Albo seems to be off to a good start

Mick_Marsh

Active Member
If there was a practical alternative to my diesel powered vehicle, I would quite happily buy it.
LEAF10 SV - 018.jpg
 

Mick_Marsh

Active Member
Um, that's not going to tow a 4.5t caravan and it's not going to be able to be (easily) recharged in the remote areas we tend to frequent.
You don't need to tow a 4.5t van.
Why do you want to go to remote areas when there are so mant recharging places in the city and suburban areas.
 

LongRoad2Go

Well-Known Member
Suppose the same can be said about the influence the Transport industry has on politics. In a perfect world, stuff that needed to be transported more than 'X' km would be shifted by train, not truck, and in many instances not by air either. But, with the trucking industry in the pockets of all Parties, that isn't going to happen. And, it's not all about efficiencies e.g. if the old mail trains were still running, who cares if it took an extra few hours for it to get wherever. Particularly when a train can carry goods, livestock and people all at the same time.
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
Suppose the same can be said about the influence the Transport industry has on politics. In a perfect world, stuff that needed to be transported more than 'X' km would be shifted by train, not truck, and in many instances not by air either. But, with the trucking industry in the pockets of all Parties, that isn't going to happen. And, it's not all about efficiencies e.g. if the old mail trains were still running, who cares if it took an extra few hours for it to get wherever. Particularly when a train can carry goods, livestock and people all at the same time.

That all sounds fine but it comes at a cost which the consumer would be coughing up the extra $ for. The trucking industry is a very cutthroat one and the most cost effective method
 

Chatty

Well-Known Member
Suppose the same can be said about the influence the Transport industry has on politics. In a perfect world, stuff that needed to be transported more than 'X' km would be shifted by train, not truck, and in many instances not by air either. But, with the trucking industry in the pockets of all Parties, that isn't going to happen. And, it's not all about efficiencies e.g. if the old mail trains were still running, who cares if it took an extra few hours for it to get wherever. Particularly when a train can carry goods, livestock and people all at the same time.
Rail shifted from a "general goods" model - where people shipped all sorts of stuff in small and large quantities - to a "commodities" model - where the stuff shipped was bulk commodities either containerised or in bulk (coal, etc) - in the 80s.
The simple fact was that keeping all the infrastructure required for transporting goods all over the state open and usable was just too expensive for the volumes. Competing with truck transport was impossible as trucks offered a door-to-door service whereas rail required a door-to-depot-to-rail-to-depot-to-truck-to-door operation - too many transfers and too much handling to be economic.

There was a trial in the late 80s and early 90s of "Trailerrail" where they tried building truck (semi) trailers that could be hauled to a depot and rail bogies fitted under and then all the trailers made up into a train - this was meant to enable a seamless transfer of goods between road and rail modes. It was an abysmal, expensive failure.
Among other things, making the trailers compliant with rail safety standards meant that they became too heavy to carry enough freight on the road and the intermodal transfer simply took too long.

The concept of people, stock and goods on the one train hasn't been viable since the 60s - people don't want slow trains that stop at every tinpot whistle stop along the way as they want to get to where they're going (and they like the comfort of their cars), livestock transporters don't want their stock on slow trains either as they lose too much condition and freight carriers don't want the hassle of transferring between truck and train.
Despite what you may think, it has been proven time and again that people do not want to expend the "extra few hours" to get from A to B - they want to get there quickly these days.

I actually had the joy of building the last general goods rail depot in NSW (Trackfast Chullora) which was designed to handle LCL (Less than Container Load) goods as well as containerised traffic. The general goods (LCL) section was closed less than 12 months after it opened (that was about $150m of today's tax dollars not working for taxpayers) and the FCL (Full Container Load) operation transferred to private industry as part of that move to bulk commodity transport.

Now, you may think from the above that I am anti-rail - but that is far from the truth. I am a vocal advocate of rail, I am a specialist in the rail construction industry (so I have a vested interest in the viability of rail) and I really enjoy building new rail infrastructure and have for the last 45 years.
 

Chatty

Well-Known Member
You don't need to tow a 4.5t van.
Why do you want to go to remote areas when there are so mant recharging places in the city and suburban areas.
Are you serious? We hate cities. We hate suburbs. We hate (most) towns.
[Edit - I think you might have been trying to be sarcastic, obviously I and others didn't pick up on this]

We tow a van because our choice of lifestyle is to live full time in a caravan and travel this awesome country of ours. Every. Single. Day.
We are both at our happiest in remote areas where there's no one around, in fact it is essential for our mental health that we deal with people as little as possible.

