BMW advertise their cars as 'The Ultimate Driving Machine'. I would suggest that no car can really meet this claim fully.
Over the weekend I visited a local National Trust property where the majority of the parking is on grass areas. Being a Bank Holiday weekend it was not surprising that the tarmac surfaced car park was full and the grass areas were in use. The recent weather meant that the grass had become muddy at the entrance to the car park but was on the whole in quite good condition.
I drove in and parked up with no problems, but as I was getting out of the car I became aware of two BMW drivers starting a heated discussion with the parking marshal and objecting to where he wanted them to park. Their claim was that if they parked there their cars would be stuck. This despite the parking area being only slightly on a slope. Apparently they felt they could not reverse up this minor slope so if the cars in front (in a double parkied row) didn't move then they were going nowhere.
This does not sound like an ultimate driving machine to me!
It is true that in slippery conditions rear wheel drive cars can have issues with traction but no one else was complaining.
Front wheel drive cars like mine are better in these situations but are by no means perfect, primarily because they use the same wheels for driving and steering.
Four wheel drive cars also have problems, such as increased fuel consumption, weight and technical complexity.
So is there an ultimate driving machine? I suggest there is not, simply cars which are good in specific areas.
Perhaps BMW should append a disclaimer to their advert - Terms and Conditions Apply
Showing posts with label Transport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transport. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2013
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Bus Chaos
In a recent publication from our local council I was initially pleased to hear that they are proposing to add smart ticketing across the city for the bus services.
As a curmudgeon who has long been hoping for such a thing to spread as this should make life easier for people and perhaps increase the takeup of public transport I was optimistic.
Unfortunately my optimism was to be unfounded. As I could not find any details either in the document, or on the web links it gave I emailed the public transport coordinator for the council.
It turns out that phase one is for a 'smart' paper ticket! Basically a day rover ticket that will be accepted on the two major operators in the city and only valid on the day of purchase. Not exactly what I would call smart ticketing. No mention of whether the smaller operators would accept it either.
Phase two however is equally disappointing - this will consist of smart card tickets, with each operator issuing their own.
One of these operators already has as smart card ticket scheme and reading between the lines it appears they are not prepared to make any changes so the second operator will have to adopt their scheme or they will 'take their ball home'!
As yet however there are no clear plans to make them compatible between the operators, apparently this will be left to the individual companies to negotiate and the council seem to have no plans to mediate. This seems ridiculous as there is a standard navailable (ITSO) for both the hardware elements (cards and readers) and the software.
At present, we have up to two years to wait to see what develops.
As I was now in bus mode, I decided to also query the signs which are appearing at the bus stops which simply report the time of the next bus based on the timetable.
Apparently the system was intended to use real time tracking from the buses, using a system developed by another county. That county then scrapped the system forcing a rethink and partnership with yet another county.
This latest system does not yet integrate to GPS tracking from the buses and this is under development. This is why we get the timetabled times. When the GPS tracking is enabled it will display minutes to the next bus if available or the fallback is the timetable data as at present.
Having visited the county where it is running and seen it in action I can see it works. I suppose the next question I shall have to ask is why is the integration taking so long?
As a curmudgeon who has long been hoping for such a thing to spread as this should make life easier for people and perhaps increase the takeup of public transport I was optimistic.
Unfortunately my optimism was to be unfounded. As I could not find any details either in the document, or on the web links it gave I emailed the public transport coordinator for the council.
It turns out that phase one is for a 'smart' paper ticket! Basically a day rover ticket that will be accepted on the two major operators in the city and only valid on the day of purchase. Not exactly what I would call smart ticketing. No mention of whether the smaller operators would accept it either.
Phase two however is equally disappointing - this will consist of smart card tickets, with each operator issuing their own.
One of these operators already has as smart card ticket scheme and reading between the lines it appears they are not prepared to make any changes so the second operator will have to adopt their scheme or they will 'take their ball home'!
As yet however there are no clear plans to make them compatible between the operators, apparently this will be left to the individual companies to negotiate and the council seem to have no plans to mediate. This seems ridiculous as there is a standard navailable (ITSO) for both the hardware elements (cards and readers) and the software.
At present, we have up to two years to wait to see what develops.
As I was now in bus mode, I decided to also query the signs which are appearing at the bus stops which simply report the time of the next bus based on the timetable.
Apparently the system was intended to use real time tracking from the buses, using a system developed by another county. That county then scrapped the system forcing a rethink and partnership with yet another county.
This latest system does not yet integrate to GPS tracking from the buses and this is under development. This is why we get the timetabled times. When the GPS tracking is enabled it will display minutes to the next bus if available or the fallback is the timetable data as at present.
Having visited the county where it is running and seen it in action I can see it works. I suppose the next question I shall have to ask is why is the integration taking so long?
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Not So Smart Transport System
On a recent train journey I noticed an advert for the train company's smart ticketing system. No more paper tickets, no more inconvenience - simply purchase tickets on your smart ticket.
So far so good, so I logged on to the website and ordered myself the smart ticket, which in essence is a contactless smart card like the Oyster system.
After a very short wait, my ticket arrived in the post, branded Stagecoach. As Stagecoach are the parent company of my local rail operator this was no surprise to me.
Now I started to look at what I can do with my ticket - and that is where it starts to go down hill. I could see from the accompanying leaflet that I could use it for certain journeys on the network but not all stations on the line would accept it. I could go to London but whereas with a paper ticket I can include travel within London, that is not yet possible with the smart ticket.
I tried contacting Stagecoach customer services via their website, to be told they only handled the bus and coach smart cards. Eventually I was put in touch with a very helpful gentleman in the IT department who DOES know what is going on.
After a long conversation I was able to ascertain the following, with the rider on all elements being - we are working towards that.
So, all in all, not a very smart solution after all.
I can only praise the chap in IT who was able to both understand and answer fully all my questions, but why did customer services not have this information?
I remember reading of a promise by the last government to implement nationwide smart ticketing by the end of 2014. This was I believe taken on by the present administration without a move of the target dates. Based on what I have seen from this scheme and Oyster, I think they are both very wide of the mark.
In Nottingham, we have Phase 2 of the tram network - allegedly this will include smart ticketing options. I will be interested to see their solution. Perhaps we all need card holders that can hold a multitude of smart cards, remembering that as they are all contactless we will have to take the appropriate card out of the wallet to use it in order to avoid confusing the reader.
