United Kingdom

4094 readers

102 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

Rail freight scheme sees 64,000 less lorry journeys in first year (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 1 day ago by Mex@feddit.uk to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Is this good or bad?

Edit: Good

A scheme to transfer freight from road to rail has cut 64,300 truck journeys from roads in its first year, according to a port operator.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's definitely good, but I do wonder (and worry) whether increased usage of rail contributes at all to the increasingly abysmal passenger rail services; when you look at the data, it's horrific how overloaded the train lines are due to chronic under-investment.

That being said, even if this scheme was impacting passenger rail, it's probably still good overall, especially if it leads to more investment in infrastructure (i.e. passenger rail being drastically involved in the future); I have plenty of beef with Starmer's Labour, but I also recognise that the trains getting as bad as they are now didn't happen overnight, so will take time to improve. (Which reminds me: I should read more about the recent budget)

[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

One of HS2's huge benefits will be taking large amounts of passenger traffic off the ECML, freeing it up for more freight. Just gotta hope 2a gets un-cancelled...

(Which is why I get grumpy when headlines scream "it'll only save 30 minutes": It's not the only reason!)

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 22 hours ago

also like 30 minutes is a fucking chunky saving, usually with public transport you're talking saving like 3 minutes! 30 minutes can very well be what makes services usable for way more people, getting them to switch from car to train.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't they sell off a bunch of the land that was going to be used for that? I remember being very upset at how spiteful of a gesture it felt

[–] Mex@feddit.uk 1 points 18 hours ago

I don't think they got to this in the end before the election.