Wednesday, November 14, 2007

240,000 MILES OF CEMENT LORRIES IN RUGBY

THIS CENTURY WERE TOTALLY UNNECESSARY SAYS OUR RELIABLE SAUCE.

THE RAILWAY TO THE CEMENT WORKS "NEW BILTON SIDING" HAS BEEN FULLY OPERATIONAL SINCE BEFORE THE NEW CEMENT WORKS WAS BUILT!

ANY ENVIRONMENTALLY MINDED COMPANY COULD AND SHOULD, HAVE USED IF FOR COAL DELIVERIES - SAVING RUGBY RESIDENTS FROM 20,000 CEMENT PLANT LORRIES EVERY YEAR!

"The New Bilton Sidings is a part of the operational Network Rail network. This includes all tracks within the area, on both sides of the gates adjacent to the footpath crossing, and as far as the Lawford Road bridge. Beyond that point, the railway is disused, and has been formally closed. "

"The track layout was modernised and relaid in the late 1990's, and has been used by engineering trains, and for the transfer of road rail vehicles for track maintenance."

* Any suggestions why Rugby Cement have not used the railway to the plant? * Couldn't be anything to do with their PROFIT before our health and environment could it? * How much more would it have cost them to take the train to the works, instead of having 400 lorries a week in "lorry trains" through Rugby town? * Now they are being "forced", by the Rugby Station Remodel to use the line, and they try to pass it off a "gift" to residents? * Perhaps some kind of cost/benefit and environmental appraisal could have been done?
At the end of the day who is responsible for this fiasco, and unnecessary environmental damage and detriment? Who has failed to REGULATE and ENFORCE BEST PRACTISE?

NETWORK RAIL - provided the line last century.

RUGBY CEMENT - took the cheapest option for them - PROFIT!

WARWICKS CC - FAILED to make it planning CONDITION!

RUGBY BC - repeatedly gave Permits for unnecessary lorries.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - say transport nothing to do with them, and that they never considered how to get 5 MILLION TONNES of material in and out of the works when they were helping Rugby Cement to build the new plant in this location.

Haven't they ever heard : Location, location, location?

No comments: