I have just been informed of the post about the "proposed closure" of Falkland yard.
Thank you Feedup for letting folks know that the "Adam Prentice" that posted the end of Falkland and Ayr, was not me.
I totally agree that the poster has to get his/her facts straight before posting such rubbish, and have the courage to put their own name to it...NOT MINE.
We are still struggling to comprehend the reasons behind this proposed closure, as Ayr and Falkland are perfectly placed to work all the coal traffic from the Ayrshire coalfields. We have been constantly reminded that we have to respond quickly to customers needs...how do we do that when the depot working these jobs is nearly 100 miles away?
The long lyes at Kilmarnock are only set up as one train working, and will not be able to handle the usual amount of traffic that comes from Falkland, or Carlisle. Those in the industry know that,"on paper" it works, but theory and reality are totally different...ask any rail worker or passenger and they will confirm that. On paper, no loco on trains arriving at Falkland, needs fueling at Ayr depot..in reality, more than 90% arrive with a 1/4 to 1/2 a tank.
DBS are a multi logistics company, using rail, road, air and sea transportation. Falkland has all 4 of these on our doorstep..the furthest away being the A/M74 which is, at most, 30/40 mins away.
The statement that Carlisle can do the same work quicker and with less pay is also untrue. Both depots work for DBS and as such are on the same wage structure and anyone with a grasp of simple maths, can work out that the depots are equidistant apart...but Falkland is much closer to the loading points...so how does Carlisle "do it quicker"?
I am in no way advocating that Carlisle should shut instead of Falkland..both have, what should be, an important part in the rail freight industry, but in this age of placing depots close to the source of work...where is the sense of closing Falkland?
The "REAL" Adam Prentice