We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic, so I think its
appropriate that we discuss it.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish and
anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and makes it
more difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside. It causes
environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets. The high costs are
ultimately paid by consumers and ratepayers. What can be done about fly
tipping? Can it be stopped, or will it always be with us?

The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out of a
car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free domestic
waste collection by the local council. Maybe these people are very lazy
and their car is closer to their front door than it is to the dustbin€¦

A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most
culprits are running small businesses carrying out minor building works,
painting and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking. They fly tip
to avoid the cost of disposing of the waste legitimately. This cost
increased significantly with introduction of the Landfill Tax, which the
UK has to levy in order to comply with an EEC Directive. The effect of
the tax is to significantly increase the cost of waste disposal, and
thus increase the motivation of traders to fly tip.

The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal. On the face of it a very laudable aim,
but this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the law of
unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for the present
fly tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of urban bureaucrats
making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on rural areas, without
thinking or caring about the results?

Fly tipping is an almost risk-free crime. The chances of detection are
absurdly low. For every 1,500 reported cases there is one prosecution.
This very low detection and conviction rate for fly tipping shows that
the law, local vigilance, CCTV, and everything else thats been tried
has been almost completely ineffective. Local councils, unable to
prosecute people who drop a ton of toxic waste on a country lane,
instead spend our money on teams of peaked capped spooks who persecute
people for feeding the pigeons or dropping a fag end on the pavement.
Its a pathetic displacement response to the whole issue of littering
and fly tipping.

In medieval times when there was no police force and crime was hard to
detect the solution was to impose draconian punishments on the few
criminals that were unfortunate enough to be caught. Nowadays we are too
civilised (too soft?) for that, so amongst other curses of our age we
have to put up with fly tipping.

If were really serious about protecting the environment we need a
radical solution to the problem of fly tipping. Im not normally in
favour of communistic remedies, but I think this is a special case. We
should make the disposal of all waste the responsibility of the state,
and absolutely free. Everything from harmless top soil to the most toxic
filth should be taken in by the state and properly disposed of,
absolutely free of charge.

The cost would be high, but there are precedents. We have paid vast
amounts in the past to clean up our environment. There were the Clean
Air Acts of the fifties and sixties. And South Yorkshire well remembers
the state of the River Don in the sixties, with all the industrial
pollution from Sheffield and Rotherham forming huge barrage balloons of
foam that floated up from the river and slapped against the bus windows
on North Bridge. The cost to industry of halting that pollution was huge
but it was paid. And if were prepared to add hundreds of pounds per
household to our electricity bills to satisfy what many regard as a
futile and misguided attempt to reduce global warming, surely we would
be prepared to pay a small fraction of that amount to eliminate a very
real, visible, and highly pernicious environmental ill. The cost of
universal waste collection should be regarded as the price we are
prepared to pay for clean streets and lanes, for unpolluted streams, and
air without carcinogenic fumes. We all create waste, so why should the
cost of its disposal not be paid via general taxation? We share the road
network; we have the NHS; why not a National Waste Disposal Service?

The savings in costs for legitimate builders and tradesmen would lead to
a general reduction in their prices. The present system helps the fly
tipping crooks to undercut legitimate traders because legitimate waste
disposal is a large part of the cost of much of the work thats done, be
it the building of a kitchen extension or the fitting of a new tyre. By
giving this price advantage to the crooks the size of the black economy
is increased and the tax take is reduced. The black economy accounts for
10% of the total economy of the UK and reduces the tax take by billions.

Universal free disposal of waste would lead to great economies because
the pathway that waste would take from initial disposal to landfill or
recycling would be far more efficient. No longer would farmers and local
councils chase round picking up assorted filth from every lane and back
alley only to dispose of it in a piecemeal and haphazard fashion. No
longer would water supplies and the atmosphere be contaminated. No
longer would good recyclable materials end up in landfill. (Much of the
building rubbish we find blocking our lanes is perfectly good hardcore,
or it was until it was mixed with the general rubbish at the fly tipping
location.) Yes, the universal free disposal of waste sounds expensive,
but in the end it would save money for every taxpayer.

And what about the remaining few fly tippers? Those who are hapless,
feckless, or just bloody minded? There wouldnt be very many of them, so
serious detection using modern forensic science would be cost-effective.
And then maybe, with all excuses for fly tipping gone, the courts might
start to impose some of those draconian penalties.

On 08/10/2017 17:43, Bill Wright wrote:
We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic, so I think its
appropriate that we discuss it.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish and
anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and makes it
more difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside. It causes
environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets. The high costs are
ultimately paid by consumers and ratepayers. What can be done about fly
tipping? Can it be stopped, or will it always be with us?

The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out of a
car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free domestic
waste collection by the local council. Maybe these people are very lazy
and their car is closer to their front door than it is to the dustbin€¦

A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most
culprits are running small businesses carrying out minor building works,
painting and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking. They fly tip
to avoid the cost of disposing of the waste legitimately. This cost
increased significantly with introduction of the Landfill Tax, which the
UK has to levy in order to comply with an EEC Directive. The effect of
the tax is to significantly increase the cost of waste disposal, and
thus increase the motivation of traders to fly tip.

The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal.Â* On the face of it a very laudable aim,
but this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the law of
unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for the present
fly tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of urban bureaucrats
making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on rural areas, without
thinking or caring about the results?

Fly tipping is an almost risk-free crime. The chances of detection are
absurdly low. For every 1,500 reported cases there is one prosecution.
This very low detection and conviction rate for fly tipping shows that
the law, local vigilance, CCTV, and everything else thats been tried
has been almost completely ineffective. Local councils, unable to
prosecute people who drop a ton of toxic waste on a country lane,
instead spend our money on teams of peaked capped spooks who persecute
people for feeding the pigeons or dropping a fag end on the pavement.
Its a pathetic displacement response to the whole issue of littering
and fly tipping.

In medieval times when there was no police force and crime was hard to
detect the solution was to impose draconian punishments on the few
criminals that were unfortunate enough to be caught. Nowadays we are too
civilised (too soft?) for that, so amongst other curses of our age we
have to put up with fly tipping.

If were really serious about protecting the environment we need a
radical solution to the problem of fly tipping. Im not normally in
favour of communistic remedies, but I think this is a special case. We
should make the disposal of all waste the responsibility of the state,
and absolutely free. Everything from harmless top soil to the most toxic
filth should be taken in by the state and properly disposed of,
absolutely free of charge.

The cost would be high, but there are precedents. We have paid vast
amounts in the past to clean up our environment. There were the Clean
Air Acts of the fifties and sixties. And South Yorkshire well remembers
the state of the River Don in the sixties, with all the industrial
pollution from Sheffield and Rotherham forming huge barrage balloons of
foam that floated up from the river and slapped against the bus windows
on North Bridge. The cost to industry of halting that pollution was huge
but it was paid. And if were prepared to add hundreds of pounds per
household to our electricity bills to satisfy what many regard as a
futile and misguided attempt to reduce global warming, surely we would
be prepared to pay a small fraction of that amount to eliminate a very
real, visible, and highly pernicious environmental ill.Â*Â* The cost of
universal waste collection should be regarded as the price we are
prepared to pay for clean streets and lanes, for unpolluted streams, and
air without carcinogenic fumes. We all create waste, so why should the
cost of its disposal not be paid via general taxation? We share the road
network; we have the NHS; why not a National Waste Disposal Service?

