knows we are a soft touch, role over and play dead is the british way,we pay more for everything, then we give it all away, dont start me on imigration,please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Peters Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 everyone in the world knows we are a soft touch, role over and play dead is the british way,we pay more for everything, then we give it all away, dont start me on imigration,please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Peters Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 everyone in the world knows we are a soft touch, role over and play dead is the british way,we pay more for everything, then we give it all away, dont start me on imigration,please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Peters Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 everyone in the world knows we are a soft touch, role over and play dead is the british way,we pay more for everything, then we give it all away, dont start me on imigration,please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Brian Peters - 2008-01-29 12:06 PM everyone in the world knows we are a soft touch, role over and play dead is the british way,we pay more for everything, then we give it all away, dont start me on imigration,please. C'mon, don't be shy - What are your considered views on immigration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick H. Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Brian Peters - 2008-01-29 12:06 PM everyone in the world knows we are a soft touch, role over and play dead is the british way,we pay more for everything, then we give it all away, dont start me on imigration,please. Bad stutter there,Brian. Mick H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky 8 Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Tracker - 2008-01-27 7:20 PM The poll tax was the fairest tax ever devised - it was just that all those who were paying sod all objected to having to pay their fair share for all the local services they enjoy - and they made more noise - as is always the way - than the moderate silent majority - who continue to overpay an unfair share of local taxation burden based on property values - NOT on their ability to pay or even the size of their incomes. The noisiest turkeys succeeded in defeating Christmas! Ironically it is the older members of society, who tend to have the more valuable properties - generally the culmination of a lifetime of saving and working - along with generally a lower and often fixed income - who continue to subsidise the younger members of society. Even more ironically when these same older members of society do need local help via the local social services budget that they contribute so much into, there is bugger all available to help and support them in their hour of need. Do I feel strongly - you're darned right I do! You would hate to hear the individual horror stories of failure and incompetence of the system where the provision of care to the elderly just does not exist due to budget cut backs. The elderly either are unable to, or don't like to, complain - and probably more importantly - are unlikely to vote - therefore successive governments have taken advantage of this to cut back what little help that there is. End of rant! :-( Beg to differ there Tracker ,Poll Tax was grossly unfair, I,ll give you an example, Lord (no Name) near where I use to live, owned /Lived in a Mansion 14 bedrooms 6 bathrooms 4 drawing rooms etc etc set in over a hundred acre,s the number of People who lived in the Mansion 2( so only Poll tax for 2 people paid) the number of people at the mansion at any given time over 18 ( all manner of waste from those people to be disposed of by some form of public services) , the binmen drove some three quarters of a mile to empty the FOUR comercial waste bins of the estate Weekly, The Lord and his wife Paid the same poll tax as did the local people living in the estate tied cottages, the same Poll Tax as the local People living in the Council houses, the same Poll tax as the people buying their property all using less of the Service s they were (supposedly) being charged for ,ALL Earning /Receiving less income than his Lordship, Do you mean to tell me this was Fair, 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Clive - 2008-01-29 11:26 AM Hi Janine, You are correct, railways are not cheap. But when for every person travelling probably on average over 3 tonne of train is required no wonder. Cars make much more sence. Even the carbon footprint arguement fails for the train in the UK. I don,t believe that our country is big enough to justify a rail network. France Germany Russia etc OK as the distances are so much more. In these examples it is sensible to truck to the railhead, trunk by rail and distribute the other end by road. But the UK is seriously questionable as the distances are so much less. No soon have you loaded its time to unload again . Materials Handling costs and takes time and adds nothing of value to the product. Sorry to disagree with you Clive but trunking goods by railways makes perfect sense. Our local power station can burn up to 20,000 Tonnes of coal a day (yes that's right twenty thousand Tonnes in 24 hours 8-) ). To supply this requires twenty trainsd carrying 1,000 Tonnes each. To replace that with road transport where the lorries carry 20 Tonnes a piece would require 1000 lorries a day. There would be a continuous ribbon of coal lorries queueing up to get into the power station and the local roads would be blocked solid with trucks plus all the roads would be coated with coal dust which then gets thrown up into the air with vehicular movement and we all get to breathe it in/wear it on our clothes/windows/cars/washing etc. The major problem with the UK rail netwrok today is, I believe, down to the decades of lack of investment to maintain and improve the infrastructure. I shall be using the train to get to the NEC show in a couple of weeks time as it is cheaper and far less stressful than driving to Brum every day. Added to which the railway will get me to within five minutes walk of the NEC entrance, if I drive I'll be lucky if I can walk to the entrance in fifteen minutes. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Corky 8 - 2008-01-29 12:59 PM Beg to differ there Tracker ,Poll Tax was grossly unfair, I,ll give you an example, Lord (no Name) near where I use to live, owned /Lived in a Mansion 14 bedrooms 6 bathrooms 4 drawing rooms etc etc set in over a hundred acre,s the number of People who lived in the Mansion 2( so only Poll tax for 2 people paid) the number of people at the mansion at any given time over 18 ( all manner of waste from those people to be disposed of by some form of public services) , the binmen drove some three quarters of a mile to empty the FOUR comercial waste bins of the estate Weekly, The Lord and his wife Paid the same poll tax as did the local people living in the estate tied cottages, the same Poll Tax as the local People living in the Council houses, the same Poll tax as the people buying their property all using less of the Service s they were (supposedly) being charged for ,ALL Earning /Receiving less income than his Lordship, Do you mean to tell me this was Fair, 8-) I beg to differ, Dennis - I have a fairly large family home and, when Poll tax came into force, I lived here with my son who was then under 18. Next door is a similar house with 6 wage-earning adults living there. Why should I pay the same contribution to council services as they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 There are a lot less Lord Nonames than there are houses with multiple earners and as the country seems to want to preserve these listed and valuable stately homes a small tax break might help them a bit. The sixteen other people will mostly have an income and mostly live somewhere so the extra poll tax they pay will offset the savings made by Lord Noname. Generally speaking most local services like education, social services, roads, policing, street lighting etc relate to the person not the property so what is wrong with the payment for them also being related to the person not the property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Now there's a coincidence, Rich - your number of posts is exactly the same as the year you were born :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 Dave, Your example is are perfectly valid and the power station application a shining example of good use of trains. (or barges) If however you like taking loads of clutter with you when you travel carrying it by hand is a bit of a bugger. The wife,s nebuliser machine and batteries for example, never mind my Laptop and the odd radio. But there was pressure being applied to the normal very varied lorry transport infrastructure we have in the UK and it just does not make sence to load it all on a train only to have to unload it all again in a couple of hours. Plus no one has serioulsy considered any light weight rapid transport schemes in the UK. # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 No Clive it does not make sense to put everything on to rail but a lot could be transported by rail much more economically than by road. fuel costs per Tonne transported can be much lower with rail transport than road and that's not taking into account the drivers wages. Lorry driver hauling twenty tonnes at say £8 per hour against train driver hauling a thousand tonnes at say £9 per hour ( I don't know what the relative drivers wage rates are, these are just guesstimates). We need to get the infrastructure of the railways back up to a decent standard, only then can the railways ever have a chance of being cost effective over a wider range of transport options. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 J9withdogs - 2008-01-29 6:32 PM Now there's a coincidence, Rich - your number of posts is exactly the same as the year you were born :D That was uncalled for and bloody cruel - so why not change yer name to Cruella and stop being a secret man devourer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 It's OK Rich - you're now born in 1934 so are a year younger than when she posted. Your age clock must be in reverse now. Another 76 posts and you'll be joining Rob in the nappies with the dummy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 I understand your arguement Dave but as a non user I see the railways the same as Northern Rock. Something I end up paying through the nose for, get nothing out of it and have no control over it. The real cost of running the railways is far greater than the figures you post I am sure else it would be making a profit and not need millions of handouts every year from the tax payer. Now, if they went back to steam then perhaps there would be more public interest in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 The major cost to the taxpayer (that includes me) for the railways at themoment is going into improving the infrastructure. The trains themselves are run by private companies. The trouble is that you can't reverse tens of decades of neglect overnight and for little cost. One major factor against rail use is our desire to travel in our own cars and have our own independence. The railways could be made to run efficiently and provide a service that is economically viable but as long as the majority of us would rather sit on the M1 or whatever with our engines burning up fuel and our air con switched on its not going to happen. The size of the country is irrelevant to having a functioning rail network. Its a fact that a lot more goods could be trunked by rail than road with vast savings of costs. And rail travel is still safer than road travel! D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Dwight Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 We could have used a train to go to Gatwick last Sunday week. Cost would have been over £40 OK getting there as our flight was 13.35 but coming back no train at 24.00 so no point in using the train. We took the car used roughly 2 galls of diesel. parking was free and secure. Who would use the trains when its cheaper by road. We have friends who live in France nr Metz they overlook the railyway line. It is constantly busy by freight, passenger and TGV a new line has been built and opened last year for the TGV from Metz to Paris. Last Nov you could travel from Paris to Nice for the equivelent of £15 now that is the sort of price that would encourage people to use the railways. I have always said that there must be some heavy goods that could travel by Canal, the Canals are used well by commecial traffic in Europe. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 "One major factor against rail use is our desire to travel in our own cars and have our own independence." Spot on Dave. I agree and this in not something which is likely to change. But the comparisons are worse. For example the diesel in your car has fuel tax applied then VAT applied again on the total. The same fuel put into the diesel trains pays no tax at all. The comparisons are not even on a level playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Clive - 2008-01-30 8:32 PM "One major factor against rail use is our desire to travel in our own cars and have our own independence." Spot on Dave. I agree and this in not something which is likely to change. But the comparisons are worse. For example the diesel in your car has fuel tax applied then VAT applied again on the total. The same fuel put into the diesel trains pays no tax at all. The comparisons are not even on a level playing field. I may be wrong , but I thought all diesel (and petrol) was subject to an import duty, payable by the UK wholesale Importer/Refiner (eg Shell) to HMCR, even if then exempt from retail fuel tax and then VAT when resold....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Thats piccy! Might be true but its still piccy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.