So far so good, so I logged on to the website and ordered myself the smart ticket, which in essence is a contactless smart card like the Oyster system.
After a very short wait, my ticket arrived in the post, branded Stagecoach. As Stagecoach are the parent company of my local rail operator this was no surprise to me.
Now I started to look at what I can do with my ticket - and that is where it starts to go down hill. I could see from the accompanying leaflet that I could use it for certain journeys on the network but not all stations on the line would accept it. I could go to London but whereas with a paper ticket I can include travel within London, that is not yet possible with the smart ticket.
I tried contacting Stagecoach customer services via their website, to be told they only handled the bus and coach smart cards. Eventually I was put in touch with a very helpful gentleman in the IT department who DOES know what is going on.
After a long conversation I was able to ascertain the following, with the rider on all elements being - we are working towards that.
- My smart ticket can only be used with my network - if I want to use other smart ticket services withing the Stagecoach group I must obtain the ticket for that particular network.
- As I already knew, only certain stations can accept the smart ticket.
- I cannot buy a ticket online to load to the smart ticket, I must do this by phone or at the station.
- There is a limit of how many tickets can be on the card at any one time - and get this, it depends on how much data each ticket contains, as if I am likely to know this - about four to six apparently.
- There is no facility to get a bus smart card on a Pay as You Go basis like Oyster, only weekly and monthly passes.
- There is no interoperability with other smart card ticketing systems throughout the country.
So, all in all, not a very smart solution after all.
I can only praise the chap in IT who was able to both understand and answer fully all my questions, but why did customer services not have this information?
Dates for roll out of the missing features are necessarily vague, but don't hold your breath. Until then we will have to stick to good old fashioned paper tickets.
I remember reading of a promise by the last government to implement nationwide smart ticketing by the end of 2014. This was I believe taken on by the present administration without a move of the target dates. Based on what I have seen from this scheme and Oyster, I think they are both very wide of the mark.
In Nottingham, we have Phase 2 of the tram network - allegedly this will include smart ticketing options. I will be interested to see their solution. Perhaps we all need card holders that can hold a multitude of smart cards, remembering that as they are all contactless we will have to take the appropriate card out of the wallet to use it in order to avoid confusing the reader.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tanker Drivers Strike
No one can have missed the news now that the tanker drivers are planning strike action to disrupt the other hardworking people in this country. I find their reasons unacceptable as they seem to have ignored the fact that this country and indeed many others are in a financial downturn.
The key complaint appears to be that their employment package is being attacked, and I think most of this boils down to the pensions. They should get real and recognise that the high paying pensions they were on are unsustainable in the present economic climate and are these schemes are being closed down.
I was in a final salary scheme in my previous employment, and that was closed down over six years ago. The company just could not afford it. Initially it was closed to new employees but it was then closed to all. We were transferred on to stock market based pensions, which from my annual updates are doing very badly.
No one was happy, but to have taken action would have been counterproductive as the company would have even less money available to support the pension, and there was no way it could be re-instated.
The tanker drivers are just being asked to join many others in the private sector, with the prospect of having to work longer before they can afford to retire.
The salaries paid to them are quite good, and certainly well above the national average. They are indeed doing a dangerous job of work, but so are our armed forces and their remuneration package is far worse - and they have a far higher chance of losing their lives at work.
The general public should show that they do NOT support this action, in fact it was only put through due to some very interesting accounting in the vote process - certainly it is clear that the majority of those entitled to vote did not vote for a strike.
The panic buying of fuel should also stop - it can only make things worse, particularly if fuel is stored in an unsafe manner. People doing this risk injury or death by stockpiling (especially petrol which is far more volatile).
If electric cars really were viable, now would be the time they could prove it! I challenge them to do so.
The key complaint appears to be that their employment package is being attacked, and I think most of this boils down to the pensions. They should get real and recognise that the high paying pensions they were on are unsustainable in the present economic climate and are these schemes are being closed down.
I was in a final salary scheme in my previous employment, and that was closed down over six years ago. The company just could not afford it. Initially it was closed to new employees but it was then closed to all. We were transferred on to stock market based pensions, which from my annual updates are doing very badly.
No one was happy, but to have taken action would have been counterproductive as the company would have even less money available to support the pension, and there was no way it could be re-instated.
The tanker drivers are just being asked to join many others in the private sector, with the prospect of having to work longer before they can afford to retire.
The salaries paid to them are quite good, and certainly well above the national average. They are indeed doing a dangerous job of work, but so are our armed forces and their remuneration package is far worse - and they have a far higher chance of losing their lives at work.
The general public should show that they do NOT support this action, in fact it was only put through due to some very interesting accounting in the vote process - certainly it is clear that the majority of those entitled to vote did not vote for a strike.
The panic buying of fuel should also stop - it can only make things worse, particularly if fuel is stored in an unsafe manner. People doing this risk injury or death by stockpiling (especially petrol which is far more volatile).
If electric cars really were viable, now would be the time they could prove it! I challenge them to do so.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Football Chaos
Yesterday I was in Derby and made the mistake of trying to drive though Pride Park.
Why a mistake you ask? Because Derby County were playing a home match in the Pride Park stadium. I had not checked the kickoff time and therefore was driving through as the fans left the stadium.
Utter chaos ensued as the fans felt that all the roads were in fact pavements for them to walk along, meaning they were mixed in with the cars, vans, coaches etc which were trying to use the road legitimately.
Add to this the fact that the police who had been present to ensure order during the match were now leaving in their minibuses and leaving the chaos behind. Could they have marshalled the fans? I think not only that they could, but they should have. How much extra time would have been required for them to ensure the orderly departure of the fans on foot and controlled the vehicle traffic.
Effectively, for some time the whole of Pride Park was gridlocked. I am sure the businesses there are not happy with the scenario as their customers are considerably inconvenienced and probably stay away, as I would have if I had realised that the match had just ended.
Two other points come to mind:
1. The stop start traffic must have a considerable carbon footprint.
2. The number of drivers on mobile phones who clearly considered they were not 'driving' as the traffic was stop start. This despite the fact that there were still some police officers around (mostly in minibuses and police cars leaving the stadium)
It would not take much effort to put in place a traffic management system, with one way travel using the full width of the roads, to ensure much faster and safer flow. Locally this is demonstrated very well at major events at Donington Park. Further afield you only have to look at the management of Silverstone when there is a Grand Prix race on - a very large number of vehicles safely marshalled in and out of the circuit.
Football clubs spend an obscene amount of money on their players. Perhaps it is now time they spent money on reducing the negative impact they have on their neighbours.
Why a mistake you ask? Because Derby County were playing a home match in the Pride Park stadium. I had not checked the kickoff time and therefore was driving through as the fans left the stadium.
Utter chaos ensued as the fans felt that all the roads were in fact pavements for them to walk along, meaning they were mixed in with the cars, vans, coaches etc which were trying to use the road legitimately.
Add to this the fact that the police who had been present to ensure order during the match were now leaving in their minibuses and leaving the chaos behind. Could they have marshalled the fans? I think not only that they could, but they should have. How much extra time would have been required for them to ensure the orderly departure of the fans on foot and controlled the vehicle traffic.
Effectively, for some time the whole of Pride Park was gridlocked. I am sure the businesses there are not happy with the scenario as their customers are considerably inconvenienced and probably stay away, as I would have if I had realised that the match had just ended.
Two other points come to mind:
1. The stop start traffic must have a considerable carbon footprint.
2. The number of drivers on mobile phones who clearly considered they were not 'driving' as the traffic was stop start. This despite the fact that there were still some police officers around (mostly in minibuses and police cars leaving the stadium)
It would not take much effort to put in place a traffic management system, with one way travel using the full width of the roads, to ensure much faster and safer flow. Locally this is demonstrated very well at major events at Donington Park. Further afield you only have to look at the management of Silverstone when there is a Grand Prix race on - a very large number of vehicles safely marshalled in and out of the circuit.
Football clubs spend an obscene amount of money on their players. Perhaps it is now time they spent money on reducing the negative impact they have on their neighbours.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Media Hysteria
I was greeted by a picture in the paper today of an airliner landing at Edinburgh Airport in the recent bad weather.
The caption refers to 'bumpy landing' and the airliner being 'buffeted by strong winds'. Media panic?
This is not necessarily supported by the photograph however. All we see is an airliner coming in 'wing low'.
Any pilot in the audience will recognise this as a standard option available to pilots in strong cross winds and does not imply buffeting or a bumpy landing. There are two approaches available to pilots which may be used alone or in combination.
The first is the crab approach whereby the aircraft is kept level but pointing in to the wind, hence the name as it appears to be crabbing sideways down the runway. This requires the pilot to straighten the aircraft just before touchdown. Too early and the aircraft will drift sideways, too late and there will be excessive load on the landing gear and a jerk as the aircraft pulls straight.
The second approach, which may be what is displayed here, is the wing down approach which allows the aircraft to sideslip into the wind while remaining straight down the runway. It has the advantage that it can often be maintained until touchdown. Where a risk does exist however is if the bank angle exceeds a certain aircraft specific figure which means there is a risk of the wingtip or an engine touching the runway.
Airline pilots are highly trained for these situations, aircraft are designed to handle them, only the media like to hype it up to generate a story.
The caption refers to 'bumpy landing' and the airliner being 'buffeted by strong winds'. Media panic?
This is not necessarily supported by the photograph however. All we see is an airliner coming in 'wing low'.
Any pilot in the audience will recognise this as a standard option available to pilots in strong cross winds and does not imply buffeting or a bumpy landing. There are two approaches available to pilots which may be used alone or in combination.
The first is the crab approach whereby the aircraft is kept level but pointing in to the wind, hence the name as it appears to be crabbing sideways down the runway. This requires the pilot to straighten the aircraft just before touchdown. Too early and the aircraft will drift sideways, too late and there will be excessive load on the landing gear and a jerk as the aircraft pulls straight.
The second approach, which may be what is displayed here, is the wing down approach which allows the aircraft to sideslip into the wind while remaining straight down the runway. It has the advantage that it can often be maintained until touchdown. Where a risk does exist however is if the bank angle exceeds a certain aircraft specific figure which means there is a risk of the wingtip or an engine touching the runway.
Airline pilots are highly trained for these situations, aircraft are designed to handle them, only the media like to hype it up to generate a story.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Bombardier - Round Two
I was in Derby at the weekend and came across a number of people under the 'Socialist Worker' banner.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)
The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.
I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice. Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored. I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored. That is democracy for you.
The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.
Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies.
Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company. I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.
Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what? We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost. All we have gained is more debt, more risk. Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.
I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them. This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.
This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines. BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.
Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise. So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.
I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)
The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.
I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice. Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored. I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored. That is democracy for you.
The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.
Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies.
Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company. I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.
Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what? We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost. All we have gained is more debt, more risk. Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.
I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them. This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.
This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines. BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.
Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise. So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.
I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Big Brother and 1984
Yesterday we had a protest on the M1 in the area by motorcyclists against proposed new legislation from the EU. This took the form of a peaceful go slow.
They were taking issue with proposed new legislation for motorbikes from the EU. Some of the new legislation makes sense but much of it is a combination of Nanny State and Big Brother. It may also be a sign of things to come.
One element that I think has a grounding in common sense is a proposed requirement for motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing - something which a reasonable number already do as it helps protect them from other road users who don't see them (it can do nothing for those who don't look unfortunately)
Then it starts getting more controlling - severe restrictions on what changes may be made to the motorbike from it's factory specification. I know bikers like to customise their bikes and I am sure most do so in a perfectly safe and sensible manner - after all they are more at risk than car drivers if something does go wrong. We also have the MOT test to oversee vehicle safety.
The most worring element as far as I am concerned is the planned requirement for all new bikes to be fitted with a GPS tracker to record the details of all the bikes journeys. I don't recall whether the plans were for this requirement to be retrofitted to existing bikes but if not now, then I am sure it will be.
This would then open the way for the legislators to expand the scope to cover all motor vehicles.
Once this has been done, what would the data be used for. If only to provide an impartial witness in the event of an accident by recording what happened in the run up to the accident then that seems fine. But in reality we know that the information will be used for more than that. What is more with a number of high profile data losses by public bodies, you can never be sure who will get hold of the data. Or in times of financial hardship, who the data will be sold to!
Even for accident analysis I would be concerned. Without expensive additional components (and services that as yet may not be available everywhere) a GPS derived position is not accurate enough to determine whether a biker was on the correct side of the road for example. Use in Germany of GPS for road tolls has resulted in errors whereby drivers have been charged for being on a toll road when in fact they were on an adjacent local road.