The savings in costs for legitimate builders and tradesmen would lead to
a general reduction in their prices. The present system helps the fly
tipping crooks to undercut legitimate traders because legitimate waste
disposal is a large part of the cost of much of the work thats done, be
it the building of a kitchen extension or the fitting of a new tyre. By
giving this price advantage to the crooks the size of the black economy
is increased and the tax take is reduced. The black economy accounts for
10% of the total economy of the UK and reduces the tax take by billions.

Universal free disposal of waste would lead to great economies because
the pathway that waste would take from initial disposal to landfill or
recycling would be far more efficient. No longer would farmers and local
councils chase round picking up assorted filth from every lane and back
alley only to dispose of it in a piecemeal and haphazard fashion. No
longer would water supplies and the atmosphere be contaminated.Â* No
longer would good recyclable materials end up in landfill. (Much of the
building rubbish we find blocking our lanes is perfectly good hardcore,
or it was until it was mixed with the general rubbish at the fly tipping
location.) Yes, the universal free disposal of waste sounds expensive,
but in the end it would save money for every taxpayer.

And what about the remaining few fly tippers? Those who are hapless,
feckless, or just bloody minded? There wouldnt be very many of them, so
serious detection using modern forensic science would be cost-effective.
And then maybe, with all excuses for fly tipping gone, the courts might
start to impose some of those draconian penalties.







I'll agree if only the same draconian laws also apply to people that
park like ****s.



--
Adam

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:21:04 +0100
ARW wrote:

On 08/10/2017 17:43, Bill Wright wrote:
We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic, so I think its
appropriate that we discuss it.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish
and anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and
makes it more difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside.
It causes environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets. The
high costs are ultimately paid by consumers and ratepayers. What
can be done about fly tipping? Can it be stopped, or will it always
be with us?

The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out
of a car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free
domestic waste collection by the local council. Maybe these people
are very lazy and their car is closer to their front door than it
is to the dustbin€¦

A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most
culprits are running small businesses carrying out minor building
works, painting and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking.
They fly tip to avoid the cost of disposing of the waste
legitimately. This cost increased significantly with introduction
of the Landfill Tax, which the UK has to levy in order to comply
with an EEC Directive. The effect of the tax is to significantly
increase the cost of waste disposal, and thus increase the
motivation of traders to fly tip.

The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal.Â* On the face of it a very laudable
aim, but this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the
law of unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for
the present fly tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of
urban bureaucrats making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on
rural areas, without thinking or caring about the results?

Fly tipping is an almost risk-free crime. The chances of detection
are absurdly low. For every 1,500 reported cases there is one
prosecution. This very low detection and conviction rate for fly
tipping shows that the law, local vigilance, CCTV, and everything
else thats been tried has been almost completely ineffective.
Local councils, unable to prosecute people who drop a ton of toxic
waste on a country lane, instead spend our money on teams of peaked
capped spooks who persecute people for feeding the pigeons or
dropping a fag end on the pavement. Its a pathetic displacement
response to the whole issue of littering and fly tipping.

In medieval times when there was no police force and crime was hard
to detect the solution was to impose draconian punishments on the
few criminals that were unfortunate enough to be caught. Nowadays
we are too civilised (too soft?) for that, so amongst other curses
of our age we have to put up with fly tipping.

If were really serious about protecting the environment we need a
radical solution to the problem of fly tipping. Im not normally in
favour of communistic remedies, but I think this is a special case.
We should make the disposal of all waste the responsibility of the
state, and absolutely free. Everything from harmless top soil to
the most toxic filth should be taken in by the state and properly
disposed of, absolutely free of charge.

The cost would be high, but there are precedents. We have paid vast
amounts in the past to clean up our environment. There were the
Clean Air Acts of the fifties and sixties. And South Yorkshire well
remembers the state of the River Don in the sixties, with all the
industrial pollution from Sheffield and Rotherham forming huge
barrage balloons of foam that floated up from the river and slapped
against the bus windows on North Bridge. The cost to industry of
halting that pollution was huge but it was paid. And if were
prepared to add hundreds of pounds per household to our electricity
bills to satisfy what many regard as a futile and misguided attempt
to reduce global warming, surely we would be prepared to pay a
small fraction of that amount to eliminate a very real, visible,
and highly pernicious environmental ill.Â*Â* The cost of universal
waste collection should be regarded as the price we are prepared to
pay for clean streets and lanes, for unpolluted streams, and air
without carcinogenic fumes. We all create waste, so why should the
cost of its disposal not be paid via general taxation? We share the
road network; we have the NHS; why not a National Waste Disposal
Service?

The savings in costs for legitimate builders and tradesmen would
lead to a general reduction in their prices. The present system
helps the fly tipping crooks to undercut legitimate traders because
legitimate waste disposal is a large part of the cost of much of
the work thats done, be it the building of a kitchen extension or
the fitting of a new tyre. By giving this price advantage to the
crooks the size of the black economy is increased and the tax take
is reduced. The black economy accounts for 10% of the total economy
of the UK and reduces the tax take by billions.

Universal free disposal of waste would lead to great economies
because the pathway that waste would take from initial disposal to
landfill or recycling would be far more efficient. No longer would
farmers and local councils chase round picking up assorted filth
from every lane and back alley only to dispose of it in a piecemeal
and haphazard fashion. No longer would water supplies and the
atmosphere be contaminated.Â* No longer would good recyclable
materials end up in landfill. (Much of the building rubbish we find
blocking our lanes is perfectly good hardcore, or it was until it
was mixed with the general rubbish at the fly tipping location.)
Yes, the universal free disposal of waste sounds expensive, but in
the end it would save money for every taxpayer.

And what about the remaining few fly tippers? Those who are
hapless, feckless, or just bloody minded? There wouldnt be very
many of them, so serious detection using modern forensic science
would be cost-effective. And then maybe, with all excuses for fly
tipping gone, the courts might start to impose some of those
draconian penalties.







I'll agree if only the same draconian laws also apply to people that
park like ****s.




And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

--
Davey.

Bill Wright wrote

We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic,

Thats overstated with the all. I bet Dave the Sot isnt.

so I think its appropriate that we discuss it.

Sure.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish and
anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and makes it more
difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside. It causes
environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets.

But doesnt every often with pets.

The high costs are ultimately paid by consumers and ratepayers. What can
be done about fly tipping?

Depends on what causes it. When its the cost of using the dump
instead, not having any dump fees would obviously stop it.

Can it be stopped,

Not when the fly tipping is done because its
easier to fly tip than to use the free dump.

or will it always be with us?

When the fly tipping is done because its
easier to fly tip than to use the free dump.

The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out of a
car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free domestic waste
collection by the local council.

Not when it happens when moving and you the domestic
waste collection only takes away whats in the wheely bins
and not the excess left by those bins.

Maybe these people are very lazy and their car is closer to their front
door than it is to the dustbin€¦

Unlikely.

