In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > With a big enough gauge, the size of the load makes up for the >slower >>> > speed. The crucial statistic is tonne-miles/man-hour. >> >>Unfortunately in attempting to raise that to a competitive level by >increasing load size, you can come up against another limit: the size of >consignment that the customer can receive (or the sender can despatch). > >Why are you assuming there can be only one customer's load per barge?
I'm not assuming that there can be only one; rather I suspect that much of the advantage of a larger consignment would be lost if it had to make multiple pick-ups and/or drop-offs, in the same way that wagonload rail freight tends to be less competitive than trainload. Do you know of many (eg mainland Europe) examples of split barge consignments being operated commercially? >>> > Also, the bits of the BBR affected actually *are* accessible to barges >>> > now, but only at high tide. >> >>Not quite: they are accessible for periods a little before and a little after >high tide, but at high tide there is insufficient headroom. > >I didn't say it was convenient or even useful at present, you know. >Merely navigable (occasionally). > You said that it was 'accessible to barges now, but only at high tide'. You didn't say 'occasionally' or anything like that. My experience is that at a typical high tide it would be straining the definition of 'accessible to barges' in that the headroom would be limited to fully-loaded non-cabined dumb barges unaccompanied by any tugs. -- Martin Ludgate
