Let's jump on trucks yet again

[atec77]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Why arnt you letting them in when they are indicating?

When they merge into your lane why arnt you slowing down to increase the safe gap?

A couple of really silly questions and knowingly being askes that way , just because the trucks are bigger doesn't offer Carte' Blanch on breaking and ignoring the rules , change lanes when safe not "make way people"
or other profanities

[atec77]

Originally Posted by BIGJB

I can't begin to tell you how angry crap like this gets me. I have spent a lot of my life driving for a living
and I can not tell you the amount of times I have had near miss accidents due to the stupidity of other road users.
How on earth this was the truck drivers fault if this silly ***** was doing 30kph I will never know.

I will give you guys the senario of an accident I had a few years back.
I was on the Gold Coast hyway at West Burliegh in the left hand lane (dual carrige way) when I came up behind a
12 pallet pantech doing about 85kph. I looked into my right hand mirror while approching the truck (we were going around a left hand bend).
I flicked on my indicator and once again checked my mirror to make sure some idiot wasn't flying up behind me as i moved into
the right hand lane to overtake the pantech. Next thing I knew there was an almighty bang smashing glass twisting metal and
I had gone from 100kph to 0 in under 30meters.
Some stupid muppet had broken down and left their car parked in the right hand lane against the barrier.
Now I had to fight hammer and tong to clear my name because as the "professional driver" I was automatically
blammed for the incident. I had to prove the amount of hrs I had been on the road that week.
Now the end result for me was fine but the clown who left his car on the side of the road didn't even get a
fine for his stupidity. I am willing to bet if it had been a "professional driver" who had left the car there and an average
road user had hit it then the story would have been different.

So you changed lanes into an area not seen clear for a suitable distance by your own addmission , no sympathy

[Jim Goose]

I just recently completed my HR licence and as part of the fun we drove down the ranges from Mareeba to Cairns.

The truck I drove was a Mack R series, 11ton empty weight.
I had a 9ton load on the back, a 9ton plant trailer and a 10ton roller on the trailer. I was as long as a semi-trailer but with 26wheels.

Now what i saw on the range was utterly SUICIDAL.
I had cars jammed up my ring to within 2METERs of my trailer.
And NO i am not making this up.
2METERS behind a heavy truck going down a steep hill.
Even better was the stupid mole who overtook me when the road widened a little (it was a short 30m "slow" lane which is utterly USELESS)

This lady was beside my cab as i pulled back into my lane.
And before you rant and rave how dangerous i am... my lane ended, I am on a mountain. I HAVE TO MERGE or i drive of the edge.
She then swerves as i blow the horn and then nearly runs head first into an oncoming car which had to swerve to miss her.
The on coming car just misses the edge of the rising mountain rocks....

So what did the next car behind her do?
Pulled right up against the ramps of my trailer... litteraly tail gating.

This wasnt the only time during my training that i encountered so many morons who are totally clueless about how hard it is to drive a truck and stop it SAFELY etc...

People whinge and moan how "slow" they go... how slow they are to get moving once the lights change.... (try changing 8gears before you get to 20kmh).

If your dumb enough to pull out in front of a truck, cut one off, tailgate etc... then you will be the one worse off.

Its like people who whinge about railway crashes when a train runs into a car or truck that drove through flashing red lights. You will come of 2nd best, you will die.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Now what I saw on the range was utterly SUICIDAL.

Something like this, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc5SGTrlLmI

[efi65]

by reading this it seems like a very lot of you guy's/girl's are bl##dy clueless.. if you do overtime at work, you are a good person trying to make some extra coin for the family, a truck'y does that he/she get's fines and so on, and copps flack for putting every other road user in danger and that is the first double standard!!!!! And the put everything on rail, before you make your self look like a total t#sser get off ya bum away from your computer and go have a good look at the rail, the closet rail head to me is 212km, so if your gunna throw every thing on rail how is that going to work???? more small truck's and van's???? all that will do is highly conjest the roads even more.before you all start trucky bashing go for a drive with them for a few days and you will see first hand what they have to put up with but no you wont cause it's easier to trucky bash jnstead of understanding what they have to go through day in day out. yes there are some who dont do the right thing but mostly it is car driver's who cause most accidents with truck's. it is very sad what happened but with out knowing all the facts first hand who are you to comment about the action's of the truck driver and now is life is pretty much over having to live with it for the rest of his life

[Elks]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I've got a better idea - you go drive a truck, and see what happens. You will be surprised.