A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most culprits
are running small businesses carrying out minor building works, painting
and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking. They fly tip to avoid
the cost of disposing of the waste legitimately.

Yes.

This cost increased significantly with introduction of the Landfill Tax,
which the UK has to levy in order to comply with an EEC Directive. The
effect of the tax is to significantly increase the cost of waste disposal,
and thus increase the motivation of traders to fly tip.

Yes, but when I was building my house, the local dump was
completely free to use and we still saw some fly tipping.

The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal. On the face of it a very laudable aim, but
this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the law of
unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for the present fly
tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of urban bureaucrats
making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on rural areas, without
thinking or caring about the results?

It isnt just bureaucrats. A mate of mine was on the local council
when the fools started charging everyone for the use of the local
dumps that were up till then free for anyone to use.

While superficially it cost a lot to run the dump and did make
some sense to charge people to dump stuff to pay those costs,
it make no sense at all to have to have someone sitting in the
office at the weighbridge collecting money from those arriving
at the dump. I doubt that what is collected by him even pays his
wages when the real cost of employing him and the weighbridge
etc is considered.

Fly tipping is an almost risk-free crime. The chances of detection are
absurdly low. For every 1,500 reported cases there is one prosecution.

And it costs much more to prosecute than the fine too.

This very low detection and conviction rate for fly tipping shows that the
law, local vigilance, CCTV, and everything else thats been tried has been
almost completely ineffective. Local councils, unable to prosecute people
who drop a ton of toxic waste on a country lane, instead spend our money
on teams of peaked capped spooks who persecute people for feeding the
pigeons or dropping a fag end on the pavement. Its a pathetic
displacement response to the whole issue of littering and fly tipping.

In medieval times when there was no police force and crime was hard to
detect the solution was to impose draconian punishments on the few
criminals that were unfortunate enough to be caught.

That was more about the different way they did things then with lynchings,
burning at the stake, hang drawn and quartered, keel hauling etc.

Nowadays we are too civilised (too soft?) for that,

And since the detection rate is so low, it
wouldnt make any difference if we weren't.

so amongst other curses of our age we have to put up with fly tipping.

If were really serious about protecting the environment we need a radical
solution to the problem of fly tipping.

There isnt one. Free dumps arent radical at all, its what we used to have.

Im not normally in favour of communistic remedies, but I think this is a
special case.

Why ?

We should make the disposal of all waste the responsibility of the state,

It has been for a long time now.

and absolutely free.

We didnt have no fly tipping even when it was free.

Everything from harmless top soil to the most toxic filth should be taken
in by the state and properly disposed of, absolutely free of charge.

And when that was the way it was done, we still had some fly tipping.

The cost would be high, but there are precedents. We have paid vast
amounts in the past to clean up our environment. There were the Clean Air
Acts of the fifties and sixties. And South Yorkshire well remembers the
state of the River Don in the sixties, with all the industrial pollution
from Sheffield and Rotherham forming huge barrage balloons of foam that
floated up from the river and slapped against the bus windows on North
Bridge. The cost to industry of halting that pollution was huge but it was
paid. And if were prepared to add hundreds of pounds per household to our
electricity bills to satisfy what many regard as a futile and misguided
attempt to reduce global warming, surely we would be prepared to pay a
small fraction of that amount to eliminate a very real, visible, and
highly pernicious environmental ill. The cost of universal waste
collection should be regarded as the price we are prepared to pay for
clean streets and lanes, for unpolluted streams, and air without
carcinogenic fumes. We all create waste, so why should the cost of its
disposal not be paid via general taxation? We share the road network; we
have the NHS; why not a National Waste Disposal Service?

Doesnt need to be national, having the local council do it works better.

The savings in costs for legitimate builders and tradesmen would lead to a
general reduction in their prices. The present system helps the fly
tipping crooks to undercut legitimate traders because legitimate waste
disposal is a large part of the cost of much of the work thats done, be
it the building of a kitchen extension or the fitting of a new tyre. By
giving this price advantage to the crooks the size of the black economy is
increased and the tax take is reduced. The black economy accounts for 10%
of the total economy of the UK and reduces the tax take by billions.

Universal free disposal of waste would lead to great economies because the
pathway that waste would take from initial disposal to landfill or
recycling would be far more efficient. No longer would farmers and local
councils chase round picking up assorted filth from every lane and back
alley only to dispose of it in a piecemeal and haphazard fashion. No
longer would water supplies and the atmosphere be contaminated. No longer
would good recyclable materials end up in landfill. (Much of the building
rubbish we find blocking our lanes is perfectly good hardcore, or it was
until it was mixed with the general rubbish at the fly tipping location.)
Yes, the universal free disposal of waste sounds expensive, but in the end
it would save money for every taxpayer.

And what about the remaining few fly tippers?

Even summary execution wouldnt stop those.

Those who are hapless, feckless, or just bloody minded? There wouldnt be
very many of them,

Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with those who
just chuck their fast food containers out of the car window.

so serious detection using modern forensic science would be
cost-effective.

Nope, not with the fast food containers.

And then maybe, with all excuses for fly tipping gone, the courts might
start to impose some of those draconian penalties.

Nope, even the death penalty wouldnt stop it. And its too expensive
to keep them in jail for 10 years. And public floggings would be too
expensive for the NHS and not really feasible to tell them that if they
end up with it infected, they just get to die of the gangrene.

On 08/10/2017 19:22, Rod Speed wrote:
Bill Wright wrote

We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic,

Thats overstated with the all. I bet Dave the Sot isnt.

We all pay taxes.


so I think its appropriate that we discuss it.

Sure.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish and
anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and makes it
more difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside. It causes
environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets.

But doesnt every often with pets.

Dogs like to rummage around, often in hedgerows out of site. One of ours
got hold of a plastic bottle and wanted me to throw it for her
yesterday. I'm glad she didn't puncture it with her teeth. I couldn't
identify the contents but it was a colourless liquid with a funny smell.


The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out of
a car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free domestic
waste collection by the local council.

Not when it happens when moving and you the domestic
waste collection only takes away whats in the wheely bins
and not the excess left by those bins.

Good point. They shouldn't do that. It's just stupid.


A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most
culprits are running small businesses carrying out minor building
works, painting and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking.
They fly tip to avoid the cost of disposing of the waste legitimately.

Yes.

This cost increased significantly with introduction of the Landfill
Tax, which the UK has to levy in order to comply with an EEC
Directive. The effect of the tax is to significantly increase the cost
of waste disposal, and thus increase the motivation of traders to fly
tip.

Yes, but when I was building my house, the local dump was
completely free to use and we still saw some fly tipping.

Oh there'll always be some silly sod who does it, that's why I suggest
draconian penalties.


The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal.Â* On the face of it a very laudable aim,
but this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the law of
unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for the present
fly tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of urban
bureaucrats making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on rural
areas, without thinking or caring about the results?

It isnt just bureaucrats. A mate ofÂ* mine was on the local council
when the fools started charging everyone for the use of the local
dumps that were up till then free for anyone to use.

But the councils were forced to charge because of the cost to them of
Landfill Tax.


Fly tipping is an almost risk-free crime. The chances of detection are
absurdly low. For every 1,500 reported cases there is one prosecution.