Where will this end? Maybe we should all have RFID tracking chips fitted now and the government can be sure where we all are at all times, even when we are not using our vehicles!
They were taking issue with proposed new legislation for motorbikes from the EU. Some of the new legislation makes sense but much of it is a combination of Nanny State and Big Brother. It may also be a sign of things to come.
One element that I think has a grounding in common sense is a proposed requirement for motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing - something which a reasonable number already do as it helps protect them from other road users who don't see them (it can do nothing for those who don't look unfortunately)
Then it starts getting more controlling - severe restrictions on what changes may be made to the motorbike from it's factory specification. I know bikers like to customise their bikes and I am sure most do so in a perfectly safe and sensible manner - after all they are more at risk than car drivers if something does go wrong. We also have the MOT test to oversee vehicle safety.
The most worring element as far as I am concerned is the planned requirement for all new bikes to be fitted with a GPS tracker to record the details of all the bikes journeys. I don't recall whether the plans were for this requirement to be retrofitted to existing bikes but if not now, then I am sure it will be.
This would then open the way for the legislators to expand the scope to cover all motor vehicles.
Once this has been done, what would the data be used for. If only to provide an impartial witness in the event of an accident by recording what happened in the run up to the accident then that seems fine. But in reality we know that the information will be used for more than that. What is more with a number of high profile data losses by public bodies, you can never be sure who will get hold of the data. Or in times of financial hardship, who the data will be sold to!
Even for accident analysis I would be concerned. Without expensive additional components (and services that as yet may not be available everywhere) a GPS derived position is not accurate enough to determine whether a biker was on the correct side of the road for example. Use in Germany of GPS for road tolls has resulted in errors whereby drivers have been charged for being on a toll road when in fact they were on an adjacent local road.
Where will this end? Maybe we should all have RFID tracking chips fitted now and the government can be sure where we all are at all times, even when we are not using our vehicles!
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Highwaymen Strike Again
Yesterday a stretch of road I regularly use was closed all day for repairs. Nothing new there and indeed the surface was badly cracked and contained many potholes of varying depth. Repairs were long overdue. As a cyclist I found the road very bad to ride along.
Having closed the whole road, in both directions you would expect the highways team to arrive, strip back the road surface, make any necessary deeper repairs and then resurface the road.
But no, it seems that some of the potholes were clearly not important enough to fix, similarly some of the cracks in the surface. What was actually done was selected areas of the road, probably between eighty and ninety percent of the surface, were stripped back and resurfaced. This left a patchwork quilt of unrepaired areas. Had these been pristine road surface then I could have understood the logic, save money perhaps, but no.
It may even not have saved any money, because I think the job would have taken less time and manpower if the whole stretch had been resurfaced rather than doing a patchwork job which then involved selectively cutting out areas.
What we are left with therefore is a road that is good in parts, but where the unrepaired areas will have to be done as a separate job. I am no expert but I also suspect that the joins may well be a weak area which could soon allow water in and start the cracking process all over again.
And just to add insult to (potential) injury, in some areas the strip either side of the centre line has been repaired but the areas where cyclists and motorbike riders will ride has been left unrepaired.
I will report back when the next round of repairs on this road is undertaken.
And our councils wonder why they are struggling financially!
Having closed the whole road, in both directions you would expect the highways team to arrive, strip back the road surface, make any necessary deeper repairs and then resurface the road.
But no, it seems that some of the potholes were clearly not important enough to fix, similarly some of the cracks in the surface. What was actually done was selected areas of the road, probably between eighty and ninety percent of the surface, were stripped back and resurfaced. This left a patchwork quilt of unrepaired areas. Had these been pristine road surface then I could have understood the logic, save money perhaps, but no.
It may even not have saved any money, because I think the job would have taken less time and manpower if the whole stretch had been resurfaced rather than doing a patchwork job which then involved selectively cutting out areas.
What we are left with therefore is a road that is good in parts, but where the unrepaired areas will have to be done as a separate job. I am no expert but I also suspect that the joins may well be a weak area which could soon allow water in and start the cracking process all over again.
And just to add insult to (potential) injury, in some areas the strip either side of the centre line has been repaired but the areas where cyclists and motorbike riders will ride has been left unrepaired.
I will report back when the next round of repairs on this road is undertaken.
And our councils wonder why they are struggling financially!
Monday, August 22, 2011
Electric Cars (2)
Recent discussions in the news and a Top Gear item have prompted me to post again on the subjetc of electric cars.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Supermarket Green Trickery Part Two
Previously in this blog I have discussed how supermarkets use environmental claims to enhance their image whilst in fact what they are doing benefits the supermarket more than the environment and also gives them a nice image with prospective customers.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Brussels Bureaucracy
From reading an article in the paper yesterday I get the feeling we are likely to be put under the Brussels thumb again. There are two caveats of course - first that you should never believe all you read in the paper, and secondly that this is currently not enacted in law.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Integrated Public Transport
One of my problems with public transport is the method of payment. It is inconvenient to carry around large amounts of change and assorted bank notes just to cover the various fares we have to pay.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Nottingham Transport System
Some years ago Nottingham started developing what seemed like a good transport system. There was to be a new tram system providing links from outside the city direct to the centre. You would be able to leave your car at one of the car parks on the outskirts of the city and travel quickly and easily to the heart of it.
That was the idea at least.
We now have Phase 1 in operation and it has been so for a while now therefore I think any initial issues should have been ironed out. Phase 2 is repeatedly on/off depending upon political wills and the method of funding.
Let's start with the issues with what we have.
First and foremost the trams are frequently overcrowded. The capacity was seemingly underestimated, either that or the system was sized to the budget and not the actual requirement. Given the frequency of the trams I think there is no scope to run extra trams and the infrastructure was built around the size of the existing trams so adding an extra car to the trams, even if possible, would not work without major rebuilding. This means that there is no spare capacity for growth in population or popularity.
Secondly, the payment system is antiquated. London has the Oyster Card which allows very quick payment of fares, tap and go as they would say. The tram system has a smart card but it is very slow in operation. It is also limited in that you purchase a one month card say and if for some reason you don't make many trips you lose out. The Oyster Card is simply a payment card which doesn't have these constraints but still offers discounted rates for using it. Or you can just use cash but be warned, bank notes above £10 are not accepted on the trams so a family of four, whose ticket price would exceed the limit cannot use a £20 note to pay!
