Horse Hill lorries to be ordered to “stay in lane”

Horse Hill tanker entering site UWOC

Tanker crossing onto opposite carriageway to enter Horse Hill site. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Lorries delivering to the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey will be told not to cross the central white line of the road as they pull into the entrance.

The “stay in lane” policy is a key ruling in the transport and traffic management plan for the site, submitted recently by the main investor, UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG).

Opponents of operations at Horse Hill have said many heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) delivering to the site crossed the central line and were a potential hazard to other road users.

Some say it is not possible for an HGV to enter the site without crossing onto the other carriageway.

UKOG requires HGVs to approach Horse Hill from the south. Video and still photographs have recorded how HGVs swing out onto the opposite carriageway.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

UKOG said it had evidence to show that “large HGV movements will no longer be required to swing out into the opposite carriageway to access the site”.

It said it had commissioned consultants to carry out a swept path analysis – a calculation of the movement and path of different parts of a vehicle when it does a turning manoeuvre.

Horse Hill swept path analysis UKOG

Swept path analysis commissioned by UKOG. Source: UKOG transport and traffic management plan

UKOG said the swept path analysis showed:

“the [site] access can accommodate a 16.5m articulated vehicle  turning into the site without requiring both sides of the carriageway to do so  (swing out)”.

Surrey County Council must approve the traffic management plan before UKOG can begin long-term oil production at Horse Hill. The approved plan was a condition of the planning permission granted in September 2019, which also allowed for drilling four extra production wells at Horse Hill.

The traffic management plan also said there would be contingency measures in case protests delayed HGV deliveries.

Opponents of operations at the site have previously walked in front of vehicles, climbed on top of lorries and locked themselves together in front of the entrance.

UKOG said the contingency measures would prevent vehicles queuing on the road outside the site and back to the junction with the A217.

The plan proposed HGV holding areas in local lorry parks, where vehicles could wait to be called to the well site.

There could also be traffic controls at the A217 junction so that site vehicles would not have to give way, the plan suggested.

A Surrey County Council public consultation on the traffic management plan runs until 30 January 2020. Link to details.

45 replies »

    • They’ll need to greatly extend the entrance area to make this feasible, do they own the verges for the work that will be needed?

      • Ever driven an HGV, Dianna???

        I suspect your question is based upon one of Jono’s guesses.

        There are standard ways for such to be determined. UKOG will be required to demonstrate against those criteria. Simples.

        I note my local Co-op in the centre of a small market town receives daily deliveries from an articulated lorry that has to park on double yellow lines in the high street whilst it unloads. Shock/horror!

      • Hi Dianna, you are perfectly correct of course, dont take any notice of the usual detractors, they dont know anything about it, they just like spout hot air in an attempt to shut down the discussion and divert to something else.

        However, looking at the swept path analysis above. Autotrack swept path analyses are something which i have extensive knowledge and experience with. I’ve produced many myself for large industrial developments, and analysed many more from others. What the proposals reveal, is that the plan provided indicates some very interesting questions.

        1. The 16.5m long, 3.5m wide articulated vehicle is all ready wider than the available lane width of the approach road, even with the inside wheels right on the kerb line as you can see. The width of the road is unhelpfully in pink, the boundary beyond the verges in brown, the reproduction of the drawing is poor but you can just make out that the width of the road is less than two articulated vehicles wide. Two such vehicles passing would have to pass each other somewhere else. Clearly the road is not suitable for the type of articulated HGV vehicle that is shown, let alone a worse case scenario.

        2. There are no visibility splays shown to the entrance/exit. An exiting vehicle would need perhaps a 5.0m x 50.0m unobstructed sight visibility splay to safely exit. There are none shown and hence an exiting vehicle would represent a traffic hazard.

        3. The notation on the drawing is almost unreadable, but is does say at the top above the vehicle profile: “Simulated speed – not more than 5 mph.” and “Actual vehicle dimensions and track may vary” In other words the vehicle shown is not the worst case scenario. The question arises, that is the structure of this unsuitable road actually capable of withstanding the stresses of many articulated vehicle turning movements at the entrance. We have seen that before with the Coldharbour Lane being totally unsuitable for the type of vehicles being proposed. The same applies here.