This, or at least riding in a semi, should be mandatory as a part of renewing your licence. (I think people should re-sit there licence every ten years - but that's a different topic).

We had Jason Richards (V8 Supercar driver) out at work for a promotion and he is, by any standards, a talented driver. He was interested so I took him for a run in new Western Star. He was amazed. He then had a go, under instruction in our yard. It was amazing to see him struggle. To be fair, he also caught on faster than anyone else I'd seen. This is not a slight I Jason, in fact I'm a huge fan. But the issues of vision, braking, working an 18 speed non synchro gearbox make driving a truck a very different process. I'm saying this just to try and illustrate to the masses that a truck is not simply a large car.

The Australian road transport industry is high efficient, and contributes greatly to this counties prosperity. In part because of the economy of scale the larger trucks bring. It is amazing. Fuel efficiency - a quarter of what a Prius uses per tonne shifted. Goods delivered door to door.

As for Rail. I'm with Full Noise and Sezzy. It is inefficient, slow, expensive, and uses old tech dirty deisel for propulsion. When the rail line along the Ocean road to Lorne goes in I might change my mind.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Elks

The Australian road transport industry is high efficient, and contributes greatly to this counties prosperity. In part because of the economy of scale the larger trucks bring. It is amazing. Fuel efficiency - a quarter of what a Prius uses per tonne shifted. Goods delivered door to door

so it probably uses less fuel to get the same goods somewhere than a fleet of prius's to carry the same load? what has that got to do with the behaviour of trucks on the road?

You might also mention that even a diesel loco built in the 50s is still 10 times more efficient on fuel compared to road transport.

How does employing 40 people to work stupid hours to get goods there yesterday for no really good reason add to prosperity when we can have a loco driven by a team of just a couple of drivers and get there safely.

Please no nonsense about how the industry would then employ a 40 additional people, might as well get 2000 more people employed and deliver by Prius?

Originally Posted by Elks

and uses old tech dirty deisel for propulsion.

Im sure the particulate emission levels from the average diesel truck out there isnt 1/10 of the average loco in service. Of course you conveniently forget the co2 emissions of the loco per tonne are about 1/10 of the trucks.

There are many who think road is king, an interesting article to peruse: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fig...0625-cy58.html

[BIGJB]

Originally Posted by atec77

So you changed lanes into an area not seen clear for a suitable distance by your own addmission , no sympathy

Did I ask for sympathy? Don't believe I did.
Drive the section of road in question and you to would have had no hesitation in changing lanes where I did.

Reading some of the comments on here I am amazed a lot of you guys don't end up under a truck if on
the road show the disrespect you seem to show towards trucks.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

There are many who think road is king, an interesting article to peruse: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fig...0625-cy58.html

I read that article out of sheer curiosity.

Might be worth mentioning they canned a bus service in Ipswich because no-one was using it...but this part of the article actually struck me as extremely interesting.

Building one lane of a freeway will cost about $6.5 million a kilometre; building a kilometre of light or heavy rail track will cost slightly less.

There is one slight problem with that...even if you build the kilometre of light or heavy rail track - you still need to build a road.

So the concept that it's slightly less is a moot point - you would in fact spend double that as you would have to do both. So, whilst it's an extremely intriguing article, yet again...completely useless.

[anolade]

Originally Posted by whiteELXR6

there is only one way they can fix this countries roads and that is by educating people better. Especially when they are getting there licence they have to be taught how to drive around heavy vehicles. Until such time stupid people will continue to cause stupid accidents. Also if the speed limit is 100 for example bloody well do 100 that doesn't mean 95 or 98 or 92 it's a 100 and if you cannot hold the speed consistently then you shouldn't have a licence.

For what it's worth I am a "professional driver".

true that hate ppl that sit on highways/freeways and normal road condition and they have no ability to maintain a consistent speed which is not a very hard task.
what really is frightning is the ppl that do 80km on a single lane highway then accelerate when it's 2 lanes and if your towing or in truck sitting behind 1 these bastards its not fun.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I read that article out of sheer curiosity.