Then we have the issue of access to the city centre. If there are protests or marches in the city for whatever reason then the trams stop some way before their destination (ultimately the main rail station) without even getting as far as the Old Market Square in the heart where most people seem to go. Is there a discounted ticket on these days? No. Do they consider keeping the march away from the tram? No.
Finally, and one which I have experienced only once fortunately, the provision for breakdown. I was using the tram to attend an exhibition in the city centre. All went well with my journey in but when it came to return there was a loud bang from the tram shortly before one of the tram stops. We continued and stopped in the tram stop to be told by the driver there was a small technical problem and we would continue shortly. Quite why he said this I don't know because he and the conductor had already inspected the problem (pantograph broken) and as the tram has only one then we were going nowhere - of course we we were on the tram and hadn't seen this.
After some considerable time the driver told us the tram was going no further and we might as well get off and continue our journey by other means. For a considerable time we we were told nothing and when we used the platform intercom to contact the central control they could tell us nothing either.
Eventually we were told that a replacement bus service was being laid on but from a previous stop. Trams were running on the other line to get passengers there but by then the bus service was already swamped as all trams coming out of the city were emptying passengers on to the platform. Compare the capacity and frequency of the bus compared with the tram and you realise this will only get worse. I was forced to do the same as many others, go back to the city centre and take a taxi out to my car.
There were two possible solutions I could see yet when I suggested then to the company after the event I was told they were not possible.
The trams were equipped with towing links designed to enable one to tow another - the engineer who was sent out set this up on our tram and the one pulled in behind but never actually linked them or moved the broken down tram. Had they done this the broken down tram could have been towed the short distance to the depot (remember no trams running on this part of the line at all now).
Alternatively as there are two lines at this point it should have been possible to implement single line working on the remaining section (which does go down to single line later anyway) and provide a reduced service but still a service. Had this requirement been thought about when the line was designed it should be possible to make allowances for such a contingency.
The outcome was a tram service that only covered a fraction of the service for many hours. Amusingly the 'Next Tram' indicators confidently counted down to the next tram even though none were moving!
And now for Phase 2 - well there isn't much to say apart from the fact that I am not sure we will ever get it and if we do it may have limited use.
Remember the car parks for Park and Ride? Well for one of the lines it is quite a way towards Nottingham down a heavily congested single carriageway A road. The opportunity was there to run the line a little bit further out to join up with East Midlands Parkway rail station which means better rail links and access to the huge and underutilised car park there. That also has a shorter stretch of A road to get to it so this could be made dual carriageway at a lesser cost. Apparently though this is not to be done as there are few intermediate stations to be served along this route.
There you go then, a semi tick in an environmental box without solving too many problems.
That was the idea at least.
We now have Phase 1 in operation and it has been so for a while now therefore I think any initial issues should have been ironed out. Phase 2 is repeatedly on/off depending upon political wills and the method of funding.
Let's start with the issues with what we have.
First and foremost the trams are frequently overcrowded. The capacity was seemingly underestimated, either that or the system was sized to the budget and not the actual requirement. Given the frequency of the trams I think there is no scope to run extra trams and the infrastructure was built around the size of the existing trams so adding an extra car to the trams, even if possible, would not work without major rebuilding. This means that there is no spare capacity for growth in population or popularity.
Secondly, the payment system is antiquated. London has the Oyster Card which allows very quick payment of fares, tap and go as they would say. The tram system has a smart card but it is very slow in operation. It is also limited in that you purchase a one month card say and if for some reason you don't make many trips you lose out. The Oyster Card is simply a payment card which doesn't have these constraints but still offers discounted rates for using it. Or you can just use cash but be warned, bank notes above £10 are not accepted on the trams so a family of four, whose ticket price would exceed the limit cannot use a £20 note to pay!
Then we have the issue of access to the city centre. If there are protests or marches in the city for whatever reason then the trams stop some way before their destination (ultimately the main rail station) without even getting as far as the Old Market Square in the heart where most people seem to go. Is there a discounted ticket on these days? No. Do they consider keeping the march away from the tram? No.
Finally, and one which I have experienced only once fortunately, the provision for breakdown. I was using the tram to attend an exhibition in the city centre. All went well with my journey in but when it came to return there was a loud bang from the tram shortly before one of the tram stops. We continued and stopped in the tram stop to be told by the driver there was a small technical problem and we would continue shortly. Quite why he said this I don't know because he and the conductor had already inspected the problem (pantograph broken) and as the tram has only one then we were going nowhere - of course we we were on the tram and hadn't seen this.
After some considerable time the driver told us the tram was going no further and we might as well get off and continue our journey by other means. For a considerable time we we were told nothing and when we used the platform intercom to contact the central control they could tell us nothing either.
Eventually we were told that a replacement bus service was being laid on but from a previous stop. Trams were running on the other line to get passengers there but by then the bus service was already swamped as all trams coming out of the city were emptying passengers on to the platform. Compare the capacity and frequency of the bus compared with the tram and you realise this will only get worse. I was forced to do the same as many others, go back to the city centre and take a taxi out to my car.
There were two possible solutions I could see yet when I suggested then to the company after the event I was told they were not possible.
The trams were equipped with towing links designed to enable one to tow another - the engineer who was sent out set this up on our tram and the one pulled in behind but never actually linked them or moved the broken down tram. Had they done this the broken down tram could have been towed the short distance to the depot (remember no trams running on this part of the line at all now).
Alternatively as there are two lines at this point it should have been possible to implement single line working on the remaining section (which does go down to single line later anyway) and provide a reduced service but still a service. Had this requirement been thought about when the line was designed it should be possible to make allowances for such a contingency.
The outcome was a tram service that only covered a fraction of the service for many hours. Amusingly the 'Next Tram' indicators confidently counted down to the next tram even though none were moving!
And now for Phase 2 - well there isn't much to say apart from the fact that I am not sure we will ever get it and if we do it may have limited use.
Remember the car parks for Park and Ride? Well for one of the lines it is quite a way towards Nottingham down a heavily congested single carriageway A road. The opportunity was there to run the line a little bit further out to join up with East Midlands Parkway rail station which means better rail links and access to the huge and underutilised car park there. That also has a shorter stretch of A road to get to it so this could be made dual carriageway at a lesser cost. Apparently though this is not to be done as there are few intermediate stations to be served along this route.