        4. AutoCad Autotracks such as the one shown there are digital “ideals” and do not represent actual situations and traffic conditions, also the survey is clearly indicating that such a vehicle is too wide for such a location. There is no verification of the date the survey was taken or whether the actual widths and road conditions are genuine for such a digital turning movement swept path analysis. The swept path has been carefully shown to be one smooth non intrusive track, that is not how truck drivers operate, and the track is also curiously devoid of overhang intrusion into the opposite lane, possible with carefully manipulated digital autotrack perhaps, but rarely possible in the real world. I find the lack of an overhang swing overtack from the rear axles quite telling of a carefully produced “ideal scenario” and not a real world situation at all. Ask any articulated vehicle HGV driver if they can reproduce such an ideal swept path in the real world.

        5. The structure of the road is also a factor, many country roads were once cart tracks and when they were rebuilt, often just with a hard surface, the actual structure of the road was rarely upgraded for use by modern HGV’s and LHGV’s and the width was often extended with just surfacing. The full width shown is often just a surface condition and the structural component may just be a carts width in the middle. Fine for most cars, but unsuitable for HGV’s and LHGV’s and that would be clearly noted on the Council Traffic Departments Traffic Plan documents.

        It would be interesting to see an exiting swept path analysis, and this one in better definition, and the visibility splays and the actual road width made more clear so that the restricted width available on the road can be more accurately established and whether that road is structurally capable of the loads and turning movements that are proposed by the swept path analysis in their true context.

        You are perfectly correct to question the proposals Dianna and it shows that much more information needs to be made public.

        Lets see what foggy has to say to those facts shall we?

        • Hi Phil C
          Thanks for your commentary on the swept path analysis.
          The image in the DoD report is a screen grab from the original document, and so relatively poor quality.
          For a higher-resolution image (which you can zoom into), see page 23 of the original document submitted to Surrey CC.

          • Thanks Paul, that is a much more clear version. Unfortunately that is the only autotrack swept path analysis that is supplied, and still there is no indication of the statuary requirement for visibility splays, that the surface and construction is even capable of withstanding the loads and the regular turning movements.

            However the questions still remain, the 16.5m long flatbed articulated HGV vehicle only shows a 2.5m wide tractor unit and following trailer unit, and many such vehicles are 3.5m wide. The width of the road lane is clearly less than even the turning circle and swept path of a 2.5m wide tractor unit and articulated trailer.

            The vehicle swept path shown is that of a 2.5m wide unloaded flatbed. The load may well be wider than the width of the flatbed trailer, and such a perfect clean swept path is as i said before, highly unlikely, considering that a wider load would require much more side clearance away from the near kerb, if there is one, and would hence be required to make a much wider swing out over the centre white line into the opposite lane and without that lane being closed for any such movement as the Traffic Plan conditions demand.

            The turning circle and swept path analysis in a digital form is clearly totally inadequate for assessing the resulting incursion and closing of the indicated lane, let alone the closure and incursion onto opposite lane.

            Again it has to be stated that the road is not suitable for an articulated HGV of this type, let alone anything with a wider longer and heavier load.
            A 3.5m wide tractor unit and trailer, such as the wide load type that would deliver and remove a rig, is clearly totally unsuitable for this road and would effectively block it and therefore the road would have to be closed for that kind of delivery and exit with all the concomitant disruption and inconvenience to local and through traffic.

            I suggest you look at the linked .pdf document that Paul has provided Dianna, its much more clear than the one you see above, as Paul says. I would also suggest you stick to your guns and not be influenced for one second from the pathetic usual detractors (hmmm, de-tractors? Another appropriate phrase?) that say nothing and know nothing about it.

              • No MH, traffic lights would require a traffic order and would not solve the access and egress swept paths from encroaching into the opposite lane and creating a traffic hazard.

                No, the onus will be on UKOG to apply some common sense and negotiate the purchase of land for slip lanes in and out to the required statutory dimensions. Also from the adjacent landownersand and to Surrey County Council to approve left and right visibility splays to the required dimensions and construction. Perhaps reconstruction, widening and strengthening of the highway locally would also be required, considering the unsuitability for articulated vehicles along the road in that location.

                At the very least that would alleviate the problem of vehicles over running the lanes and the opposite highway lane.

                Negotiations permissions and appeals to Surrey County Council and construction to the correct specification would take a couple of years at least.

