train crossing truck driver
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: veritas on 10 Jun 2007 02:07 George W. Frost wrote: > > From 100kph a truck would take about 200 metres to stop > From 90 kph as was the speed of the train, it would have taken just on 2 > kilometres to stop > The truck hit the train 2/3 along the length, meaning the train was in > front and truck driver would or should have seen the train long before he > got near the crossing Not a popular thing to say: he might have been better firewalling it from the time he first saw the train.!
From: George W. Frost on 10 Jun 2007 02:51 "veritas" <veritas(a)coldmail.con> wrote in message news:syMai.11270$wH4.2715(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > George W. Frost wrote: > >> >> From 100kph a truck would take about 200 metres to stop >> From 90 kph as was the speed of the train, it would have taken just on 2 >> kilometres to stop >> The truck hit the train 2/3 along the length, meaning the train was in >> front and truck driver would or should have seen the train long before he >> got near the crossing > > Not a popular thing to say: he might have been better firewalling it from > the time he first saw the train.! Popular or not, still the truth
From: Michael on 10 Jun 2007 03:41 Noddy wrote: > "Michael" <mickpc(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message > news:65zai.11070$wH4.4481(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > >> 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? > > Nope, but I see ten times the number of vehicles on the road to move the > *same* quantity of goods to the local store. > > How does that help? > >> 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? > > Depends on what car. > >> 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. > > Don't hold your breath. > > Running rail track is probably as expensive as building road, and that's > something like 2 million bucks per kilometer depending on the area. > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. > > Yea sure. Mick C
From: Michael on 10 Jun 2007 03:44 Kev wrote: > 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 > > Kev You missed the whole point, the point is to get cargo off the road network, you ever done a JSA? (job safety analysis) Now tell me our road network would not be safer if we reduced the number of truck on it. I should need to say little more. Mick C
From: XR8 Sprint on 10 Jun 2007 03:49
Michael wrote: > Beside the point, rail should be considered the primay means of > transport, tuck secondary. > Do you understand the concept of containerization? The prinipal is to > remove it from a ship/train/tuck to put it on a ship/train/truck. > You do not need to be carting cargo over large distances by road, you > just need to be flexible and transport the large distances by rail, then > the short distance from the depot to the customer by truck. > There is an alternative to trucking all our freight by road. > What happened last week is a prime example of what happens when you do. > Mick C So Mick You obviously missed my post, but the single most problematic thing that causes rail not to be a viable transport alternative is that fact that the three eastern states have different line guages, or widths which makes it impossible for example to run a train from Melbourne to Cairns without either the passengers or the freight having to change wagons or carriages at least twice. GO back and read my post and you will understand a little better why rail is not likely to be an alternative, now or anytime in the near future. XR8_Sprint. |