From: Daryl Walford on
Michael wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> "Michael" <mickpc(a)> wrote in message
>> news:D8rai.10865$wH4.8747(a)
>>> Uh, missed the point, well, simply, you have what is called a depot,
>>> call it for sake Big W. Now the telly's get delivered by rail to Big
>>> W. Ok the product is at Big W. Now you either get the customer to
>>> pick up the tv from the store, or, use a small delivery truck to
>>> deliver it, locally.
>>> I think you missed my point, or am I being obtuse?
>> You're being ignorant.
>> Very few department chains have depots with cooee of rail yards, and
>> despite what you or anyone else thinks it *ain't* cheap to run rail
>> networks all over the place to alleviate road transport.
>> The real short answer is that if rail transport was a viable
>> alternative it would be used more often than it is. The reality is
>> that it's not cheaper at all, is slower, and involves more handling &
>> cost than simply loading a truck at one end and unloading it at the
>> other.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Noddy.
> Ok I will really spell it out to.
> From port (containerization)>warehouse(rail)>rail to local depot>by
> light truck to store>from store to customer via light truck.
> See any need for a semi?
> What is needed to fill in the gaps is the proper used of logistics.

Do you know that Ford Motor Co have a rail line that goes
directly from their Geelong manufacturering plant to their
Broadmeadows Assembly plant?
When I worked for Ford in the late 70' early 80's the train was
used for most of their bulk deliveries between the 2 plants but
AFAIK now they don't use the rail at all.
The simply answer is road transport is much quicker, since the
Western Ring Rd was completed they use B triple trucks which can
do the trip in less than third of the time the train takes so its
no wonder rail can't compete.

From: Daryl Walford on
Kev wrote:

> as for the 1800rpm limit
> Troncs Carrying used to have a 1900prm limit, which was against the
> manufacturers limits, like using the engine brake on steep hills, the
> engine manufacturer states to run the engine up to 2100rpm to achieve
> max engine braking
> and also the 1900rpm limit meant staying in a lower gear(opposite what
> the company wanted to save fuel) when climbing steep hills because you
> needed to go higher so that after a gear change you still have enough
> revs to pull away

I haven't driven one of those Benzs but it does seem odd to me,
apparently they are a low revving engine and most of the time you
don't use much over 1500rpm and thats about what they are doing
at 100kph.

From: ant on
DJ wrote:

>> I hate this in particular when buying a peice of furniture, the
>> store has one or two for display, but not available for sale,so when
>> you've registered your interest in a piece of furniture, you're then
>> advised it'll take about 6-8 weeks for it to be ready (made, built
>> etc) but they require the money up front. Then they'll want to
>> charge you a premium for delivery.
>> They're just order takers...that's all!!

When I was couch shopping, this prevented me from buying some couches. Oz
Design had a 12 WEEK wait for a very pricey item. So I walked away.
Eventually a chain warehouse was having a clearance, and I
cashed-and-carried my couch away that day. I won't wait. If a car has
anything beyond a week's wait, I won't buy it either.

> Something I have done on a couple of occassions is, take a photo of
> something i like, go and find some furniture makers ( local yellow
> pages ) and ask them to make me something similar but maybe not the
> exact same. Save Lots of money that way, in the meantime, i get some
> transport quotes from makers to my place by sending them a pic of the
> goods.Don't even have to go into the shops sometimes, just show them
> one of the major catalogues you get in the junk mail.

That's a good idea. I'll file that away for the future.

Don't try to reply to my email addy:
I'm borrowing that of the latest

From: reg-john on

"hoot" <ratat(a)> wrote in message
>> Yes I said 60,000, care to prove me wrong???? look it up, you have access
>> to the net, if you don't have the time say so and I will do it for you,
>> atm I have the time.
>> I know it seems amazing at first glance, but when you some factors into
>> account it isn't so hard to believe, remember the square law from high
>> school for a start, eg 10^2 = 100, 1000^4 = 10000000
> Could you please show your working for this "1000^4 = 10000000"
>> Mick C
>> Remember my name, yes that is my name, and never accuse me of posting
>> without understanding what I am saying again, at your own peril.
>> Please beware of the dog.
> You're funny.

indeed quite funny, but neglected to actually respond to anything else i
said, for good reason too, he has an overripe pear for a brain.
> H.

From: jonz on

"Kev" <kevcat(a)> wrote in message
> Michael wrote:
>> Ok I will really spell it out to.
>> From port (containerization)>warehouse(rail)>rail to local depot>by
>> light truck to store>from store to customer via light truck.
>> See any need for a semi?
>> What is needed to fill in the gaps is the proper used of logistics.
>> I didn't say it would be easy, but could you build a car easy?
>> Australian cars are a hell of a lot better than they used to be.
>> We need to do this for the rail network, passenger as well.
>> Mick C
> and this is where it falls in a big heap
> why run 30 small trucks when you can run 5 semis or 3 B/Doubles
> there is no way YOUR road network could sustain that number of small
> vehicles
> and the whole rail system is so inefficient because of all the double and
> triple handling, the extra cost of people employed to do all that handling
> and the cost of lost or damaged goods from all that extra handling
> and of course you have the "I Want It Now" from most of society
> you go to the department store to buy something
> you want it then, not 2 months later and broken
> and as it has been pointed out to you many times
> if rail is the answer, why is it that it's not

good post Kev.........
> Kev