Yet another issue has persuaded me to write this item on the Royal Mail here in the UK.
Supposedly intended to distribute post around the country, over the years the services offered have declined and the standards to which they are delivered has declined even more.
There are proposals to sell off the Royal Mail to a private sector company and to my mind that cannot come soon enough. Sure, there are negatives to this as well as positives but at the moment it would seem that the positives outweigh the negatives.
Let us start with the delivery schedule. Once there were two deliveries a day to most areas. The first of these was often before nine in the morning, and the second being an afternoon delivery. The decline in posted matter meant that this was reduced to one delivery per day - quite reasonable.
The problem is that for many now the ony delivery can be very late in the day and effectively makes the first class delivery effectively a two day service. The Royal Mail have cottoned on to this as a money spinner by allowing payment to ensure a before nine delivery service. So we now have a service that is based on how much the recipient wishes to pay (remember the sender pays to send the item) This doesn't even work as intended - in my last employment the company was on an industrial estate with a number of other businesses. Fewer than half of these paid the premium - and my company chose not to - yet all received their mail before nine as the postman saw no point in visiting the same location twice in a day and so delivered all as if they had paid the extra.
My next gripe is with mis-delivery. I cannot be the only one who receives post that is not addressed to them, or their property. If I know where the post should go and it is close I then take it round myself - and I have neighbours who bring post for me that has been delivered to them in error (or the postman's haste). Sometimes however the post is for an address some way off or that I do not recognise - so my only option is to put it back in a post box in the hope that it gets there next time through the system. This does not help if you are expecting time critical post or your neighbours aren't as helpful.
Finally for this article (as there may be others) is the matter of so called 'Signed For' deliveries. The idea is that the letter or package should be signed for on receipt. This is intended to provide traceability and a more secure service. Maybe, but that is not how it works. Only last week I had a 'Signed For' item just put through my letterbox. I was at home at the time but the postman didn't knock, merely pushed it through the letterbox with all the other post.
In these instances, what is offered by the signed for service (remember this costs extra)? Nothing! If the sender were to track this all they would be able to determine is that it had been delivered somewhere. No signature would be available and not even the name of the person to whom it had been delivered. Yet this service is recommended by eBay and the like to protect senders.
I myself sent an item using the signed for service last week. If I trace now it tells me that it was delivered on the 6th January, and the sorting office it was delivered from. I ask for an electronic proof of delivery and am told, sorry - not available. To me that means it was just pushed through a letter box, somewhere. And if you refer above, it may not even be the one for the address I typed on the envelope.
Roll on the sale of the Royal Mail - maybe a private company can get it right!
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
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 16, 2011
Ridiculous Recycling
Our local council has just decided to split the recycling collections again, meaning on recycling day we have to put out up to five different containers. When will this lunacy end?
A short history:-
We started off with a brown bin for garden waste and cardboard, a blue box for plastics, cans and glass, a blue bag for paper and a red bag for textiles.
Very quickly the council decided that lids were needed for the boxes, so these were issued. More boxes were handed out to people as they were not large enough to hold all the recycling!
The blue boxes were then scrapped (not being made of recyclable materials!!) and blue bins were issued instead.
So far so good except that putting paper in a bag quite often meant it blew all over the place when the wind got up.
Now we have been issued with orange bags for cardboard - as with the paper collection this either becomes a sodden mess when it rains or will blow around if the wind gets up.
The situation gets worse of course because we now have four lorries on recycling day - brown bin, blue bin, paper/textiles and cardboard. How can this be good for the environment?
Add to that the fact that with the bags for paper we find a lot of them blowing away after being emptied because they are not securely returned by the refuse crews. This will now be added to by the new bags. Two problems arise here, firstly they are made of plastic so litter the country side and do not biodegrade, secondly they have to be replaced.
Some people, myself included, have reused the old blue boxes for paper. This may not work for card because the crews will not easily see the difference (lids on to prevent rubbish blowing everywhere)
Why can we not follow the lead of Europe, where recycling is collected in one bin and sorted at the recycling centre - the technology exists to do this nowadays and that which cannot be done automatically will create employment?
A short history:-
We started off with a brown bin for garden waste and cardboard, a blue box for plastics, cans and glass, a blue bag for paper and a red bag for textiles.
Very quickly the council decided that lids were needed for the boxes, so these were issued. More boxes were handed out to people as they were not large enough to hold all the recycling!
The blue boxes were then scrapped (not being made of recyclable materials!!) and blue bins were issued instead.
So far so good except that putting paper in a bag quite often meant it blew all over the place when the wind got up.
Now we have been issued with orange bags for cardboard - as with the paper collection this either becomes a sodden mess when it rains or will blow around if the wind gets up.
The situation gets worse of course because we now have four lorries on recycling day - brown bin, blue bin, paper/textiles and cardboard. How can this be good for the environment?
Add to that the fact that with the bags for paper we find a lot of them blowing away after being emptied because they are not securely returned by the refuse crews. This will now be added to by the new bags. Two problems arise here, firstly they are made of plastic so litter the country side and do not biodegrade, secondly they have to be replaced.
Some people, myself included, have reused the old blue boxes for paper. This may not work for card because the crews will not easily see the difference (lids on to prevent rubbish blowing everywhere)
Why can we not follow the lead of Europe, where recycling is collected in one bin and sorted at the recycling centre - the technology exists to do this nowadays and that which cannot be done automatically will create employment?
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.
The Wind Turbine Fallacy
As our government and environmentalists make ever greater demands for alternative power sources for when fossil fuels run out, more investment is being made in wind farms.
The recent bad weather in Scotland and northern England however is demonstrating why this won't work.
In strong winds, wind turbines have to be stopped. I believe this is achieved by both 'feathering' the blades to reduce their thrust to zero and also by applying a brake to prevent the rotor from turning.
In low winds the turbines just don't turn anyway as there is insufficient strength.
As a result we are left with a relatively narrow window of conditions in which wind turbines can produce any power. It gets worse however in that we don't have the infrastructure to take all the power they can produce when we are in the right zone so suppliers are paid to turn them off!
In the news today, I read of the wind turbines damaged by the wind! Both in Scotland, one of them has caught fire - as yet the cause is unconfirmed but it could well be that it was rotating against it's brake and hence building up heat, the second just simply blew over.
These incidents are not isolated, in the past there have been incidents of turbines losing blades whilst operating. The consequences of that striking someone or damaging property could be very serious, not to mention any further damage that may be caused by an out of balance turbine continuing to rotate.
So they are inefficient, provide power in fits and starts depending on the weather, and are potentially very dangerous.
Time to look elsewhere for our alternative energy sources I believe.
The recent bad weather in Scotland and northern England however is demonstrating why this won't work.
In strong winds, wind turbines have to be stopped. I believe this is achieved by both 'feathering' the blades to reduce their thrust to zero and also by applying a brake to prevent the rotor from turning.
In low winds the turbines just don't turn anyway as there is insufficient strength.
As a result we are left with a relatively narrow window of conditions in which wind turbines can produce any power. It gets worse however in that we don't have the infrastructure to take all the power they can produce when we are in the right zone so suppliers are paid to turn them off!
In the news today, I read of the wind turbines damaged by the wind! Both in Scotland, one of them has caught fire - as yet the cause is unconfirmed but it could well be that it was rotating against it's brake and hence building up heat, the second just simply blew over.
These incidents are not isolated, in the past there have been incidents of turbines losing blades whilst operating. The consequences of that striking someone or damaging property could be very serious, not to mention any further damage that may be caused by an out of balance turbine continuing to rotate.
So they are inefficient, provide power in fits and starts depending on the weather, and are potentially very dangerous.
Time to look elsewhere for our alternative energy sources I believe.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
London Olympics 2012
We hear in the news that yet more of our money may be required for the 2012 London Olympics.
This is a ridiculous waste of public money.
Jobs are being lost in the public sector, services are being reduced, taxation is increasing. Why are we not capping the spend on the Olympics? We cannot afford to spend any more and it looks like a number of the promised benefits may well not be realised.
During the Olympics it appears that travel in London will become much more difficult as the public transport system struggles to cope and the roads become more congested, especially in areas where there are the special lanes for competitors and VIPs.
This will have the most impact upon those who live and work in London and is likely to be rather disruptive.
So what benefits will we get:
Increased tourism? Possibly not as many have announced they will not visit due to the expected congestion so we will find the visitors to the games will merely replace those who are no longer comings as tourists.
New facilities? Maybe but the Velodrome is rather specialised, the Aquatic Centre is similar and the main stadium is probably going to be sold or given to a football team and used for little else. Remember the Millennium Dome, now the O2 Arena, which cost the taxpayer a fortune before being more or less given away.
Improved transport? Better links to an area where many will not wish to go - great!
The London Olympics is just a case of trying to show off to the rest of the world. We should never have looked to host the Olympics and given that we have no way to back out, we must keep a lid on the costs before it cripples the country.
This is a ridiculous waste of public money.
Jobs are being lost in the public sector, services are being reduced, taxation is increasing. Why are we not capping the spend on the Olympics? We cannot afford to spend any more and it looks like a number of the promised benefits may well not be realised.
During the Olympics it appears that travel in London will become much more difficult as the public transport system struggles to cope and the roads become more congested, especially in areas where there are the special lanes for competitors and VIPs.
This will have the most impact upon those who live and work in London and is likely to be rather disruptive.
So what benefits will we get:
Increased tourism? Possibly not as many have announced they will not visit due to the expected congestion so we will find the visitors to the games will merely replace those who are no longer comings as tourists.
New facilities? Maybe but the Velodrome is rather specialised, the Aquatic Centre is similar and the main stadium is probably going to be sold or given to a football team and used for little else. Remember the Millennium Dome, now the O2 Arena, which cost the taxpayer a fortune before being more or less given away.
Improved transport? Better links to an area where many will not wish to go - great!
The London Olympics is just a case of trying to show off to the rest of the world. We should never have looked to host the Olympics and given that we have no way to back out, we must keep a lid on the costs before it cripples the country.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Jeremy Clarkson on The One Show
It has to be said that Mr Clarkson knows how to upset people. I know he is normally controversial but this time he has really offended people.
The comment on last night's show about shooting strikers could be considered harsh but is only an opionion.
However I feel we cannot accept his remarks about being delayed in his journey when a person has been hit by a train. If it was suicide then someone has clearly been in a very bad place in their mind. Whether suicide or accident there are still those left behind to feel for.
At the time of writing I understand that the BBC has issued an apology but I think Jeremy Clarkson should make a very visible public apology.
The comment on last night's show about shooting strikers could be considered harsh but is only an opionion.
However I feel we cannot accept his remarks about being delayed in his journey when a person has been hit by a train. If it was suicide then someone has clearly been in a very bad place in their mind. Whether suicide or accident there are still those left behind to feel for.
At the time of writing I understand that the BBC has issued an apology but I think Jeremy Clarkson should make a very visible public apology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)