And it costs much more to prosecute than the fine too.

That needs to be put right.


If were really serious about protecting the environment we need a
radical solution to the problem of fly tipping.

There isnt one. Free dumps arent radical at all, its what we used to have.

Im not normally in favour of communistic remedies, but I think this
is a special case.

Why ?

For the reasons given.


We didnt have no fly tipping even when it was free.

Everything from harmless top soil to the most toxic filth should be
taken in by the state and properly disposed of, absolutely free of
charge.

And when that was the way it was done, we still had some fly tipping.

Yes but nothing like what we have now. And the penalties were low in
those days, and detection almost non-existent.


And what about the remaining few fly tippers?

Even summary execution wouldnt stop those.

It would. They'd be dead.

Those who are hapless, feckless, or just bloody minded? There wouldnt
be very many of them,

Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with those who
just chuck their fast food containers out of the car window.

They'd think twice if there was a three month driving ban attached.


so serious detection using modern forensic science would be
cost-effective.

Nope, not with the fast food containers.

Finger prints. DNA from saliva.

Bill

On 08/10/2017 19:27, Tim+ wrote:

I think most fly-tipping is done by smaller businesses and a
simple way of policing it might be to just have a maximum size of
vehicle?

Just think that through will you?

Bill

"Tim+" wrote in message
news
Bill Wright Wrote in message:
We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic, so I think it?s
appropriate that we discuss it.


Never managed to tip a fly. The little buggers move way I too fast.

Too stupid to try it with dead ones.

Prefer to stick to cow tipping.

Regarding waste though, i think the only answer is to all all
businesses up to a certain size to dispose of waste in the same
way that householders do.

I think most fly-tipping is done by smaller businesses and a
simple way of policing it might be to just have a maximum
size of vehicle? that can free public tipping facilities.

Makes no sense to stop builders using decent sized trucks.

Of course not perfect and some companies might well buy
a smaller vehicle to tip rubbish but it would significantly
reduce the fly-tipping by small/medium sized businesses.

It will cost us all more in landfill but it will at least dent the a cost
of fly-tipping clean-up a and the blight that fly-tipping causes.

And the cost of landfill in the major capital citys is immense.

Maybe bigger demolition jobs should be required to spray the
premises with "Smart water" before the start (or a council agent
could I do it). This would make the waste traceable.

But would do nothing about the major source of whets fly tipped, renos.

Bill Wright wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bill Wright wrote

We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic,

Thats overstated with the all. I bet Dave the Sot isnt.

We all pay taxes.

Not everyone does, most obviously those who
dont work and who grow their own food etc.

so I think its appropriate that we discuss it.

Sure.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish and
anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and makes it
more difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside. It causes
environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets.

But doesnt every often with pets.

Dogs like to rummage around, often in hedgerows out of site.

Sure, but dont often get harmed when doing that in whets been fly tipped.

One of ours got hold of a plastic bottle and wanted me to throw it for her
yesterday. I'm glad she didn't puncture it with her teeth. I couldn't
identify the contents but it was a colourless liquid with a funny smell.

Sure, but that doesnt happen very often and the dog would soon drop
it if it contained turps etc. Sure, its possible it could contain
organophosphate
weedicide etc that could kill it, but is very rare to get that combination
of
poisonous to dogs and a dog into hunting up stuff for its owner to throw.

The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out of a
car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free domestic
waste collection by the local council.

Not when it happens when moving and you the domestic
waste collection only takes away whats in the wheely bins
and not the excess left by those bins.

Good point. They shouldn't do that. It's just stupid.

Yes, but bin collection is done with a ****ing great truck
with an arm that reaches out and grabs the wheely bin
and tips it into the back of the truck, all done with just
the driver of the truck, just the one person.

Its not surprising that they arent into stopping the truck,
getting out, manually tossing the stuff that has been
scattered all over the verge by the local dogs, into the truck.

Yes, the obvious fix is to have continuous surveillance
cameras on the truck that get checked every day and
the driver sacked if he can't be arsed to do that.

A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most
culprits are running small businesses carrying out minor building works,
painting and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking. They fly tip
to avoid the cost of disposing of the waste legitimately.

Yes.

This cost increased significantly with introduction of the Landfill Tax,
which the UK has to levy in order to comply with an EEC Directive. The
effect of the tax is to significantly increase the cost of waste
disposal, and thus increase the motivation of traders to fly tip.

Yes, but when I was building my house, the local dump was
completely free to use and we still saw some fly tipping.

Oh there'll always be some silly sod who does it, that's why I suggest
draconian penalties.

The trouble is that, as you said, its almost impossible to catch most fly
tipping so no way to impose draconian penaltys even if that would work.

Even with the fools that chuck the fast food containers out of the car
window when they have eaten the contents, even jailing the driver
isnt going to work very well when the state has to foster the brats
when they can't pay the draconian fine, even if you have such good
surveillance cameras that you can reliably match the footage with
their drivers license photo and demand that the driver dobs in the
chucker if he claims he didnt do it or go to jail himself.

The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal. On the face of it a very laudable aim,
but this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the law of
unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for the present
fly tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of urban bureaucrats
making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on rural areas, without
thinking or caring about the results?

It isnt just bureaucrats. A mate of mine was on the local council
when the fools started charging everyone for the use of the local
dumps that were up till then free for anyone to use.

But the councils were forced to charge because of the cost to them of
Landfill Tax.

That isnt what happened here.

Fly tipping is an almost risk-free crime. The chances of detection are
absurdly low. For every 1,500 reported cases there is one prosecution.

And it costs much more to prosecute than the fine too.

That needs to be put right.

Nope possible. See above.

If were really serious about protecting the environment we need a
radical solution to the problem of fly tipping.

There isnt one. Free dumps arent radical at all, its what we used to
have.

Im not normally in favour of communistic remedies, but I think this is
a special case.

Why ?

For the reasons given.


We didnt have no fly tipping even when it was free.

Everything from harmless top soil to the most toxic filth should be
taken in by the state and properly disposed of, absolutely free of
charge.

And when that was the way it was done, we still had some fly tipping.

Yes but nothing like what we have now.

That arguable with the fast food containers.

And the penalties were low in those days, and detection almost
non-existent.

And even with what we can do now, I still dont see it
working with fast food containers alone, let alone builders
doing fly tipping and those moving house dumping their
**** that they dont want to take with them.

And what about the remaining few fly tippers?

Even summary execution wouldnt stop those.

It would. They'd be dead.

They'd still have fly tipped before the penalty was applied.

Those who are hapless, feckless, or just bloody minded? There wouldnt
be very many of them,

Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with those who
just chuck their fast food containers out of the car window.

They'd think twice if there was a three month driving ban attached.

I doubt it, they'd just drive unlicensed like they do now.

so serious detection using modern forensic science would be
cost-effective.

Nope, not with the fast food containers.

Finger prints. DNA from saliva.

We dont accept fingerprinting and DNA sampling everyone so
we have a complete database to use to work out who chucked it.

And even if we did, that still wouldnt avoid the one who eat the
food leaving the containers in the car to put in the bin when they
get home and someone else chucking them out the window using
gloves because they know the goons will be checking the DNA and
fingerprints.

