I think the Rail industry and the airline industry use a similar but different method to evaluate the efficacy of actioning a safety improvement.
In their calculation they put a much higher value on a life saved. eg, hundreds of millions of GB pounds per life.
Swapping lorry trailers probably isn't that huge an operation. However even it is it would encourage the sending of trailers by rail far nearer the final destination, with commensurate benefits in terms of pollution, aside from safety improvements with less lorry milage.
Fitting proximity warnings and cameras apart from mirrors to big lorries, shouldn't be hugely costly, if mandated (so big production runs).
Sorry, but Railtrack (or whatever it's called now) definitely doesn't value a life that highly. It's of the order of the same amount (between 1 & 2 million pounds) that the Highways Agency uses. I'm interested in this as I occasionally get involved with cost/benefit analyses at work; what different method do you understand the airline industry uses?
(reference http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...04/0304532.pdf)
Isn't it far more likely to be a transfer of a container? The problem comes, however, with things like refrigerated containers. The owner of the tractor is likely to be the owner of the trailer, and there will be no swaps or transfers. Goods will have to unshipped and shipped.
Interestingly, I listened to an R4 item about Eddie Stobart turning to rail as a cheaper alternative to road; they already have a weekly run from some city to some other city equivalent to 33 truck loads but costing considerably less than the equivalent number of trucks. The ES guy said they were rolling out 2 or 3 new rail routes within weeks.However even it is it would encourage the sending of trailers by rail far nearer the final destination, with commensurate benefits in terms of pollution, aside from safety improvements with less lorry milage.
However, some time ago I saw a debate on TV in which it was said that transferring 30% of road cargo onto rail would involve a threefold increase in rail movements (or figures very similar to that), and that the rail was hopelessly inadequate to take over from road as the main haulage infrastructure for the UK. (Several years ago, in fact; road haulage figures have probably gone up since then.)
Good point.Fitting proximity warnings and cameras apart from mirrors to big lorries, shouldn't be hugely costly, if mandated (so big production runs).
It must have been jolly unpleasant for Trouble, but it seems to me that a bigger problem is the large number of uninsured, unlicensed and even untested drivers that are on our roads in their thousands.
Saw something last night in which a driver, his lady passenger (girlfriend?) and five children were turfed out of a small family car by a bobby. He pulled them for overloading the car and inadequate seating provision for the kids - not a booster seat etc in sight, kids sitting on other kid's laps - but when he checked, Dad (if that's who he was) had no insurance. So the car was seized and they walked to the local railway station.
Interesting. I wonder, with the pressure to cut carbon emissions, could the government be persuaded to consider investment in the railways to bring this about? Could industry be persuaded to help foot the bill? Extra/restored railways could also be used to transport passengers too, thus cutting private road use. Trouble is, it's a long-term solution, which with our governments' relatively short term of office, I'd guess is not going to appeal so much. They need quick fixes, whereas the environment needs a longer-term approach/investment. Ho hum.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks