Hammonds crash on Sunday night

Because the extra staff costs of working nights are outweighed by the cost to the same companies of having aircraft idle. The extra costs to the councils of repairing roads at night are ballanced agaist what?, the cost to vehicles stuck in traffic jams are not born by them, and they are under huge pressure to cut costs. It's a distorted system but it's the government's system and the councils have to work within it. Greg

Reply to
Greg
Loading thread data ...

But this isn't entirely true though. All the inefficient roadworks still cost money, and making faster progress on fewer projects (at any one time) might well lead to improved efficiency overall and reduced costs to the council, even if you ignore the harder-to-measure benefits to the community.

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

Are these specialised machines hired with their skilled drivers, or does the council have to provide a driver?

That would make a difference. You could, if the driver came with the machine, do projects A, B, and C, and (depending on timing of the processes) start laying tarmac on A before the miller has finished on C.

Reply to
David G. Bell

Hmmm, not convinced.

Let's say the extra staff costs work out at about £5000/year/person - that would be a fair shift pay allowance, ISTR that's what I got working nights. No extra costs are really involved, you still need X amount of workers to accomplish X amount of work.

Now, what do you suppose the depreciation and extra machinery costs are for the contractors who currently only work about 1/3 of the day on average? I'm guessing that it's a close call.

Julian.

Reply to
Julian

But if you pay them extra to do the same work at night, as you suggest, then it costs more. You're also assuming they can work as effectively at night which is doubtful, and don't forgert you have to have to pay not only the obvious workers but also those making the tarmac and driving it to site.

A tiny fraction of the depreciation costs of an aircraft, which was the comparison 8-). Greg

Reply to
Greg

What do you think it costs a council to have a few hundred cones and a few road signs sitting around a hole in the ground?, not much at all is the answer. I've just explained why making slower progress on more projects is more efficient, which is why things are done the way they are.

Greg

Reply to
Greg

Depends on the contractor of course, some hire, some own and move from one area to another, it amounts to the same thing. In the program it was made clear it's not a one man operation so the driver is not the only issue.

Which would mean employing a lot more people, vehicles etc which all costs money and have to kept busy.The councils and their contractors all have big incentives to do the job the cheapest way, and that's what they do. Unfortunately the cheapest is also the most inconveniencing so unless the government is going to factor the inconvenience into the equation we're all just going to have to live with it 8-(. Greg

Reply to
Greg

In article , Greg writes

No, it wouldn't. At least, not if you pooled resources with other councils. I talked this over with a _very_ experienced railway civil engineer yesterday, who said that they would _always_ blitz a track section if they could, as it was far cheaper overall than piecemeal repairs.

There's nothing like enough lateral thinking going on about this, largely because too many people get rich on the present system at the expense of the rest of us! As you say though, the thing that would tip the balance conclusively would be to make the councils, and through them the contractors, responsible for the costs to the community caused by delays, diversions, etc. Alongside that would be punitive costs for utilities not trench-sharing. Apparently they wriggle out of that legislation far too easily.

We need far more local accountability too.

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

On or around Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:40:54 GMT, "Julian" enlightened us thusly:

You've not taken into account that you need more workers. Suppose you run 2 shifts: 6-2 and 2-10, for example, rather than one 9-5, you need twice the workforce, which costs double the salary, even if you don't have to pay them extra. If you're then going to pay a bonus for shift work, then you've more then doubled the labour cost.

I'd not be surprised if the costs of running 3 shifts for more-or-less

24-hour working, in labour charges, were at least 4 times the cost of a single day shift.

Then there's the point that you can't run the machinery non-stop, it needs servicing and repairs. Probably you need 2 working shifts and a maintenance shift, which don't overlap.

Then you'll have the people whinging about the noise at 6 am, or 7 pm, or even both, caused by the blokes mending the road outside while they're trying to watch eastenders.

All in all, although the work could generally be done more efficiently, I don't see it being a go-er to have 24H operation except in special cases where the road really is too busy in the day to be viably closed.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

But I'm thinking that if you split a workforce into three, so that they can work three 8 hour shifts around the clock, then you only need (on average)

1/3 the total amount of machinery to accomplish the same total amount of work. How much do road scalpers and 360 excavators etc cost? The Japs already have 24 road works for at leat a decade IIRC.

Yes, but I wonder just what the figures actually are? Take the cost to industry and local economies caused by traffic jams, and the bad press the gubbinsment gets then surely there must be a strong case for change?

Reply to
Julian

Ah, but you should more than halve the time (yes I am aware of The Mythical Man Month), because the machines/lights/cones etc don't have to be put away and got out (which seemed to be about 2 hours each end of the day when they did Wetley Rocks recently, and about the same in Cheddleton at the moment) - and the machines are in use more of the time, so less hire costs.

Unlikely - once a week, or more likely once a month, and then on-site unless it's a really serious break-down.

Now there you do have a point!

I suspect it could be done much more efficiently, but it would require planning and co-operation - between the highways agencey, the council, and other departments within the council. Perhaps more importantly, once a plan is formulated, it would need be stuck to, and those running it motivated to stick to it (see whats's happened to engineering work on the railway - it used to be a matter of pride to a Ganger that is occupation did not over-run, and they very rarely did so. Now it's "managed", they over-run all the time coz no one cares). Changing, and/or tinkering with, plans all the time is terribly expensive.

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

I do like to read what the "Authorities" have to say about such things.

formatting link

Reply to
Rob

In article , beamendsltd writes

Point of detail Mr. Chairman: I thought they was penalized massively if their possessions overran. Ne c'est pas?

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Nope, no more workers are required. Keeping the same number of workers means that the same amount of work is achieved. (averaged out over the day) But rather than three works in progress with all the machinery and clutter standing idle for 2/3 of a 24 hour period, you just keep one WIP going around the clock.

Julian.

Reply to
Julian

Even in these enlightened days and "Empowerment" each shift would probably require a supervisor and personnel for any safety requirements. Given that the equipment would remain in situ how do you intend to get the workforce to and from the site, bus and driver?

Keeping the same number of workers means

Reply to
Rob

Stop looking so hard for the negatives - that wasn't the attitude that put the Great into Britain. (so long ago!)

I guess they get to work in their Tranny vans or WHY. If transport equipment remained 'in situ,' no bugger would get to work!

Japan has had 24 hr road works for at least a decade thus proving that their isn't really any serious problems to the proposal.

Julian

Reply to
Julian

Do as I say or else days. We don't have the military muscle to back it up these days.

Their work equipment is their transport, in most cases.

We have had 24hr road works for longer than that, it's just nobody is working on them.

Reply to
Rob

I was thinking about the industrial revolution! Now all we have are people with degrees in media studies....

Remember that 'cones hotline' bsollocks started my John Major IIRC? One day we might be lucky and see a gubbinsment (inc local) plan come to fruition!

Julian.

Reply to
Julian

"beamendsltd" wrote :-

Absolutely, and if you have three shifts running in a day, you only have to pay for one days hire, and get three times the work done.

If the machinery is hired and there is a breakdown or service required then the hire company will bring another machine and take the other away, no loss of production.

Martin

Reply to
Oily

Media studies is something like 30th most popular subject in those universities that offer it, and that's not many.

But hey, don't let such things spoil your powerful desire to wring your hands and wail ;-)

Oh where will it all end! We're doomed, doomed!

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.