Might be worth mentioning they canned a bus service in Ipswich because no-one was using it...but this part of the article actually struck me as extremely interesting.



There is one slight problem with that...even if you build the kilometre of light or heavy rail track - you still need to build a road.

So the concept that it's slightly less is a moot point - you would in fact spend double that as you would have to do both. So, whilst it's an extremely intriguing article, yet again...completely useless.

you are arguing that they need to build a lane of freeway then put rail on top of it, therefore the rail is more expensive?

The article doesnt say that at all. I believe they are just quoting the cost of a lane of rail compared to a freeway lane anywhere.

Or are you arguing that to build a rail line, then we have to build a road along side of it, that is clearly not the case either.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

you are arguing that they need to build a lane of freeway then put rail on top of it, therefore the rail is more expensive?

The article doesnt say that at all. I believe they are just quoting the cost of a lane of rail compared to a freeway lane anywhere.

Or are you arguing that to build a rail line, then we have to build a road along side of it, that is clearly not the case either.

So where do all the cars go? Or is that not relevant to your line of argument?

What I said was the argument that building rail way lines is slightly less expensive than building roads is a moot point as you will still, and always will have to build roads for other transport...

[Elks]

Originally Posted by sudszy

sOf course you conveniently forget the co2 emissions of the loco per tonne are about 1/10 of the trucks.

Your right... Forget the trucks, hell forget the trains. Lets deliver everything by container ship because that benefits the most from economy of scale.

Although the cost of replacing highways with channels would be quite high.

Back to the topic. The fact is trucks are here to stay. They are large, and heavy and cumbersome around town. They accelerate slowly and stop slowly. Car drivers need to treat them with care and respect, not because truckies are special, but for their own safety.

Just like we generally disagree with the idea of adding speed camera's because some fool with 10 of his mates on board runs his old Commodore into a tree. I disagree with penalising all truckies because of one tragic accident.

As for the examples of trucks that are speeding, driving recklessly, taking drugs, or dudding their log books. Easy. Book-em Danno.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

So where do all the cars go? Or is that not relevant to your line of argument?

What I said was the argument that building rail way lines is slightly less expensive than building roads is a moot point as you will still, and always will have to build roads for other transport...

Im not quite following your logic here, if we put rail in, then we surely dont need as much highway/roads for trucks and cars because logically the rail will provide much of the transit that would have been taken up with trucks and cars.

A single trainline also has the capacity to deliver a lot more goods/people per hour than a lane of roadway, about a ratio of 10:1

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im not quite following your logic here, if we put rail in, then we surely dont need as much highway/roads for trucks and cars because logically the rail will provide much of the transit that would have been taken up with trucks and cars.

A single trainline also has the capacity to deliver a lot more goods/people per hour than a lane of roadway, about a ratio of 10:1

Logically, that is illogical. One form of transport cannot be sustained and therefore we use multiple modes of transport.

So in this theory, people will drive less?

I'm going to nip that in the bud right now - that won't happen.

I'll give you an example. I choose not to fly, as I'm petrified of planes and must be drunk when boarding...(it's all about another person being in control of my safety that I hate), I'd rather swim with sharks.

I don't like travelling on trains as I find that people have poor hygiene...same applies for buses (and the previous point).

I like to drive.

Now, none of those things are anyone else's problem but my own. But as everyone in this country has a choice, and I'm probably not the only one who has these problems, is it logical to push people to one mode of transport, ie the train?

The one thing that you're missing, is that roads will still need to be kept in good working order for local deliveries etc. So there will still be a cost involved, and still a significant one. Unless we're going back to horse and cart, in which case, I don't trust horses either.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im not quite following your logic here, if we put rail in, then we surely dont need as much highway/roads for trucks and cars because logically the rail will provide much of the transit that would have been taken up with trucks and cars.

A single trainline also has the capacity to deliver a lot more goods/people per hour than a lane of roadway, about a ratio of 10:1

My good sir, you are an uneducated fool. Please go back to parliament house where you belong. You’ve wasted enough oxygen around here.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Elks

As for Rail. I'm with Full Noise and Sezzy. It is inefficient, slow, expensive, and uses old tech dirty deisel for propulsion.

The trains I drive use 0.4 Litres to move 1 ton 100kms. Is that really inefficient?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Logically, that is illogical. One form of transport cannot be sustained and therefore we use multiple modes of transport.

So in this theory, people will drive less?

I'm going to nip that in the bud right now - that won't happen.

I'll give you an example. I choose not to fly, as I'm petrified of planes and must be drunk when boarding...(it's all about another person being in control of my safety that I hate), I'd rather swim with sharks.

I don't like travelling on trains as I find that people have poor hygiene...same applies for buses (and the previous point).

I like to drive.

Now, none of those things are anyone else's problem but my own. But as everyone in this country has a choice, and I'm probably not the only one who has these problems, is it logical to push people to one mode of transport, ie the train?

The one thing that you're missing, is that roads will still need to be kept in good working order for local deliveries etc. So there will still be a cost involved, and still a significant one. Unless we're going back to horse and cart, in which case, I don't trust horses either.

Maybe you wont lower yourself to use the rail, but others faced with an hour commute when only a choked single lane roadway is supplied or a 15min commute on a train at a fraction of the cost may have different ideas.

Of course many people want a highspeed freeway to commute door to door on, however, we all know that in the long term it isnt sustainable, half the landscape turns into bitumen and the number of cars using them grows to match. we dont have to go down the route of replicating what has happened in LA to come to this realisation. Unfortunately our governments are equally myopic in this regard.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Maybe you wont lower yourself to use the rail, but others faced with an hour commute when only a choked single lane roadway is supplied or a 15min commute on a train at a fraction of the cost may have different ideas.

Of course many people want a highspeed freeway to commute door to door on, however, we all know that in the long term it isnt sustainable, half the landscape turns into bitumen and the number of cars using them grows to match. we dont have to go down the route of replicating what has happened in LA to come to this realisation. Unfortunately our governments are equally myopic in this regard.

I used to spend 1 1/2 hours on the road driving only 30 kms, the train didn't extend to my works premises, in fact, not even close...and even if I got the train from near my home to the centre of brisbane to get a bus out (which only ran to the end of the road leaving a 2km walk to my work, actually added almost an hour to my trip...not including the walking...

The train really isn't an option for everyone, particularly when you work in industrial areas where the only trains are freight trains...not passenger trains.

No myopia here, just reality...

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Alright then, idealism intact, who do you suggest pays for such a change to tracks. Who is going to fund the high speed train, and while we're at it...who's going to be responsible when said train derails (which they do - people just don't hear about it). Do you know how long it takes to clear up derailed trains? How much damage is done to people's goods, if they get their goods back at all?

great idea Ben, but it's not viable, not even using as you suggested, money from revenue cameras.

You would need to change the guages on the tracks to avoid unload and load at borders, etc.

Not to mention, without a 'full load' - trains won't run...period.

The upgrade for 19km's of the Ipswich Motorway in Qld has cost us $19 billion dollars, how much do you think it's going to cost to restructure, repair and upgrade a whole rail network?

I know trains derail, not very often but they do. But trucks crash as well.

Do you think a truck would go if it only had a few boxes in the back instead of a full load?

They already have solutions to your proposed gauge problem.


Someone said products would be more damaged when being transported by rail. But I doubt that would be true. Trains accelerate and brake a lot slower then trucks which would be putting less dramatic forces on the load then what could be experienced in a truck. Plus the load should be secured anyway in case the train does get a run in or run out.

Obviously you will never get a train track to every supermarket in Australia, but if a train replaced multiple trucks between capital cities that would make the freeways less busy, and therefore safer.

Obviously this will never happen, but it does have it's positives.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Someone said products would be more damaged when being transported by rail. But I doubt that would be true. Trains accelerate and brake a lot slower then trucks which would be putting less dramatic forces on the load then what could be experienced in a truck. Plus the load should be secured anyway in case the train does get a run in or run out.

You'd be surprised. I did work for a company that made steel pipe (with concrete on the inside). They knew it was cheaper to use rail the problem was the pipes kept going missing or got damaged. So from then on they would only use trucks (even if it was more expensive).