And as I said, even using surveillance camera footage
and drivers licence photos wouldnt work either.

Yes, it would certainly make sense to have all dumps completely
free to use by everyone, and to have the routine rubbish collection
pick up anything left anywhere, even dead sofas etc by those who
dont have any way of taking them to the dump etc, but you would
still end up with a massive amount of fly tipping of used fast food
containers alone.

Yes, you can certainly make a case for council people to be picking up
all rubbish thats on public property, daily, but thats not going to be
cheap.

On 08/10/2017 20:17, Rod Speed wrote:

Yes, but bin collection is done with a ****ing great truck
with an arm that reaches out and grabs the wheely bin
and tips it into the back of the truck, all done with just
the driver of the truck, just the one person.

So that's what they do in the colonies?

But the councils were forced to charge because of the cost to them of
Landfill Tax.

That isnt what happened here.

This is a UK newsgroup.


Nope, not with the fast food containers.

Finger prints. DNA from saliva.

We dont accept fingerprinting and DNA sampling everyone so
we have a complete database to use to work out who chucked it.

Prints and DNA can be taken from suspects.

Bill

On 08/10/2017 19:52, Tim+ wrote:
Bill Wright Wrote in message:
On 08/10/2017 19:27, Tim+ wrote:

I think most fly-tipping is done by smaller businesses and a
simple way of policing it might be to just have a maximum size of
vehicle?

Just think that through will you?

I never said it was perfect, just easy to implement.

No it isn't perfect. It's the opposite of perfect. It couldn't be
implemented. Small businesses can't use large vehicles? Ha!

Bill

On 08/10/2017 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:

And the cost of landfill in the major capital citys is immense.

Tip it somewhere else then.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Nope, not with the fast food containers.

Finger prints. DNA from saliva.

We dont accept fingerprinting and DNA sampling everyone so
we have a complete database to use to work out who chucked it.

Prints and DNA can be taken from suspects.

But it isnt possible to work out who the suspects are and doesnt
prove that the prints and DNA are of the chucker anyway.

Bill Wright wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And the cost of landfill in the major capital citys is immense.

Tip it somewhere else then.

There isnt anywhere else thats viable to use with the major capital citys.

Costs too much to cart it all there and costs even more
to have the general public cart to to the reshipping
place where its all carted to somewhere else.

I saw an article this week that Pembroke Council are moving residents to
3 weeks between collections - on top of the now strict recycling .. and
only 3 black bags per collection.


That to me will increase fly infestation ... and encourage fly tipping

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 17:43:12 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic, so I think its
appropriate that we discuss it.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish and
anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and makes it
more difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside. It causes
environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets. The high costs are
ultimately paid by consumers and ratepayers. What can be done about fly
tipping? Can it be stopped, or will it always be with us?

The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out of a
car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free domestic
waste collection by the local council. Maybe these people are very lazy
and their car is closer to their front door than it is to the dustbin€¦

A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most
culprits are running small businesses carrying out minor building works,
painting and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking. They fly tip
to avoid the cost of disposing of the waste legitimately. This cost
increased significantly with introduction of the Landfill Tax, which the
UK has to levy in order to comply with an EEC Directive. The effect of
the tax is to significantly increase the cost of waste disposal, and
thus increase the motivation of traders to fly tip.

The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal. On the face of it a very laudable aim,
but this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the law of
unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for the present
fly tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of urban bureaucrats
making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on rural areas, without
thinking or caring about the results?

Fly tipping is an almost risk-free crime. The chances of detection are
absurdly low. For every 1,500 reported cases there is one prosecution.
This very low detection and conviction rate for fly tipping shows that
the law, local vigilance, CCTV, and everything else thats been tried
has been almost completely ineffective. Local councils, unable to
prosecute people who drop a ton of toxic waste on a country lane,
instead spend our money on teams of peaked capped spooks who persecute
people for feeding the pigeons or dropping a fag end on the pavement.
Its a pathetic displacement response to the whole issue of littering
and fly tipping.

In medieval times when there was no police force and crime was hard to
detect the solution was to impose draconian punishments on the few
criminals that were unfortunate enough to be caught. Nowadays we are too
civilised (too soft?) for that, so amongst other curses of our age we
have to put up with fly tipping.

If were really serious about protecting the environment we need a
radical solution to the problem of fly tipping. Im not normally in
favour of communistic remedies, but I think this is a special case. We
should make the disposal of all waste the responsibility of the state,
and absolutely free. Everything from harmless top soil to the most toxic
filth should be taken in by the state and properly disposed of,
absolutely free of charge.

The cost would be high, but there are precedents. We have paid vast
amounts in the past to clean up our environment. There were the Clean
Air Acts of the fifties and sixties. And South Yorkshire well remembers
the state of the River Don in the sixties, with all the industrial
pollution from Sheffield and Rotherham forming huge barrage balloons of
foam that floated up from the river and slapped against the bus windows
on North Bridge. The cost to industry of halting that pollution was huge
but it was paid. And if were prepared to add hundreds of pounds per
household to our electricity bills to satisfy what many regard as a
futile and misguided attempt to reduce global warming, surely we would
be prepared to pay a small fraction of that amount to eliminate a very
real, visible, and highly pernicious environmental ill. The cost of
universal waste collection should be regarded as the price we are
prepared to pay for clean streets and lanes, for unpolluted streams, and
air without carcinogenic fumes. We all create waste, so why should the
cost of its disposal not be paid via general taxation? We share the road
network; we have the NHS; why not a National Waste Disposal Service?

The savings in costs for legitimate builders and tradesmen would lead to
a general reduction in their prices. The present system helps the fly
tipping crooks to undercut legitimate traders because legitimate waste
disposal is a large part of the cost of much of the work thats done, be
it the building of a kitchen extension or the fitting of a new tyre. By
giving this price advantage to the crooks the size of the black economy
is increased and the tax take is reduced. The black economy accounts for
10% of the total economy of the UK and reduces the tax take by billions.

Universal free disposal of waste would lead to great economies because
the pathway that waste would take from initial disposal to landfill or
recycling would be far more efficient. No longer would farmers and local
councils chase round picking up assorted filth from every lane and back
alley only to dispose of it in a piecemeal and haphazard fashion. No
longer would water supplies and the atmosphere be contaminated. No
longer would good recyclable materials end up in landfill. (Much of the
building rubbish we find blocking our lanes is perfectly good hardcore,
or it was until it was mixed with the general rubbish at the fly tipping
location.) Yes, the universal free disposal of waste sounds expensive,
but in the end it would save money for every taxpayer.

And what about the remaining few fly tippers? Those who are hapless,
feckless, or just bloody minded? There wouldnt be very many of them, so
serious detection using modern forensic science would be cost-effective.
And then maybe, with all excuses for fly tipping gone, the courts might
start to impose some of those draconian penalties.

It's a very predicable consequence of the current policies. But since the govt taking tax is involved there's no prospect of any party admitting they made a poor decision and changing it.

On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:
And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Andy

On 08/10/2017 19:39, Bill Wright wrote:
On 08/10/2017 19:22, Rod Speed wrote:
Bill Wright wrote

We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic,

Thats overstated with the all. I bet Dave the Sot isnt.