Not everyone's dream is living in a box, surrounded by near-identical boxes, in a crowded, noisy, smelly, dirty city.

And, I would be more than happy to put my carbon (and environmental) footprint up against yours any day. Our home is about 25 square metres in size, we run totally off solar energy more than 90% of the time (admittedly we use about 3kg of LPG a month for cooking and heating). We don't heat or cool a large (and largely empty) house. We use around 30-40 litres of water a day, for two of us - the average usage in metropolitan areas is around 200 litres per person.
We average, over a year, around 60 litres a week for fuel - I will guarantee that's less than 99% of suburban dwellers commuting to work every day.
 

cam04

Well-Known Member
Rail shifted from a "general goods" model - where people shipped all sorts of stuff in small and large quantities - to a "commodities" model - where the stuff shipped was bulk commodities either containerised or in bulk (coal, etc) - in the 80s.
The simple fact was that keeping all the infrastructure required for transporting goods all over the state open and usable was just too expensive for the volumes. Competing with truck transport was impossible as trucks offered a door-to-door service whereas rail required a door-to-depot-to-rail-to-depot-to-truck-to-door operation - too many transfers and too much handling to be economic.

There was a trial in the late 80s and early 90s of "Trailerrail" where they tried building truck (semi) trailers that could be hauled to a depot and rail bogies fitted under and then all the trailers made up into a train - this was meant to enable a seamless transfer of goods between road and rail modes. It was an abysmal, expensive failure.
Among other things, making the trailers compliant with rail safety standards meant that they became too heavy to carry enough freight on the road and the intermodal transfer simply took too long.

The concept of people, stock and goods on the one train hasn't been viable since the 60s - people don't want slow trains that stop at every tinpot whistle stop along the way as they want to get to where they're going (and they like the comfort of their cars), livestock transporters don't want their stock on slow trains either as they lose too much condition and freight carriers don't want the hassle of transferring between truck and train.
Despite what you may think, it has been proven time and again that people do not want to expend the "extra few hours" to get from A to B - they want to get there quickly these days.

I actually had the joy of building the last general goods rail depot in NSW (Trackfast Chullora) which was designed to handle LCL (Less than Container Load) goods as well as containerised traffic. The general goods (LCL) section was closed less than 12 months after it opened (that was about $150m of today's tax dollars not working for taxpayers) and the FCL (Full Container Load) operation transferred to private industry as part of that move to bulk commodity transport.

Now, you may think from the above that I am anti-rail - but that is far from the truth. I am a vocal advocate of rail, I am a specialist in the rail construction industry (so I have a vested interest in the viability of rail) and I really enjoy building new rail infrastructure and have for the last 45 years.
I used to catch the sun lander home from boarding school in the mid 1980’s. Sitting in Gympie for an hour at around 11.00 pm in the middle of winter waiting for them to load a few carriages with pineapples was just awesome fun haha.
 

LongRoad2Go

Well-Known Member
Rail shifted from a "general goods" model - where people shipped all sorts of stuff in small and large quantities - to a "commodities" model - where the stuff shipped was bulk commodities either containerised or in bulk (coal, etc) - in the 80s.
The simple fact was that keeping all the infrastructure required for transporting goods all over the state open and usable was just too expensive for the volumes. Competing with truck transport was impossible as trucks offered a door-to-door service whereas rail required a door-to-depot-to-rail-to-depot-to-truck-to-door operation - too many transfers and too much handling to be economic.

There was a trial in the late 80s and early 90s of "Trailerrail" where they tried building truck (semi) trailers that could be hauled to a depot and rail bogies fitted under and then all the trailers made up into a train - this was meant to enable a seamless transfer of goods between road and rail modes. It was an abysmal, expensive failure.
Among other things, making the trailers compliant with rail safety standards meant that they became too heavy to carry enough freight on the road and the intermodal transfer simply took too long.

The concept of people, stock and goods on the one train hasn't been viable since the 60s - people don't want slow trains that stop at every tinpot whistle stop along the way as they want to get to where they're going (and they like the comfort of their cars), livestock transporters don't want their stock on slow trains either as they lose too much condition and freight carriers don't want the hassle of transferring between truck and train.
Despite what you may think, it has been proven time and again that people do not want to expend the "extra few hours" to get from A to B - they want to get there quickly these days.