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Someone said products would be more damaged when being transported by rail. But I doubt that would be true. Trains accelerate and brake a lot slower then trucks which would be putting less dramatic forces on the load then what could be experienced in a truck. Plus the load should be secured anyway in case the train does get a run in or run out.

Obviously this will never happen, but it does have it's positives.

It does have it's positives, and was in fact cheaper for us to transport chemicals via train...it does, however, pose a big problem when containers arrive damaged and the chemical (usually DG, extremely toxic), has leaked all over the inside of the containers...which is why the previous company I worked for moved away from rail freight - it was too dangerous, particularly when people didn't realise they were the kind of chemicals that will kill you...sure, there is some risk of it in Road transport, however, the road transport seemed to have a better understanding of the contents of their truck, with the exception of a few subbies who thought it was okay to clean up these chemicals with no protection, pierce the drums on the pallets with the fork tynes and leave the contents to flow somewhere between Sydney and BF Idaho...

All forms of transport have their merits, don't get me wrong, but it's unlikely that they will go back down this avenue again...

And what do you know...it appears you and Sudzy agree on something...

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Elks

The Australian road transport industry is high efficient, and contributes greatly to this counties prosperity. In part because of the economy of scale the larger trucks bring.

And also in part to fuel subsidies and not necessarily paying the full cost of the road maintenance their presence requires.... a 35 tonne truck does as much damage to the road as 900 cars - is truck rego 900 times as much?

Lets not kid ourselves, the cards are stacked in the truckies favour at the moment (economically) compared to any other method of transport.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by atec77

A couple of really silly questions and knowingly being askes that way , just because the trucks are bigger doesn't offer Carte' Blanch on breaking and ignoring the rules , change lanes when safe not "make way people"
or other profanities

Australian men seem to think their manhood is being threatened if a larger vehicle requires any sort of courtesy on the road...

Big heavy vehicles require room and assitance in traffic, sometimes you may need to (horror) let them in front of you, or slow down so they can merge across. They are big, heavy, cumbersome and have to deal daily with little schmucks scurrying all around them. I give them respect, and shock, I have never had a problem.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

It does have it's positives, and was in fact cheaper for us to transport chemicals via train...it does, however, pose a big problem when containers arrive damaged and the chemical (usually DG, extremely toxic), has leaked all over the inside of the containers...which is why the previous company I worked for moved away from rail freight - it was too dangerous, particularly when people didn't realise they were the kind of chemicals that will kill you...sure, there is some risk of it in Road transport, however, the road transport seemed to have a better understanding of the contents of their truck, with the exception of a few subbies who thought it was okay to clean up these chemicals with no protection, pierce the drums on the pallets with the fork tynes and leave the contents to flow somewhere between Sydney and BF Idaho...

All forms of transport have their merits, don't get me wrong, but it's unlikely that they will go back down this avenue again...

And what do you know...it appears you and Sudzy agree on something...

Sezzy, you are making a decision on the merits of rail based on how it is currently run, where train lines are right now and comparing the current costs and practicalities. Of course road wins hands down today, but only because as a society we have heavily subsidised that system, our tax dollars have been fostering the inefficient method of road transport that we all pay for, including the high maintenance cost of constructing and maintaining roads to support trucks.

Its not even a case of who pays for the roads, the road transport companies or the consumer, in the end we pay by paying more tax to support the roads and/or higher charges that need to be passed on by the road transport companies for their services

There is no reason why goods shouldn't travel just as well by rail, or should disappear, that is just bad management. There is no reason why we cant fix compatibility questions, its all just a factor of the lack of investment in this system. There is no reason why we cant improve access to areas at train terminals at major cities such as Melb and Syd for local road delivery ec We have sections of rail that are neglected, trains that need to go slow, trains that pop the tracks because etc, there is no reason, other than money, as to why we cant have better infrastructure here.

No one has said that rail can replace every road in Australia or that every one can get rail to work, or that we can get rid of all trucks, but for traffic in the main corridors, as in the article I quoted which compared costs for lanes on the Monash Freeway in Melbourne or the trucks which go up and down the Hume 24/7, rail is both the cost, time and environmentally best option......when managed properly......that's something a long sighted government(not something we've had for quite a while) needs to make sure happens.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sezzy, you are making a decision on the merits of rail based on how it is currently run, where train lines are right now and comparing the current costs and practicalities. Of course road wins hands down today, but only because as a society we have heavily subsidised that system, our tax dollars have been fostering the inefficient method of road transport that we all pay for, including the high maintenance cost of constructing and maintaining roads to support trucks.