                How is that for a “swampy” response to UKOG’s problems?

                Common sense and many years of professional experience in these matters is much better than knee jerk silly name calling isn’t it?

                Wouldn’t you agree?

                • Phil

                  With all your professional expertise you seem to fail to see the common sence logic of stopping tragic which would allow lorries turning into the site & to cross into the opposite carriageway should it be necessary & without a hazard to traffic in the other carageway as it would not be there.

                  It is always possible to do this on a tempory basis until a permanent solution is approved.

                  The speed of the road could also be considered to help the situation.

                  There are benefits to Surrey council in helping to procure a safe access & egress without it taking the 2 years that you like to talk about.

                • MH
                  “Tragic” is right, Surrey County Council have restricted UKOG to keeping in the one lane, if UKOG can’t keep to that, then they will have to come up wit their own solutin in order to obey the traffic order.

        • But will the HGVs be running on red diesel, vegetable oil or standard diesel??

          Beware of those bearing facts, Dianna. They have a history of quoting facts that turn out to be fiction.

          The real fact in this situation is that UKOG are the ones who are giving the instruction to their drivers, having done the necessary analyses. Perhaps it will be difficult for some to comply, in which case then there are options. I have suggested one simple one, but there are others. This site has been operating for some while with many HGV movements so the instruction is based upon previous experience as well as the analyses detailed. DoD have “kindly” supplied photos of drivers not complying. Do all drivers not comply? I would suggest that is not the case and the analyses indicates that also.

          (Of course no one will have noticed the contradiction that some claimed HGVs could not access and comply, whilst others stated many did not comply! Oh yes they did notice. But some would rather they had not. Not quite as exciting, but a little closer to the facts.)

          The new instruction would actually represent an improvement. One would think that should be applauded. I note frequent calls for Gold Standard. Nice to see a company looking to achieve that. Perhaps that is the real worry?

          Meanwhile, there are those “thoughtful and caring” antis who would try and manufacture an excuse to remove business from those drivers, preferring oil to be transported from thousands of miles away risking maritime disaster-as happens currently-and adding to problems with climate change. Seems it is okay to quote the UN calling for local supply/consumption if it suits, to help regarding climate change, but totally going the other way when it doesn’t!

          But you have escaped lightly, Dianna. The last lady with some concern regarding HH was directed towards the Aztecs for some helpful “facts”.

          • Fascinating isnt it ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, when provided with many years of personal knowledge and experience. When provided with precise and stated incontrovertible proof and and detailed evidence that the provided autotrack swept path analysis is clearly and demonstrably inadequate and misleading. That the only response from the usual detractor is to yet again demonstrate a total lack of any knowledge of the subject.

            What you see there from that source, is absence of evidence, no substance, no analysis, no reason, no logic, no sense and no knowledge of any actual personal experience of swept path analyses whatsoever.

            However if you look yourselves at what the report says, and what the supplied redacted report shows, and extrapolate that into the real world situation, not a digital representation which may be flawed in all sorts of ways, that the conclusion that the supplied swept path analysis is factually inadequate and is technically flawed is clearly irrefutable.

            Facts are always better than fantasy, truth is always better than fiction. please feel free to make up your own mind which you would rather subscribe to. Look at the comments shown there, and ask yourself which is Fact or fantasy. The choice is yours, as always.

            I will stick to truth and reality and my many years of experience and qualified knowledge, and let those who exist in some unqualified fantasy world of emotional irrelevance to sweep their own wild and imaginary path into heaven alone knows where, certainly at not Horse Hill anyway.

            Have A Nice Day.

            • And along comes the fog!!

              Seriously Dianna, if you are following a building supply HGV that is approaching a building site, or an HGV about to pick up a load of grain from a farm, you peak out from the driving seat of your car that the opposite carriageway is clear ahead, and consider overtaking, I would advise you do NOT decide that vehicle will not move out across the centre line in order to turn into the site unless you have very good insurance! Of course, you could take a photo and try and stop houses being built, or food being produced, as some would do, but I suggest it would get short shrift.

              Looks as if UKOG have best intentions to help out in that respect. So much social consciousness from one little company. Perhaps they will set the standard for other businesses to follow?

              I think you will also find UKOG have plans to do quite a lot of site work at HH to accommodate future plans-including traffic.

              • There is no need to announce yourself so precisely old thing? We all know who you are. But if fog is how you wish to announce yourself in future, then we can clearly see why that is such an appropriate label to pin on yourself!

                Best intentions! Oh dear me no! UKOG are not providing anything that they don’t have to. What is provided however is the absolute minimum requirement, without which no permission would be given. UKOG have clearly failed in that respect too, as the photographs clearly demonstrate.

                Not for the first time, UKOG are seen to be inadequate and easily subject to detailed criticism and rightly so.

                Never mind foggy old thing, the truth is always more revealing of the facts.



            • Phil C

              Has many words but obviously none that will answer common sense if traffic management was necessary the County Council are the authority to require & grant it.

              Obviously such a draconian option is not required for this situation.

              • MH
                How curious?
                How many words would you prefer? Common sense provides as many words as are required to detail the problems, and they are correctly spelled.

        • Hi Phil C. Thank you for your excellent analysis. It would be great if you could have a look at UKOG’s Dunsfold traffic proposal. Dunsfold Road is narrower, faster and accident prone. I know, I live by it…

          • Hi Ashley, yes i will have a look at it, do you have the report link with any swept path analyses? Or Perhaps Paul has it? Could you post that Paul or find a link? I will look at the Drill or Drop posts for it too.

                • Hi Ashley, i looked at the swept path analyses for Dunsfield and they only show an abnormally wide load negotiating the B2130 East and West junction with Dunsfield Common Road and High Loxley Road. That is four way junction as i am sure you are aware. What i find interesting is the the site entrance/exit is not shown as a swept path analysis, but only to show some radii presumably for the entrance alignment with High Loxley Road. The only swept path analyses are for the four way junction which only have single line indicative radii to the eastern radius of the entrance to show what is intended, but no autotrack swept paths are given for the entrance/exit to the site.

                  What i can say however, is that the vehicle shown, that of a 3.4m wide 22m long trailer and a 2.55m wide tractor unit with a total length of 27.05m. Even less wide HGV’s are likely to take up the entire road widths available.

                  What is interesting is that the Dunsfield Road East section and High Loxley Road verges are to be reconstructed and widened to allow for such a vehicle to manoeuvre. Also that the standard of the drawings and the information supplied is far and above superior in detail clarity and presentation to the very minimal and poorly presented Horse Hill drawing.

                  Even a LINSIG3 Traffic modelling which shows something interesting.

                  it indicates that the B2130 East and West junction with Dunsfield Common Road and High Loxley Road respectively are 3.75m wide lanes and 4.0m wide lanes. Where the entrance/exit is proposed in High Loxley Road, is said to be onto a 4.0 lane width. But the plan clearly indicates that is the total lane width both ways, and the 27.05m long 3.4m wide articulated vehicle which comprises the abnormally wide load takes up the entire road and the road would have to be closed to other traffic to do so. That would require a traffic order and a statuary announcement in the local papers and on the road itself with signage and times.

                  Therefore the LINSIG3 analysis is misleading regarding what is shown as “lane width”. The lane widths indicated are total lane widths not separate lanes in the one road. The entire widths of the road is called “lane width” where that would normally be shown more accurately as “road width”. That could have been made more clear and less ambiguous.

                  The 3.4m wide 22m, 27.05m long (total) abnomal wide load HGV vehicle clearly takes up the entire width of the B2130 East and West junction with Dunsfield Common Road and High Loxley Road, and the roads and junction would have to be closed off for even a normal HGV use let alone the abnormal load shown. That will require a publicised Traffic Order for each delivery and departure.

                  I hope that is of some help, if you receive any notification of an entrance swept path analysis, either personally or via Drill or Drop, i will have a look at those too.

                  [Text added at poster’s request]

      • Fascinating isn’t it ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, how little pressure it takes to strip away the thin microplastic veneer of rational discussion to reveal the trumpy anti anti trollbot beneath?

        There was a time when at least some level of anti anti intelligence was vaguely discernable no matter how rare that was. But now that no longer exists, all that remains are these desperate vacant hollow shells filled with bitter gas.

        Have they been able to provide one tiny argument to justify the photographs of articulated vehicles swept paths encroaching into the opposite lane at the entrance/exit of the Horse Hill site? No, not at all.