We all pay taxes.


so I think its appropriate that we discuss it.

Sure.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish
and anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and
makes it more difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside. It
causes environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets.

But doesnt every often with pets.

Dogs like to rummage around, often in hedgerows out of site. One of ours
got hold of a plastic bottle and wanted me to throw it for her
yesterday. I'm glad she didn't puncture it with her teeth. I couldn't
identify the contents but it was a colourless liquid with a funny smell.


The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out of
a car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free domestic
waste collection by the local council.

Not when it happens when moving and you the domestic
waste collection only takes away whats in the wheely bins
and not the excess left by those bins.

Good point. They shouldn't do that. It's just stupid.


A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most
culprits are running small businesses carrying out minor building
works, painting and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking.
They fly tip to avoid the cost of disposing of the waste legitimately.

Yes.

This cost increased significantly with introduction of the Landfill
Tax, which the UK has to levy in order to comply with an EEC
Directive. The effect of the tax is to significantly increase the
cost of waste disposal, and thus increase the motivation of traders
to fly tip.

Yes, but when I was building my house, the local dump was
completely free to use and we still saw some fly tipping.

Oh there'll always be some silly sod who does it, that's why I suggest
draconian penalties.


The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal.Â* On the face of it a very laudable
aim, but this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the
law of unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for the
present fly tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of urban
bureaucrats making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on rural
areas, without thinking or caring about the results?

It isnt just bureaucrats. A mate ofÂ* mine was on the local council
when the fools started charging everyone for the use of the local
dumps that were up till then free for anyone to use.

But the councils were forced to charge because of the cost to them of
Landfill Tax.

They weren't - ours (and the neighbouring council's are both still free.

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Andy

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?


NT

On 08/10/2017 22:05, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

It's been done, but they weren't very successful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

--
Max Demian

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 17:43:12 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic, so I think its
appropriate that we discuss it.

There is a fly tipping epidemic in country districts. Its selfish and
anti-social, it adversely affects our local environment, and makes it
more difficult for us to take a pride in our countryside. It causes
environmental damage and can harm livestock and pets. The high costs are
ultimately paid by consumers and ratepayers. What can be done about fly
tipping? Can it be stopped, or will it always be with us?

The small scale stuff €” black bags of household rubbish thrown out of a
car window €” is inexplicable when every household has free domestic
waste collection by the local council. Maybe these people are very lazy
and their car is closer to their front door than it is to the dustbin€¦

A much bigger problem is the tipping of waste by businesses. Most
culprits are running small businesses carrying out minor building works,
painting and decorating, shop fitting, or vehicle breaking. They fly tip
to avoid the cost of disposing of the waste legitimately. This cost
increased significantly with introduction of the Landfill Tax, which the
UK has to levy in order to comply with an EEC Directive. The effect of
the tax is to significantly increase the cost of waste disposal, and
thus increase the motivation of traders to fly tip.

The purpose of this directive was to reduce the ill effects on the
environment of waste disposal. On the face of it a very laudable aim,
but this EEC regulation (like many others) now epitomises the law of
unintended consequences, because its largely to blame for the present
fly tipping epidemic. Could this be another example of urban bureaucrats
making ham-fisted laws that have great effects on rural areas, without
thinking or caring about the results?

Fly tipping is an almost risk-free crime. The chances of detection are
absurdly low. For every 1,500 reported cases there is one prosecution.
This very low detection and conviction rate for fly tipping shows that
the law, local vigilance, CCTV, and everything else thats been tried
has been almost completely ineffective. Local councils, unable to
prosecute people who drop a ton of toxic waste on a country lane,
instead spend our money on teams of peaked capped spooks who persecute
people for feeding the pigeons or dropping a fag end on the pavement.
Its a pathetic displacement response to the whole issue of littering
and fly tipping.

In medieval times when there was no police force and crime was hard to
detect the solution was to impose draconian punishments on the few
criminals that were unfortunate enough to be caught. Nowadays we are too
civilised (too soft?) for that, so amongst other curses of our age we
have to put up with fly tipping.

If were really serious about protecting the environment we need a
radical solution to the problem of fly tipping. Im not normally in
favour of communistic remedies, but I think this is a special case. We
should make the disposal of all waste the responsibility of the state,
and absolutely free. Everything from harmless top soil to the most toxic
filth should be taken in by the state and properly disposed of,
absolutely free of charge.

The cost would be high, but there are precedents. We have paid vast
amounts in the past to clean up our environment. There were the Clean
Air Acts of the fifties and sixties. And South Yorkshire well remembers
the state of the River Don in the sixties, with all the industrial
pollution from Sheffield and Rotherham forming huge barrage balloons of
foam that floated up from the river and slapped against the bus windows
on North Bridge. The cost to industry of halting that pollution was huge
but it was paid. And if were prepared to add hundreds of pounds per
household to our electricity bills to satisfy what many regard as a
futile and misguided attempt to reduce global warming, surely we would
be prepared to pay a small fraction of that amount to eliminate a very
real, visible, and highly pernicious environmental ill. The cost of
universal waste collection should be regarded as the price we are
prepared to pay for clean streets and lanes, for unpolluted streams, and
air without carcinogenic fumes. We all create waste, so why should the
cost of its disposal not be paid via general taxation? We share the road
network; we have the NHS; why not a National Waste Disposal Service?

The savings in costs for legitimate builders and tradesmen would lead to
a general reduction in their prices. The present system helps the fly
tipping crooks to undercut legitimate traders because legitimate waste
disposal is a large part of the cost of much of the work thats done, be
it the building of a kitchen extension or the fitting of a new tyre. By
giving this price advantage to the crooks the size of the black economy
is increased and the tax take is reduced. The black economy accounts for
10% of the total economy of the UK and reduces the tax take by billions.

Universal free disposal of waste would lead to great economies because
the pathway that waste would take from initial disposal to landfill or
recycling would be far more efficient. No longer would farmers and local
councils chase round picking up assorted filth from every lane and back
alley only to dispose of it in a piecemeal and haphazard fashion. No
longer would water supplies and the atmosphere be contaminated. No
longer would good recyclable materials end up in landfill. (Much of the
building rubbish we find blocking our lanes is perfectly good hardcore,
or it was until it was mixed with the general rubbish at the fly tipping
location.) Yes, the universal free disposal of waste sounds expensive,
but in the end it would save money for every taxpayer.

And what about the remaining few fly tippers? Those who are hapless,
feckless, or just bloody minded? There wouldnt be very many of them, so
serious detection using modern forensic science would be cost-effective.
And then maybe, with all excuses for fly tipping gone, the courts might
start to impose some of those draconian penalties.

It's a very predicable consequence of the current policies.
But since the govt taking tax is involved there's no prospect of
any party admitting they made a poor decision and changing it.

And presumably they did consider it and decided that yes, more
fly tipping would certainly happen, but decided that they want to
encourage the recycling of stuff instead of just dumping it in landfill.

We've just seen a very big works yard with most of it concreted, used
for big trucks and heavy machinery, all completely demolished into
immense piles of dirt and broken concrete at least 30' high over most
of the site. In the past that would have been trucked to the dump.

