RAILWAYS AND ROAD TRANSPORT.
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Reports of the Committee and Their Divergent Opinions.
THE Committee appointed by the Minister of Transport tp advise him on the question of the running by railway companies of road services for goode traffic, Mr. I. H. Balfour-Browne, K.C., being the chairman, has now rendered its reports.
There seeres to have been an entire divergence of opinion between the two sections of the committee, the one including the chairman, Mr. Arthur Watson and Sir Thomas Williams as representing members on the railway side, whilst the second section, including Mr. (Arrington, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Dutfield, and Mr. Shrapnell-Smith, embraced road interests.
As a consequence, we have entirely separate reports from both sides, with a third report from Mr. Ben Smith, who represented the workers. The first two mentioned reports are identical in the first halfdozen paragraphs, which describe the kind of evidence laid before the committee, and it is pointed out in paragraph six that at the present time any carrier by road is, of course, liable to competition, but what the present-day carriers seem to object to is what they call unfair competition by railway companies, because they are under the impression that railway companies with their large capital and great revenues, might charge such rates for conveyance by road as would make it impossible for the independent carrier to continue in the business. This cutting of rates, if it took place, while for a tune at least it might seem of benefit to the trading community, might in the end result in the discontinuance of the independent carrying trade, and the monopoly of carnage in the hands of the railway companies might result in rates which would be detrimental to the public.
It is asserted in paragraph nine that the railway companies have no intention of attempting to obtain a monopoly by the cutting of rates, but this section of the committee is of the opinion that it ought to be made certain that, in exercising the powers of road. earners, they should be subject to such restrictions as would make such a, thing impossible; but the nature of these restrictions is not specified. It is asserted that a considerable bulk of good paying traffic has been, and is being, diverted from the railway companies' lines, and the railway companies naturally desire, if they can, to recover that traffic either by the railways or, if this is impossible for short distances, by means of road traction. Since the introduction of vehicles propelled by mechanical means, the problem of transport by road has been gradually modified, and it is impossible to doubt that some of the traffic which formerly went by rail has been diverted and is now being carried to its destination by road, and that, in future, if the railways are unable to give further and better facilities, even a large amount of the class of traffic which is more remunerative to railway companies, by reason of its being hi the higher class and giving good loading, may be taken from them by those who trade in cartage on the highways. The advantages offered by the motor lorry from the fact that delivery of goods is more expeditious when the traffic is carried from door to door, and that there is possibly less pilferage of goods so carried, and that the provisions as to packing are not sonecessary are all admitted in the report. This section of the committee has come to the conclusion that the railway companies cannot expect to recover the traffic which has been diverted, or to keep traffic which, in view of this section of the committee, may be diverted in the future, by giving greater facilities or by reducing rates, and in these circumstances they have come to the conclusion that railway companies ought, under certain stringent conditions, to be allowed to carry goods by road.
With regard to the suggestion that, in order toprevent such unequal competition as would drive independent carriers off the road and bring about a railway monopoly, there should be a conference between the independent road carriers and the railway companies which would, or might, prevent the undercutting of rates, the view of this eection of the committee is that this conference would amount to a combine, the interest of which might be so to increase the rates for transport by road as to have an injurious effect upon the trading public, but it is believed, that, lithe agreement of rates between railway companies and ordinary carriers were only given validity after it had been approved in the public interest by the Ministry of Transport, none of the feared evil results need be anticipated, but this section of the committee does not shut its eyes' to the fact that they would be throwing a very difficult duty upon the Ministry. With regard to the opinion of some of their colleagues that it would be desirable to allow railways with their present powers to fight oat, by means of competition with independent carriers by road, the question of which was the fittest to survive, and that there would be no injustice done if the same fate overtook railway companies in the future that overtook stage coach proprietors and the owners eef the canals in the past, this section of the committee cannot contemplate such a fate for the railways of this country, who possess a nominal capital of 21;300,000,000, without seeing that such an end to railway enterprise would mean widespread 'ruin' and a national crisis from which the State eould scarcely hope to recover.
The report of the road Section of the committee says that this section has reluctantly been compelled to come to the conclusion that it is not. desirable that railway companies, should have general or limited power to carry geode by direct road service, and that their present powers are sufficient for all the legitimate purposes of a railway company, viz., the carriage of goods by rail and the collection and delivery of goods in connection with transit by rail, the word " reluctantly " being used because seme cempanies already have the power, and it seems anomalous that other companies should be refused the same powers and privileges. It is pointed out, however, that these companies which have the-power are conducting the services apparently at a loss.
The road section of the committee is satisfied that competition between independent road hauliers and the railway companies has resulted in benefit to the public, but in future, the railway companies, if they are prohibited from running direct by road, would be induced by the competition of legitimate road haulage to give better facilities on the railways and to fix their rate% at a reasonable level, whereas, if they were allowed to carry on the trade 'of carriers by road, they would not have the inducement to do the best they possibly could with the railways It is pointed out that the railway companies have a practical monopoly of the carriage of traffic by rail and that till& monopoly has been extended in various directions. It is their opinion that the public intereSts would not be served by any further concentration of facilities affecting the means of internal communication, and they. therefore, recommend that railway companies should not have any statutory powers in connection with direct road motor transport.