I actually had the joy of building the last general goods rail depot in NSW (Trackfast Chullora) which was designed to handle LCL (Less than Container Load) goods as well as containerised traffic. The general goods (LCL) section was closed less than 12 months after it opened (that was about $150m of today's tax dollars not working for taxpayers) and the FCL (Full Container Load) operation transferred to private industry as part of that move to bulk commodity transport.

Now, you may think from the above that I am anti-rail - but that is far from the truth. I am a vocal advocate of rail, I am a specialist in the rail construction industry (so I have a vested interest in the viability of rail) and I really enjoy building new rail infrastructure and have for the last 45 years.
Agreed. My brother has been a train driver since the mid-60's: steam, electric, diesel, government and private, and pretty much driven everything except the west coast ore trains. So, he has had a LONG time to complain about the changes, pros & cons, etc.

What I was driving at (pun intended) is the need for people to change their mindsets, or have Government do it for them - in Oz, the private car revolution didn't really take off till the late 60's/early 70's. Road funding coincided with that and so did the dodgy deals between transport companies and government.

If emissions were indeed a serious concern, along with costly road funding/maintenance, and fatalities, rail would see a reemergence. I'm waiting for the perfect storm of air quality in Greater Sydney: bushfire smoke, temperature inversion, high vehicle emissions and the new airport pumping out filth. Good luck if you're an asthma sufferer or have other respiratory issues. The airport should've been built out near Bathurst, with a high speed train from Sydney linking with ones north and south. It would obviously require the removal of the parallel passenger air links to force people to use the cleaner alternative - that's what a First World infrastructure project looks like. Poor old Tim Fischer had the right idea.
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
About 10 years ago I built a new home for a retired couple who was the Australian representative for a French fast train company and he spent the last 10 years if his career and his company invested 20 million dollars into trying to get a VFT rail link between Sydney and Melbourne with a stop at Goulburn
He had all the stats and figures of how it was quicker and cheaper for domestic passengers than by air but they couldn’t get the government on board to get it happening
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
Now that albo & co are off to a flying start (pun intended) I'm sure they will be buying carbon credits for carting their menageries all over the world.
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
One thing I do know. if Albo and crew don't get a lot of very tough decisions right they will not get through the next election, with the economy about to crash, cost of living going through the roof, hospital and health in crisis , the environment in a spiral of destruction due to greed and consumerism they have a lot to deal with.
OR they could just shuffle through life as so many do and say there are no major problems and everything will be fine, just like the CEO of Metrocon homes did just before the old fallow who started the company topped himself, RIP, and the family kicked in 30 mill just to keep it afloat a little longer.
Hang on to your hats we are in for a wild ride, I feel for those who are just starting out or those who are not in a good place mentally of financially
 

mikehzz

Well-Known Member
Labor has already done its job by kicking a conservative bunch in the balls and causing them to move on. They'll likely be voted out next time but the country will be better off in the future because of the process. Conservative governments basically do nothing but try and save money and prevent change to the comfortable lifestyles of their supporters and benefactors. Social reform parties come in and instigate change that raises the prospects of downtrodden and disadvantaged people by spending money and generally shaking the tree. Then the money runs out and the conservatives come in and stabilize the situation for a while. It's a cycle. During my lifetime I've witnessed the downtrodden become the upper middle class by this process. Thousands of families whose lives have been uplifted because of the social stirrers. If left to the conservatives, nothing would change and we'd still be living in the 50's, and I know what that was like. Yuk!
I do believe the Labor party has lost a lot of its relevance because there are now a lot less people that need to be uplifted. The new war is the environment and the battle for sustainability of the planet. The rise of the independents is evidence for this. Someone needs to point out that greed and consumerism are now our main enemies. I think that climate is a red herring and that concentrating on that won't solve anything unless those two enemies are defeated. Climate change policies are weapons to defeat them but a general attitude shift is required to really solve the sustainability issue. I'll shout it from the roof tops, big corporations and billionaires are a real threat to our survival because they both have their snouts firmly in the trough of self interest and profit, and that's not a good thing.
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
I'll shout it from the roof tops, big corporations and billionaires are a real threat to our survival because they both have their snouts firmly in the trough of self interest and profit, and that's not a good thing.

Doesn’t everyone and It is just the tall poppie ones that are an easier target? And of course if they made their money from being a sportsman or a rockstar they are a heroe but if they made it by being business savvy and dedicated to hard work they are a scrounge
 
Top