        Obviously even Surrey County Council Traffic have reached the end of their patience and will enforce a “stay in lane” policy which is a key ruling in the transport and traffic management plan for the site, submitted recently by the main investor, UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG).

        Which is quite an achievement considering Surrey County Council past lackadaisical approach to enforcing regulations. Obviously there is a fundamental change of attitude brewing against these fossil fuel pirates there too.

        Things are looking up, perhaps we will see a country wide sea change emerging to transform attitudes towards these recalcitrant fossil fuel corporations elsewhere too. And not before time.

        But never mind, at least it is amusing to watch the anti antis discredit themselves so easily. Quite fun actually!

        Have A Nice Day!

  1. Never happened at PNR!

    The Constabulary are in charge of traffic laws and never see any illegal actions from fracking traffic!

    Lancashire County Council are in charge of compliance with planning regulations and never prosecuted Cuadrilla for the 50 plus breaches when Cuadrilla’s overnight convoys rolled in during darkness!

    However a traitor in the anti-fracking fold informed the Constabulary about an oversight regarding a successful activist’s vehicle MOT retesting and he was instantly fined and his vehicle removed!

  2. If the drivers can’t make the turn, perhaps a wider gate may be needed??


    I have heard of grasping at straws but this one takes the biscuit. Desperation rushing in?

    (By the way-no transport issues regarding the transport and installation of wind turbines???)

    • That’s very true… Martin. The wind turbine access tracks of which there are many and the gate access, most of these are paid for by the landowner or the company arranging the government subsidised payments for these turbine accesses!

  3. Seems the swampies are actually grasping at straws here. How sad, you would rather have imported oil to run your cars and leave a bigger foot than having a local oil producer

    • Well, well, Dianna, it seems that it is the weak and desperate anti antis that resort to grasping at straws here Dianna. But as always, the shroud of fog generated by such anti anti evasions is easily dispersed by a few illuminating sun rays of logic and reason to penetrate the inevitable foggy fantasies and show the real facts.

      Did he really say “Beware of those bearing facts, Dianna.”? How many times has that source claimed to be telling the facts when quite recently it has been proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that same source has been revealed that it “has a history of quoting facts that turn out to be fiction.”? All too recent too it seems. Did we notice? Oh yes we did!

      PS, back in the real world, if you look at the photographs of the vehicle swinging out over the opposing lane to turn into the entrance/exit, you will see precisely why the vehicle takes that swept path in real life.

      What the digital autotrack swept path analysis does not show is two vertical posts and what looks like a sign inside the swept path route.

      The swept path analysis clearly shows the articulated tractor unit and the following trailer tracking over those obstructions as if they werent there, but they are, and they are not shown as existing at all. The splay in reality is quite restricted by the sign and posts and the lack of an approach slip lane which would have allowed such a movement. but clearly a slip lane does not exist and there are obstructions in the lane that is shown as being over-tracked in the swept path analysis.

      As i said before a digital representation is not reality. A digital representation can ignore any such real world obstructions. An autotrack swept path can travel through any obstacle that exists even if it is clearly shown on the plan, it guarantees of nothing. no alarm goes off on the computer if an obstruction is over run. The obstruction can simply be edited out, as the swept path clearly shows no such slip lane or obstructions that would prevent the swept path from working in reality.

      Real world truck drivers will always follow the path that is suitable at the time and place for the location and even then there is variability between individual truck drivers, road conditions, traffic conditions, weather and obstructions in their path.

      That suggests that the photographs of the real world vehicles show the actual swept paths that cross into the opposing lane both in their lane take up and manoeuvring into the entrance/exit. The autotrack clearly does not take those into account, in fact they are not even shown.

      Therefore the autotrack swept path analysis alignment is demonstrably faulty and cannot be relied upon for all those issues i detailed above.

      This is fun isnt it!

  4. Except, those actually observing the traffic seem less convinced than Phil C!!!

    Some lorries obviously have made the turn correctly, if DoD reporting is to believed. So, it IS possible.

