Well what about oversized machines and turbine blades...The problem here is low bridges...I understand you have a few tunnels that might cause some problems..
--- In [email protected], Martin Ludgate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