There you go then, a semi tick in an environmental box without solving too many problems.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
HS2 - My View
There has been a lot of talk about the new high speed rail link (HS2) and whether it offers a benefit or not.
It also seems there are contradictory views in the environmental camp. In theory HS2 has the capability to reduce air travel within the UK. This reduces the need to expand airports and cuts the CO2 emissions and noise from the flights that are either cut or extra flights that are no longer needed. On this basis you would expect the evironmentalists to be positively encouraging HS2. But no, they don't want this solution. It isn't clear what they want unless we are all to stop travelling but at the moment the broadband infrastructure is still inadequate as a replacement for face to face meetings and is never likely to replace conferences and business exhibitions.
What is the answer? The existing rail network is already creaking at the seams so there is very little scope for adding more trains. Speaking as someone who has had to stand on a number of reasonably long journeys in dangerously overcrowded trains I feel we must do something if we are not to force people in to their cars (again much hated by environmentalists).
Based on this we should go ahead and build HS2, making sure it covers enough of the country to provide benefit which means it must ultimately go to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other such key centres.
From an environmental impact point of view in many areas it is being built into tunnels and cuttings so reducing noise and visual disturbance. Maybe more of the route has to be built in this way but that depends on where it is passing.
Given the recent furore about Bombardier surely there must be good reason for going ahead - jobs could be saved and created. Not only jobs directly related to building the trains, but also construction jobs for the track and infrastructure and jobs at the new stations, drivers, maintenance staff and so on.
Of course a number of people in the south have complained about the line. An interesting solution was provided for this, put a station near them - improved links to London will send their house prices rocketting and they will suddenly change their minds.
We live in the 21st century and increasing population and work diversity means we must travel. Let us not be rated the poor relative to Europe when it comes to transport systems.
It also seems there are contradictory views in the environmental camp. In theory HS2 has the capability to reduce air travel within the UK. This reduces the need to expand airports and cuts the CO2 emissions and noise from the flights that are either cut or extra flights that are no longer needed. On this basis you would expect the evironmentalists to be positively encouraging HS2. But no, they don't want this solution. It isn't clear what they want unless we are all to stop travelling but at the moment the broadband infrastructure is still inadequate as a replacement for face to face meetings and is never likely to replace conferences and business exhibitions.
What is the answer? The existing rail network is already creaking at the seams so there is very little scope for adding more trains. Speaking as someone who has had to stand on a number of reasonably long journeys in dangerously overcrowded trains I feel we must do something if we are not to force people in to their cars (again much hated by environmentalists).
Based on this we should go ahead and build HS2, making sure it covers enough of the country to provide benefit which means it must ultimately go to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other such key centres.
From an environmental impact point of view in many areas it is being built into tunnels and cuttings so reducing noise and visual disturbance. Maybe more of the route has to be built in this way but that depends on where it is passing.
Given the recent furore about Bombardier surely there must be good reason for going ahead - jobs could be saved and created. Not only jobs directly related to building the trains, but also construction jobs for the track and infrastructure and jobs at the new stations, drivers, maintenance staff and so on.
Of course a number of people in the south have complained about the line. An interesting solution was provided for this, put a station near them - improved links to London will send their house prices rocketting and they will suddenly change their minds.
We live in the 21st century and increasing population and work diversity means we must travel. Let us not be rated the poor relative to Europe when it comes to transport systems.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Flying Cars
The Daily Mail reported today that flying cars could be with us in five years. Prototypes exist in the USA and reportedly the CAA states that certification in Europe should be easy on the back of that.
Should we be worrying about the skies being filled with these things? I would say an emphatic NO to that, and here's why.
I would expect certification in the USA to be in the Experimental category - this allows people to build flying machines and use them privately but with fairly strict limitatons. At present we have no equivalent category in Europe and the present European legislation is stricter than that of the US. It is to change as Europe takes more control over aviation from the individual countries but I can't see a European Experimental category.
To fly you need a pilot's licence - these are expensive to obtain and maintain. It is quite possible that the majority of the people who want one already have one and are quite happy flying aircraft - there's a novel idea. Some may take to the flying car but I can't see it being too many.
Aircraft have to be maintained to a high standard of airworthiness - this is not cheap at all as any owner will tell you. This is why many pilots hire an aircraft to let others have the risk and expense of maintenance and repairs, not to mention insurance.
As these flying cars are fixed wing, not rotary, they will need a runway to operate from. This means you will have people having to get in their flying car, drive to an airfield, convert from car to aircraft, takeoff and fly to an airfield near their destination, convert back to a car and then drive to their eventual destination. Practical, no more than driving to the airfield, hiring a real aircraft, and getting a taxi or hire car at the other end - which will also be less time consuming as there will be no rigging / derigging.
We also have the weather to contend with - weather you can safely drive in will prevent flight - so chances are you will have to drive anyway in a car that is a compromise and offers the worst of both worlds.
The final reason I have come up with for now is damage. Get a car park ding in a conventional car and you are annoyed. Get one in this machine and it can no longer be used as an aircraft until a certified engineer has repaired it and it has been deemed fit to fly again.
No way will I be getting a flying car rating on my licence!
Should we be worrying about the skies being filled with these things? I would say an emphatic NO to that, and here's why.
I would expect certification in the USA to be in the Experimental category - this allows people to build flying machines and use them privately but with fairly strict limitatons. At present we have no equivalent category in Europe and the present European legislation is stricter than that of the US. It is to change as Europe takes more control over aviation from the individual countries but I can't see a European Experimental category.
To fly you need a pilot's licence - these are expensive to obtain and maintain. It is quite possible that the majority of the people who want one already have one and are quite happy flying aircraft - there's a novel idea. Some may take to the flying car but I can't see it being too many.
Aircraft have to be maintained to a high standard of airworthiness - this is not cheap at all as any owner will tell you. This is why many pilots hire an aircraft to let others have the risk and expense of maintenance and repairs, not to mention insurance.
As these flying cars are fixed wing, not rotary, they will need a runway to operate from. This means you will have people having to get in their flying car, drive to an airfield, convert from car to aircraft, takeoff and fly to an airfield near their destination, convert back to a car and then drive to their eventual destination. Practical, no more than driving to the airfield, hiring a real aircraft, and getting a taxi or hire car at the other end - which will also be less time consuming as there will be no rigging / derigging.
We also have the weather to contend with - weather you can safely drive in will prevent flight - so chances are you will have to drive anyway in a car that is a compromise and offers the worst of both worlds.