You're right, I am basing it on how it currently is. My reasoning? One. That's how it currently is. Two. I'm just an average person, and unless you somehow work for rail AND road OR can see into the future, I would imagine you are too...I'm not sure that I would say heavily subsidised either...as I don't believe that to be the case at all.

If you want to try and have the 'high maintenance cost of constructing and maintaining roads to support trucks', I really wouldn't bother, unless you know 'exactly' what you're talking about, and not just text book stuff, the real nuts and bolts - because to be honest, it all sounds 'uni lecturish'.

Originally Posted by sudzy

Its not even a case of who pays for the roads, the road transport companies or the consumer, in the end we pay by paying more tax to support the roads and/or higher charges that need to be passed on by the road transport companies for their services

It actually is about who pays, we already have an over inflated system, why inflate it any further? I love the idealism, I really do - but we're currently working with a system whereby we get bent over before we even walk out our front door.

Originally Posted by sudzy

There is no reason why goods shouldn't travel just as well by rail, or should disappear, that is just bad management. There is no reason why we cant fix compatibility questions, its all just a factor of the lack of investment in this system. There is no reason why we cant improve access to areas at train terminals at major cities such as Melb and Syd for local road delivery ec We have sections of rail that are neglected, trains that need to go slow, trains that pop the tracks because etc, there is no reason, other than money, as to why we cant have better infrastructure here.

Money is a pretty significant reason, and most of the infrastructure that happens is based on credit, not on cash. If you really feel that strongly about it, which I'm not sure you do, perhaps you could go lobby the government to get the $185 billion spent on welfare last year to fix the roads and the rail lines?

Originally Posted by sudzy

No one has said that rail can replace every road in Australia or that every one can get rail to work, or that we can get rid of all trucks, but for traffic in the main corridors, as in the article I quoted which compared costs for lanes on the Monash Freeway in Melbourne or the trucks which go up and down the Hume 24/7, rail is both the cost, time and environmentally best option......when managed properly......that's something a long sighted government(not something we've had for quite a while) needs to make sure happens.

Natural progression in developing countries first works on foot transport, followed by horse/*** and cart, followed by rail, followed by cars. Go take a look at India, or any other developing country.

There is a theory that the other half has - move everyone out of Queensland, NT, WA - sell it to the Chinese, get them to fix the shambles. They made great movements with transport, and their network is government run.

We really can't have it both ways...and regardless of that - we would still need to build/maintain roads for vehicles, because they won't be gone completely, so in effect you would actually be doubling the cost to 'cover all bases'.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

, because they won't be gone completely, so in effect you would actually be doubling the cost to 'cover all bases'.

A two way road and a rail line will cost less than a six lane freeway and out perform it in terms of freight/people moved and cost, dont know how you can claim double the cost when it will be in fact far less.

Surely you understand the concept that roads wont have to be built to carry the same volume of traffic when there is a rail link?

It appears not, obviously pursuing any line of discussion further on this is pointless

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

A two way road and a rail line will cost less than a six lane freeway and out perform it in terms of freight/people moved and cost, dont know how you can claim double the cost when it will be in fact far less.

Surely you understand the concept that roads wont have to be built to carry the same volume of traffic when there is a rail link?

It appears not, obviously pursuing any line of discussion further on this is pointless

Looks awesome on paper/in print.

Now put it into practice.

Don't forget to account for everything. Because if you do...people are gonna be really upset with you...

You're programmed to think to a one track.

Cost effectiveness and efficiency are NOT one and the same thing...

[maty]

why not elimated all the problems and just send it by plane

[maty]

i work for toll carrying spare parts(ford).They get picked up in the afternoon in melbourne loaded for sydney unloaded n out to most dealerships b4 9am.There are drivers from dealerships in wollongong,gosford n newcastle who come to the depot(5am) in sydney to get parts.Todays world is just in time order today deliver tomorrow.Trains cant do this