    Now, UKOG are telling all to do so. I trust they will be able to convince those who decide that what has been done by some can be done by all. If there is remaining doubt there are other options, such as a wider gate and/or slip lane (both of which are often the solution to a building site once it becomes completed.) Those who want to produce fiction such as red diesel is red to differentiate it from vegetable oil (yes, it happened!) will still be able to do so, utilising their years of “experience and knowledge”-a meaningless phrase, akin to the Emperors Clothes, that applies to everyone, but NOT necessarily applied to a particular item of discussion.

    Interesting confirmation from Trump yesterday that those who rely upon Middle East oil and gas can step up to the plate, as USA are self sufficient! So, as well as risking another Torrey Canyon, many more £ billions to protect sea lanes and many more UK service personnel lives on the line. Hmm. There will be cries of “alternatives” but the REALITY is oil will still be required in UK for at least 30 years-about the likely life span of HH. So, good on yer, UKOG, for trying to mitigate against even a small part of this costly, and deadly, equation and dealing with “HH Gate”. This has previous with “Watergate” from the East Midlands that was equally blown up into a fictional web of chat nonsense and subsequently shown to be just that.

    • Martin! Congratulations! A conversion back to sanity I see! You actually used my real name! Nice to see such an astonishing transformation and conversion back to reality away from the usual empty rhetoric and childish name calling that usually pertains to such “contributions”!

      I call that a result! All my hard work pays off at last!

      Regarding traffic movements and swept paths however, I see no evidence of compliance to keeping to one lane of the highway. “Being possible” is not acceptable once in a blue moon, it has to be engineered to work all the time. Clearly the entrance/exit is inadequate and incorrectly configured for the sort of articulated traffic that will use it.

      See my reply to MH for a constructive engineering solution and away from the usual recidivist descent into grumpy trumpy silly name calling nonsense.

      Have A Nice Day!

      • PS Martin, I see you still display no knowledge of the subject of autotrack and the application of swept paths to entrance and exit configurations at Horse Hill?

        Shame, and you were doing so well before that! For a second there I thought you had a conversion on the road to Horse Hill?

        Never mind, one step at a time back to rationality and sanity is more than enough for such a heated excited contributor such as yourself.

        I will expect to see a greater conversion and transformation in later discussions into the real world.

        Experience qualifications and years of knowledge in engineering will be sure to……trump……silly name calling and weak excuses for lack of any knowledge on the subject.

        Don’t slip back now, your New Year’s resolution to at least try to be rational is for ever, not just a day!



  5. Oh dear! Someone is upset. Sorry for that, but the REALITY remains that if it can be done by some it can be done by others. I think even that is found within most engineering. (Not saying by ALL, as if UKOG want to install a massive wind turbine on site they would probably have to get a temporary traffic control to enable that to be delivered safely. Just as some of my friends did and then had a guaranteed £150k net profit per turbine PER YEAR whether the electricity was needed, or not.)

    But at least UKOG have today demonstrated the REALITY of the “disappointing year” headline posted on 31st December. Unless someone is wedded to Ms Abbott maths. Some UKOG investors could have made 15% profit today. By end of year 2020, if they stuck rather than sold, then maybe they would/will be “disappointed”, maybe not. Why 15% increase? World market? Site results? Hmm. Probably just Sirius Mineral stock holders selling up and looking for a gamble to recoup some losses. AIM volatility demonstrated. The 15% is the REALITY, the disappointing is probably also a reality, as those who trousered 15% will be disappointed they had less stock to sell! For those with a mentality to be excited about some investors losing money they can await the next opportunity. The Internet supporting all types. Everyone happy.

    • Ooops! Temper temper old thing! No one is upset at all Martin apart from you apparently? Quite the opposite! its all fun and games out here in the REAL REAL world! You ought to try it sometime!

      Are you slipping from that New years resolution already! Oohh, be careful Martin old thing, that long slippery slope back down to illusion and obsession grumpy trumpy world is getting steeper by the second. Just when you were showing signs of recovery too?

      Aww, shame!

      Do try harder, i know honesty and truth are such a difficult subject judging from recent evidence from your posts? But Hey! Thats no reason to slip back into those old discredited ways that you were beginning to emerge from?

      Buck up old thing, dont be down and Grumpy Trumpy, that REAL world of yours is just in your imagination, the REAL REAL world is out here with the rest of us.

      Try absorbing a few REAL facts a day old thing like the truth about years of professional experience i laid at your entrance/exit. And eventually that imaginary fiction world you occupy will fade into obscurity and where it belongs.