The final reason I have come up with for now is damage. Get a car park ding in a conventional car and you are annoyed. Get one in this machine and it can no longer be used as an aircraft until a certified engineer has repaired it and it has been deemed fit to fly again.
No way will I be getting a flying car rating on my licence!
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Bombardier Saga
I am getting fed up over all the hype over Bombardier failing to win the ThamesLink contract. I have sympathy for those who are to lose their jobs at Bombardier but it seems that the media and unions are exaggerating, misleading and hyping up. I can see the unions want another reason to have a go at the government but the media can just be trying to justify their jobs.
Let us start with the headline, Bombardier loses contract for ThamesLink trains - they never had it so they can therefore not lose it. It is more accurate to say that they failed to win the contract.
Next, the nationality of the company. Much is made of the fact that Siemens is German. Well those who think that Bombardier is British should look into it. Bombardier is a Canadian company and their rail division is headquartered in Germany. Not so British eh? Not to mention that the media always pronounce the name in a way that sounds French - should be Bomb-buh-deer if it is British. Bombardier would have kept jobs in the UK if they had won the contract but Siemens are also stating that they will create jobs in the UK to work on the contract.
With regards to job losses, most of these were scheduled to happen regardless of whether or not the ThamesLink contract had been awarded to Bombardier. The figures released are that 980 contracts were not to be renewed. This is the nature of contracting and these positions were to go anyway. It is possible that many of these people will find employment with Siemens given their skill set. 446 permanent positions are said to be going which would not have gone if the contract had been won.
Siemens are estimating they will create some 2,000 jobs on the contract - it is possible that a number of those no longer employed by Bombardier will be able to take up these positions, who knows at this stage. The net effect however is some 500 or so extra jobs in the UK economy.
The unions however have some hidden calculations that suggest the loss of 1,500 or 500 jobs, whichever figure you prefer, will lead to 13,000 extra job losses and billions of pounds cost to the economy. I find this hard to believe but I doubt we will see any detailed explanation of their figures.
As a parting shot, I wonder how many of those complaining buy French cars, Japanese TV's, German washing machines etc for the same reason that the government issued the contract to Siemens?
Let us start with the headline, Bombardier loses contract for ThamesLink trains - they never had it so they can therefore not lose it. It is more accurate to say that they failed to win the contract.
Next, the nationality of the company. Much is made of the fact that Siemens is German. Well those who think that Bombardier is British should look into it. Bombardier is a Canadian company and their rail division is headquartered in Germany. Not so British eh? Not to mention that the media always pronounce the name in a way that sounds French - should be Bomb-buh-deer if it is British. Bombardier would have kept jobs in the UK if they had won the contract but Siemens are also stating that they will create jobs in the UK to work on the contract.
With regards to job losses, most of these were scheduled to happen regardless of whether or not the ThamesLink contract had been awarded to Bombardier. The figures released are that 980 contracts were not to be renewed. This is the nature of contracting and these positions were to go anyway. It is possible that many of these people will find employment with Siemens given their skill set. 446 permanent positions are said to be going which would not have gone if the contract had been won.
Siemens are estimating they will create some 2,000 jobs on the contract - it is possible that a number of those no longer employed by Bombardier will be able to take up these positions, who knows at this stage. The net effect however is some 500 or so extra jobs in the UK economy.
The unions however have some hidden calculations that suggest the loss of 1,500 or 500 jobs, whichever figure you prefer, will lead to 13,000 extra job losses and billions of pounds cost to the economy. I find this hard to believe but I doubt we will see any detailed explanation of their figures.
As a parting shot, I wonder how many of those complaining buy French cars, Japanese TV's, German washing machines etc for the same reason that the government issued the contract to Siemens?
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Cyclist Peril
What is it with cyclists?
Don't get me wrong, cycling can be a great way of getting around and is less polluting (though watch your increased CO2 emissions when peddling hard compared with resting!) and good exercise to boot.
Many cyclists are well behaved and follow the rules of the road, but their image is tarnished by others of their number.
My problem is with the cyclists who think they are above the law and also in many cases common sense.
In this area we have a reasonable number of cycle paths, totally separate from the road but parallel to it and within a few feet. The odd exception occurs at roundabouts as there is sometimes only one way round but all exits are served by the cycle lane. Why then do the cyclists insist on riding on the road and more to the point why do they get angry with motorists? If there was no cycle lane then of course they are entitled to use the road, but where the local council has gone to the trouble of providing one then it should be used.
There is also the issue of cyclists and their disregard for traffic lights. I thought that a red traffic light had something to do with stopping but not all cyclists seem to follow this rule. Whilst motorists are still responsible for driving carefully, they will find this more difficult if they have to dodge the cyclists running red lights, and for what - a few seconds gained on their journey? We have cyclists running red lights, dodging through pedestrian only areas and running the risks of collisions by cycling on pavements which have no cycle lane. And how many times have you seen a cyclist cut up the nearside of a line of traffic only to curse when one of the vehicles turns left (and quite probably indicating that intention!)
Recently I was out walking along a path which is for both pedestrians and cyclists and whilst not laned off is certainly wide enough. The problem there is with cyclists approaching from behind at high speed and without giving any warning (using the bell that many now see as optional despite the law) or thanking you if you move over to let a group of cyclists through. Surely common good manners will resolve this.
Whilst I am on the subject of bikes not legally equipped, there is also the issue of lighting. If out at night a cyclist is vulnerable, so why do so many either dress in dark clothes with no high-vis components, not have lights on, or both. Proper clothing and lighting would make the roads much safer for all. And by lighting I don't mean just those flashing LED lights - I believe a steady light should be shown front and rear, possibly supplemented by flashing lights to make them stand out but not solely relying on them. Surely modern LED technology should allow a good bright light with decent battery life.
Finally there is the issue of accountability and insurance. First of all there is no easy way of tracking a bike involved in an accident if it leaves the scene (we have had cases reported in the papers of people being knocked down and injured by cyclists who then ride off) and secondly they have no insurance that specifically covers cycling (some may have it on household policies or through cycle clubs) so if damage is caused, say to a vehicle, there is typically little redress for the third party. Remember these are people who may have had no training, and if not drivers may never even have read the highway code.