Now they are processing the lot and producing piles of dirt and much
more broken up concrete in other piles. Presumably it will all get used
instead of just being dumped in landfill as it used to be and presumably
the landfill dump charges are what have encourage the considerable
cost of doing that for more than a month now.
https://goo.gl/maps/Z5hRT7FCPFB2

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving
though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Andy

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned
bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

We've had them for 50 years and didnt need to abandon bogeys either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_r...uble-deck_cars

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?


NT

Not without rebuilding most platforms, . Because Britain was first
with railways and never has decided to enlarge them from what was
established 150 years ago the shape of a British train has developed
so to make the best use of available space by being a little wider at
roughly waist level than by your feet .Almost all British coaches have
a tumblehome
Overseas the sides are far more vertical down to much nearer the track
level and they have been able to develop lower floors and double
decker stock .

G.Harman

wrote
wrote

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in
if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented
modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

We didn't have to do that with ours.

Because Britain was first with railways and never has decided
to enlarge them from what was established 150 years ago

That's a lie with the length of the train they can take.

the shape of a British train has developed so to make the best use
of available space by being a little wider at roughly waist level
than by your feet .Almost all British coaches have a tumblehome

Overseas the sides are far more vertical down to
much nearer the track level and they have been able
to develop lower floors and double decker stock .

But given they don't all have a tumblehome, that's a pretty bogus argument.

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low
floor level?


NT

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Monday, 9 October 2017 00:46:18 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving
though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Andy

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned
bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

We've had them for 50 years and didnt need to abandon bogeys either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_r...uble-deck_cars

There are few tunnels/bridges in Oz.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low
floor level?


NT

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

We didn’t rebuild even a single bridge when we went that route.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 9 October 2017 00:46:18 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems
for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving
though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Andy

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned
bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor
level?

We've had them for 50 years and didnt need to abandon bogeys either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_r...uble-deck_cars

There are few tunnels/bridges in Oz.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage with Sydney.

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 23:18:48 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/10/2017 22:05, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

It's been done, but they weren't very successful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

The capacity increase is considerable, and they remained in service a long time, which suggests they did work well. They were replaced with longer trains, but that's no longer an option.


NT

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , charles
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low
floor level?

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

And tunnels.

The loading gauge prevents us from using any continental rolling stock
here. To fix that means relaying all tracks, rebuilding all platforms,
bridges, tunnels.

How odd that this didnt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Whether new UK lines are built with a wider loading gauge, I don't
know, but it would make sense.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Jones
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , charles
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting
low
floor level?

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

And tunnels.

The loading gauge prevents us from using any continental rolling stock
here. To fix that means relaying all tracks, rebuilding all platforms,
bridges, tunnels.

How odd that this didnt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Is this continental stock?

It is double decker with bogies which is what matters.

Simon Jones wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
How odd that this didnt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Is this continental stock?

It is double decker with bogies which is what matters.

The 4DD is UK gauge, but extremely cramped inside. It's compartment stock,
with no internal corridors. There's a lower compartment, a
short staircase and then an upper compartment, in the space of
about 50% more than a traditional 12-seat compartment. Rather optimistically
they expected to get 11 in each of the lower and upper compartments.

This shows the concept:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/history.html

The survivors are falling apart, but here's the upper compartment:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/im...arkgreen12.jpg
The passengers on the ends better not be tall because their heads are
pressed up against the curving ceiling.

and the door to the lower:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/images/ta12.jpg
- the stairs going up are to the right, while the seats of the previous
upper compartment overhang the lower seats of this compartment on the left.

This is the bottom of the stairs, going up to the left:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/images/28101614.jpg

Basically it's OK for a 20 minute run into London Bridge, but people are
going to be complaining of being battery chickens for anytime longer.

The reason it failed was dwell times: that kind of stock had a slam door for
every 8 passengers, so it was quick for people to board and disembark. When
you add internal staircases, you might carry 50% more passengers but they
also take longer to reach the door - so the train gets slower for everyone.

Today, of course, non-corridor compartments are a non-starter for public
safety reasons, but the problem of the extremely curvy roof profile remains.
In the 4DD there's really only enough space to get two normal-sized people
per row on the upper deck, but then there's nowhere to fit the access to
get them in.

HS2 (and HS1) are full continental gauge, so running off-the-shelf double
decker trains should be feasible, though the issue about dwell times
remains.

Theo

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 01:06:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

It's been done, but they weren't very successful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

The capacity increase is considerable, and they remained in service a long time, which suggests they did work well.

What was found that attempting to get more passengers through the same
amount of doors especially in crowded rush hour conditions took too
long which meant they had to stop longer at stations while passengers
from the upper level extracted or forced themselves in through those
already crammed in the lower level.
If a fleet had have been built then the end to end times of journeys
would have been longer as even 30 seconds delay over 15 to 20 stations
starts to accumulate.
They were always considered cramped and unpleasant by the passengers
and were well before the air conditioning age even though they had
some pressure ventilation , because non of the windows could be made
opening due to position and clearances the upper levels were very
stuffy and used reluctantly. Must have been hell with smoking being
allowed and with Lifebouy used on the weekly bath being about the only
protection against BO.
Squeezing a similar design now into the cramped British clearances may
at least get some air con but since the forties people have got a lot
bigger.

As you noted it was decided to provide longer trains instead.

As prototypes they did have quite a long life ,the mechanical bits
were common with a lot of other units so did not really need any
special parts or skills which helped with that.

G.Harman

Bill Wright wrote:
We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic, so I think its
appropriate that we discuss it.

It would help if the council's and their chosen subcontractors didn't
behave as if we're all trying to run waste disposal businesses on the
side by throwing it in our waste bins. Consumption is through the roof
and the waste is a side effect. Ideally people would consume less but
they're just not going to so why fight it.

I would bring in laws to have council officials flogged for coming up
with the most ridiculous rules and regs - not taking recyclables from a
cardboard box instead of the mandated green one that's been pinched; not
emptying a bin because the lid is raised by 1.25mm; etc.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On Monday, 9 October 2017 10:55:04 UTC+1, Theo wrote:
Simon Jones wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
How odd that this didnt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Is this continental stock?

It is double decker with bogies which is what matters.

The 4DD is UK gauge, but extremely cramped inside. It's compartment stock,
with no internal corridors. There's a lower compartment, a
short staircase and then an upper compartment, in the space of
about 50% more than a traditional 12-seat compartment. Rather optimistically
they expected to get 11 in each of the lower and upper compartments.

This shows the concept:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/history.html

The survivors are falling apart, but here's the upper compartment:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/im...arkgreen12.jpg
The passengers on the ends better not be tall because their heads are
pressed up against the curving ceiling.

and the door to the lower:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/images/ta12.jpg
- the stairs going up are to the right, while the seats of the previous
upper compartment overhang the lower seats of this compartment on the left.

On Monday, 9 October 2017 19:12:18 UTC+1, Scott M wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
We are all affected by the fly tipping epidemic, so I think its
appropriate that we discuss it.

It would help if the council's and their chosen subcontractors didn't
behave as if we're all trying to run waste disposal businesses on the
side by throwing it in our waste bins. Consumption is through the roof
and the waste is a side effect. Ideally people would consume less but
they're just not going to so why fight it.

I would bring in laws to have council officials flogged for coming up
with the most ridiculous rules and regs - not taking recyclables from a
cardboard box instead of the mandated green one that's been pinched; not
emptying a bin because the lid is raised by 1.25mm; etc.

That sort of attitude is very much part of the problem. It appears to be present throughout the disposal system.


NT

wrote:
On Monday, 9 October 2017 19:12:18 UTC+1, Scott M wrote:

I would bring in laws to have council officials flogged for coming up
with the most ridiculous rules and regs - not taking recyclables from a
cardboard box instead of the mandated green one that's been pinched; not
emptying a bin because the lid is raised by 1.25mm; etc.

That sort of attitude is very much part of the problem. It appears to be present throughout the disposal system.

I presume it's driven by budgets and costs since waste gets
sub-contracted out; the companies run want to do the least possible for
the most money and package it as "being green." I always think they must
loathe being forced to run recycling centres on the back of getting the
bin contract.

The next distract (I'm on a border between two) is particularly bizarre.
Certain tips are only open certain days and, on a Sunday, do something
crazy like 7.30am - 1pm.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 October 2017 10:55:04 UTC+1, Theo wrote:
Simon Jones wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
How odd that this didn‘t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Is this continental stock?

It is double decker with bogies which is what matters.

The 4DD is UK gauge, but extremely cramped inside. It's compartment
stock, with no internal corridors. There's a lower compartment, a
short staircase and then an upper compartment, in the space of about
50% more than a traditional 12-seat compartment. Rather optimistically
they expected to get 11 in each of the lower and upper compartments.

This shows the concept: http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/history.html

The survivors are falling apart, but here's the upper compartment:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/im...arkgreen12.jpg The passengers
on the ends better not be tall because their heads are pressed up
against the curving ceiling.

and the door to the lower:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/images/ta12.jpg - the stairs going up
are to the right, while the seats of the previous upper compartment
overhang the lower seats of this compartment on the left.

This is the bottom of the stairs, going up to the left:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/images/28101614.jpg

Basically it's OK for a 20 minute run into London Bridge, but people
are going to be complaining of being battery chickens for anytime
longer.

The reason it failed was dwell times: that kind of stock had a slam
door for every 8 passengers, so it was quick for people to board and
disembark. When you add internal staircases, you might carry 50% more
passengers but they also take longer to reach the door - so the train
gets slower for everyone.

Today, of course, non-corridor compartments are a non-starter for
public safety reasons, but the problem of the extremely curvy roof
profile remains. In the 4DD there's really only enough space to get two
normal-sized people per row on the upper deck, but then there's nowhere
to fit the access to get them in.

HS2 (and HS1) are full continental gauge, so running off-the-shelf
double decker trains should be feasible, though the issue about dwell
times remains.

Theo


Quote... "Double-Deck Train Trial Results

The Railway Executive has decided that the experimental eight-coach
double-deck train, which has been in service on the electrified London
suburban lines of the Southern Region for the past 12 months, does not
offer a satisfactory long-term solution of the problem of peak-hour
congestion. The conclusion reached from the trials is that the public
interest and operating efficiency will be better served by longer trains
(ten coaches instead of eight) of normal type but of more commodious
design, and longer platforms to accomodate them. The double-deck train
provides seats for 1,016 passengers, compared with 772 in an ordinary
eight-coach train, and 945 in ten-coach trains of new design (including
coaches with central corridors). The trials have revealed that the
advantage of extra seating capacity is more than outweighed by slower
station working, as the double-deck train affords one door for 22 seats,
compared with 10 or 12 in ordinary compartment stock.

...That is down to the internal staircases. A modern version could maybe
have a fold-flat external stairs for the upper decks, solving dwell time
and increasing capacity even further.

Quote... Moreover, the double-deck coaches provide less cubic capacity
per passenger, and have smaller and less comforetable seats. The loading
gauge restrictions make it more difficult to provide adequate
ventilation in the upper deck

it's not a challenge nowadays to add forced ventilation, ac and/or
partially opening windows & vents

quote... and the dimemsions of the coaches impose severe limitations on
their route availability. The experimental double-deck train was
described and illustrated in our January, 1950, issue."

Back then they had the option to just add more carriages. We don't now,
and capacity is a problem, and it's only getting worse. A more modern
incarnation could add even more capacity than those old things by using
external stairs and automated doors.

If it were workable to abandon bogeys, even more space might be available
at the price of having some areas wheelchair accessible, some not.

The lack of access to toilets with compartments would restrict service
severely. Could a similarish principle be implemented in an open carriage?

The option to add more carriages has been taken up on the SWR lines, which
is why Waterloo was partly closed during August. The station can now hand
10 carriage trains as opposed to the 8 coach ones currently in general use
on our line, at least. 40 years ago, we only had 6 coach trains. We
haven't had toilets on our services for years.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Scott M wrote:

The next distract (I'm on a border between two) is particularly bizarre.
Certain tips are only open certain days and, on a Sunday, do something
crazy like 7.30am - 1pm.

The LA here built a snazzy new recycling centre, ramps all around so you
chuck stuff down into the relevant skip, then they outsourced it, then
it closed earlier in winter, then it closed some days of the week in
winter, now it closes some days of the week all-year round, and charges
for disposal of some types of materials.

Thankfully we do still get weekly emptying of rubbish and recycling
wheelie bins.

On 09/10/2017 09:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low
floor level?


NT

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

We didn’t rebuild even a single bridge when we went that route.

From what I can find with a quick search, the Australian loading gauge
has a variety of different maximum heights for rolling stock. The lowest
of which maxima I could find is 14' and the highest around 21'.

UK loading gauge also varies between lines, but averages 10'9". Far too
low for practical double-deckers - especially taking into account legal
requirements for disabled access.

SteveW

On 09/10/2017 21:02, Scott M wrote:
wrote:
On Monday, 9 October 2017 19:12:18 UTC+1, Scott MÂ* wrote:

I would bring in laws to have council officials flogged for coming up
with the most ridiculous rules and regs - not taking recyclables from
a cardboard box instead of the mandated green one that's been
pinched; not emptying a bin because the lid is raised by 1.25mm; etc.

That sort of attitude is very much part of the problem. It appears to
be present throughout the disposal system.

I presume it's driven by budgets and costs since waste gets
sub-contracted out; the companies run want to do the least possible for
the most money and package it as "being green." I always think they must
loathe being forced to run recycling centres on the back of getting the
bin contract.

The next distract (I'm on a border between two) is particularly bizarre.
Certain tips are only open certain days and, on a Sunday, do something
crazy like 7.30am - 1pm.

One of our local tips has parking bays that are slightly angled, end-on
to the disposal areas. Quite logical, except they are too short for a
car and trailer. You either have to leave the nose of the car sticking
out and blocking the way past for anyone else or have the back of the
trailer (only a 5-footer in my case) overhanging the walkway - and then
the staff have a go at you for infringing upon the walkway.

Why some idiot decided on that arrangement and didn't consider that even
with small amounts of waste, people may want to use a trailer to avoid
messing up their car, I don't know. Especially as there is enough space
to make the bays 10 feet longer within the existing site boundaries.

SteveW