      Dont be a Grumpy Trumpy!



  6. Hmm-perhaps there was something within that post that had some value. Please excuse me for not being able to identify it.

    I never make New Years resolutions, is my next offering of REALITY.

    Not unhappy at all. Trumpy says what he has been saying for some while. Some may not be happy about that, but again a REALITY that was there for some to see and others to ignore. It will be the REALITY that needs managing-ohh, I see NATO have caught on!

    Perhaps you can rent out your engineering experience to get some of the UK Navy able to operate??

    • Ahh, given up have you Martin old thing? Wise choice, you were getting nowhere anyway.

      “Hmm-perhaps there was something within that post that had some value. Please excuse me for not being able to identify it.”

      Thats funny Martin! Because that is precisely how i treat all your “contributions” on this entire subject. But Hey! You still have not contributed anything to the subject matter, remember that? Suddenly gone quiet on Horse Hill entrance problems with swept paths from articulated vehicles in favour of these odd, these very odd, diversions away to some imaginary fiction land?

      Never mind. I will take that as a “dont know” “cant argue with any experience or knowledge”. Nice of you to finally admit that Martin old thing.

      Well old chap, if im not upset and you say you are not upset, even when your words betray that, then you were entirely wrong to say so in the first place weren’t you! You see how reason and logic works in the REAL world? Try it sometime? All you need is years of professional knowledge and experience on a subject you clearly know nothing about, and you never know some of it may rub off and you will see the REAL world emerging from that foggy gloom?

      Will i hold my breath? Naah! Maybe not!

      However Martin, if you really want to be upset, then here is something from the REAL world for you to be really upset about!

      Oskar’s Quest – Youth Talk About Climate Change

      But! Oh sorry! I forgot you haven’t displayed any empathy or sympathy except for chickens and maybe animals at a push, have you? Oh dear, Perhaps blindly following the Old Horny One, and the Anti Crisis is not such a wise investment after all? That must be the biggest Ponzi Scheme of all?


      But perhaps watching that video, the key to the future for all of us, is that we dont do anything destructive and most of all, we dont do anything constructive unless its:



      And Creative.

      So, What Are You Going To Do Now?

      More Grumpy Trumpy Pumpy? Never going to work is it.

  7. Ahh, the old more righteous than thou argument! The last resort of the lost debate.

    Think again, my “engineer” friend.

    Not at all righteous to increase carbon emissions through importing something across vast distances that will be used for many years to come that can be produced locally. UN already stated that quite clearly. Reality.

    Remember Torrey Canyon? No empathy there then. Reality.

    Certainly not righteous to deny UK taxation to fund public services. No empathy for those less well off, or in need of medical support, or children who require education etc. etc.? Reality. (Or, indeed to decrease the cost of food via red diesel!!! Oops.) Reality.

    Certainly not righteous to try and curtail UK jobs, via fake arguments. Empathy? Hmm. Reality.

    What you “take as” has nothing to do with me. I will stick to the REALITY that what is being done by some can easily be done by others. A pretty sound engineering principle. But, engineering principles easily forgotten it seems to create excitement, so I shall happily ignore the credibility that qualification should provide.

    Well, not excited, but intrigued to see how far you will go to create a false narrative. Many thanks for the education. Creative. One out of three! “You could do better” would be my suggestion.

    I suspect Paul is fed up with us by now, so I shall move on with my education into the human condition now improved, but recall it for future chats!

    • Ahh! Appealing to Paul to dredge you out of the hole you dug for yourself? Smart move!

      And Righteously giving up too eh? Glad you took my advice my “not engineer” friend, you weren’t doing very well anyway and have even ceased even to mention the lost cause of swept paths to the Horse Hill entrance/exit.

      So better you retire, no matter……however……ungracefully…..that was.

      Bye for now! Until next time…..perhaps……

      Have A Nice Day!

  8. What a load of utter nonsense from Phil C. I’m sure that UKOG will supply the detailed analysis and documentation covering the access to HH. These will be provided to the planning officer for detailed perusal and review. You are clutching at straws, tryingbto belittle people is testament to you being a bully alpha Male type who thinks he can win an argument because one cannot possibly be wrong. Codswallop.