I am not against cyclists, I even have a bike myself which I use from time to time. I did my cycling proficiency many years ago and have forgotten most of it but I am also a driver so have an understanding of the rules of the road. I choose not to cycle at night as I don't think it is safe even with lights and high-vis but that is a personal choice. Similarly I opt for cycle lanes wherever possible even where, as with some of the lanes round here, there may be a slightly shorter road route without lanes.
Let us all try an make the roads safer whether we be cyclists or motorists.
Don't get me wrong, cycling can be a great way of getting around and is less polluting (though watch your increased CO2 emissions when peddling hard compared with resting!) and good exercise to boot.
Many cyclists are well behaved and follow the rules of the road, but their image is tarnished by others of their number.
My problem is with the cyclists who think they are above the law and also in many cases common sense.
In this area we have a reasonable number of cycle paths, totally separate from the road but parallel to it and within a few feet. The odd exception occurs at roundabouts as there is sometimes only one way round but all exits are served by the cycle lane. Why then do the cyclists insist on riding on the road and more to the point why do they get angry with motorists? If there was no cycle lane then of course they are entitled to use the road, but where the local council has gone to the trouble of providing one then it should be used.
There is also the issue of cyclists and their disregard for traffic lights. I thought that a red traffic light had something to do with stopping but not all cyclists seem to follow this rule. Whilst motorists are still responsible for driving carefully, they will find this more difficult if they have to dodge the cyclists running red lights, and for what - a few seconds gained on their journey? We have cyclists running red lights, dodging through pedestrian only areas and running the risks of collisions by cycling on pavements which have no cycle lane. And how many times have you seen a cyclist cut up the nearside of a line of traffic only to curse when one of the vehicles turns left (and quite probably indicating that intention!)
Recently I was out walking along a path which is for both pedestrians and cyclists and whilst not laned off is certainly wide enough. The problem there is with cyclists approaching from behind at high speed and without giving any warning (using the bell that many now see as optional despite the law) or thanking you if you move over to let a group of cyclists through. Surely common good manners will resolve this.
Whilst I am on the subject of bikes not legally equipped, there is also the issue of lighting. If out at night a cyclist is vulnerable, so why do so many either dress in dark clothes with no high-vis components, not have lights on, or both. Proper clothing and lighting would make the roads much safer for all. And by lighting I don't mean just those flashing LED lights - I believe a steady light should be shown front and rear, possibly supplemented by flashing lights to make them stand out but not solely relying on them. Surely modern LED technology should allow a good bright light with decent battery life.
Finally there is the issue of accountability and insurance. First of all there is no easy way of tracking a bike involved in an accident if it leaves the scene (we have had cases reported in the papers of people being knocked down and injured by cyclists who then ride off) and secondly they have no insurance that specifically covers cycling (some may have it on household policies or through cycle clubs) so if damage is caused, say to a vehicle, there is typically little redress for the third party. Remember these are people who may have had no training, and if not drivers may never even have read the highway code.
I am not against cyclists, I even have a bike myself which I use from time to time. I did my cycling proficiency many years ago and have forgotten most of it but I am also a driver so have an understanding of the rules of the road. I choose not to cycle at night as I don't think it is safe even with lights and high-vis but that is a personal choice. Similarly I opt for cycle lanes wherever possible even where, as with some of the lanes round here, there may be a slightly shorter road route without lanes.
Let us all try an make the roads safer whether we be cyclists or motorists.
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Electric Car con
As a green frenzy appears to be taking over the country I notice that 'All Electric' cars are being promoted more. Why?
The electric car is NOT the answer to cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. Sure they don't put any out at the point of use, so cities will be cleaner, but all that happens is that the emissions are transferred back to the power station. As we are not presently building any new nuclear stations in this country and renewables constitute such a low percentage of the total generation, this means that all the extra demand for electricity will fall on fossil fuel power stations. How is that greener?
We are told that by using electric cars we will be ready when renewables take off. But when will that be? Not for some time as we will need to increase our planned build to cope with the existing demand never mind the extra imposed by electric cars.
And then we have the issue of range - many people with an electric car will need a conventional car to travel the longer distances that the electric car cannot manage. Typical range on a good day seems to be in the order of 80 to 100 miles, before needing a high power charge point or a long time at a normal domestic power point.
Few people will be able to afford the electric car initially, as the price is disproportionally high compared with a conventional car. I am sure prices will come down (and also some consideration will have to be given to battery replacement otherwise second hand cars will have little value) but in the meantime they are likely to be the domain of celebrities who use them as a status symbol to show off their 'green' credentials.
Battery packs present another issue in addition to their likely high cost of replacement, and that is the environmental impact both of production and disposal. These are potentially very dangerous and toxic to the environment.
What is the solution - well we can either cut down on travel, not likely given that many people live some distance from work and their families, or we can improve upon what we have until we have the renewables power generation to support electric vehicles and the range is increased to be viable. Add to that the addressing of battery issues and then it may become viable.
Until then, I am sticking with my diesel car and minimising my mileage where possible.
The electric car is NOT the answer to cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. Sure they don't put any out at the point of use, so cities will be cleaner, but all that happens is that the emissions are transferred back to the power station. As we are not presently building any new nuclear stations in this country and renewables constitute such a low percentage of the total generation, this means that all the extra demand for electricity will fall on fossil fuel power stations. How is that greener?
We are told that by using electric cars we will be ready when renewables take off. But when will that be? Not for some time as we will need to increase our planned build to cope with the existing demand never mind the extra imposed by electric cars.
And then we have the issue of range - many people with an electric car will need a conventional car to travel the longer distances that the electric car cannot manage. Typical range on a good day seems to be in the order of 80 to 100 miles, before needing a high power charge point or a long time at a normal domestic power point.
Few people will be able to afford the electric car initially, as the price is disproportionally high compared with a conventional car. I am sure prices will come down (and also some consideration will have to be given to battery replacement otherwise second hand cars will have little value) but in the meantime they are likely to be the domain of celebrities who use them as a status symbol to show off their 'green' credentials.
Battery packs present another issue in addition to their likely high cost of replacement, and that is the environmental impact both of production and disposal. These are potentially very dangerous and toxic to the environment.
What is the solution - well we can either cut down on travel, not likely given that many people live some distance from work and their families, or we can improve upon what we have until we have the renewables power generation to support electric vehicles and the range is increased to be viable. Add to that the addressing of battery issues and then it may become viable.
Until then, I am sticking with my diesel car and minimising my mileage where possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)