    P.S. the extra wide loads in some of the photos would require escort. You dont need to consider 3.5m wide tractors (as you call them) in a planning application. The dimensions of the “normal/expected” tractors is appropriate. Have you never seen “extra wide” loads with an escort, all very standard matters with no special considerations.

    Dont bother replying to me, I’ll not be bullied by you.

    • Dear me! Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, what do we have here? The usual bullying and nonsense seems to be the only way these people are capable of communicating on Drill or Drop.

      No Rodders I reply to Martin’s “contributions” in the same manner in which he comments to myself and others.

      Don’t be scared Rodders, I will be gentle with you, but if you continue in such a manner as you have done, I will not be so understanding and forgiving. You reap what you sow.

      I always comment initially with just comments on the facts and defend myself and anyone else who is being attacked, that was Dianna in this case.

      It was the replies from Martin which were reduced to your “bullying” term, as you can clearly see. Apparently you operate in the same lack of manners and hence it is your comment right there which is bullying and abusive. I simply reply in kind. Something that you guys clearly cannot take, though you love to dish it out, you crumble when it’s returned in the same manner.

      I will reply to anything I choose Rodders, whether you like it or not. If you can’t stick to the facts and resort to bullying and attempted intimidation as you do here, you will get that right back at you. If you don’t like it, then don’t act in that way yourself. It’s as simple as that.

      If you can’t discuss things like an adult Rodders, then I will not treat you like an adult. If you choose this abusive attack mode, then I will reply in kind, nothing you say above is in anyway different than that.

      Happy now? All clear? Good.

      Now Rodders, getting back to the subject of the vehicles and the swept path analysis.

      The approach road is clearly inadequate and unsuitable for even the 2.5m 16.5m long articulated HGV that is shown on the autotrack swept path analysis the UKOG provided. The 2.5m wide tractor unit and following trailer are already more than half the width of the available carriageway, and run over the central white line even in a straight line.

      And that is even when the inside wheel alignment is shown to be right in the gutter, something a truck driver would not allow, because on country roads as this is, the inner wheels would be in danger of over running the carriageway and running into the verge and would cause damage and maybe sink into the verge. Also the the load width which would further overhang the trailer width and endanger walkers and horse riders, overhanging trees and road signs.

      So the vehicle would be driven as a matter of course even further into the opposite lane and that would be a hazard to oncoming traffic. Wide load escorted loads would only be allowed if the vehicle did not block the entire carriageway width, and on this narrow road, that would require that the entire road would be required to be closed off.

      The photographs clearly show that the swept path over runs the entire width of the carriageway. The only way to accommodate that would be to temporarily close the highway in both directions. That would require a traffic order to do so for every load entering and exiting the entrance/exit. That would be prohibitive and already Surrey County Council traffic management department have informed UKOG that they must keep to the one lane as their manipulated swept path analysis clearly shows. However looking at the available road width it is much less than the 5.5m varies indicated.

      It is more like 4.8m wide where the entrance is located.
      So that vehicle all ready running in the gutter with its inside wheel track, only just gets into the entrance but apparently runs over the vertical posts and the sign which is shown on the photographs.

      So in fact the swept path analysis is not correct and the swing out alignment over the opposite lane is in fact the only real world route available. Which is why the truck drivers choose that swept path and now Surrey County Council have ordered them to keep to a swept path that is not possible in the real world.

      If you are qualified and experienced in traffic management then you will be aware of that.

      Are you qualified and experienced in traffic management Rodders?

      Look at the photographs Rodders, do you see any escort or traffic management for the vehicles shown?

      No there isn’t is there. A wider load would indeed be escorted, but the road would not be closed to do so. A wide load requires a traffic order published sufficiently before the event to allow normal car users to find another route.

      An abnormally wide load would have to be notified several days before the vehicle uses the route. Such a load cannot just turn up and endanger traffic and pedestrians and horse riders. How many of those would be required in the traffic plan? How many a day? Look at Paul’s link provided and you will see how many a day will require special consideration.

      Anything else I have already said in my initial comments before the bullying attempts by Martin and yourself. I suggest you read those and comment about the facts in future.

      Any more such abusive remarks from you however Rodders, and you will receive that in kind.

      Have A Nice Day!

      [typos corrected at poster’s request]

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.