AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

topic

15th January 1971
Page 80
Page 81
Page 80, 15th January 1971 — topic
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Making your own history by Janus

It was and no doubt still is one of the favourite maxims of Sir Reginald Wilson that ownership of a business or industry is less important than accountability. The sentiment will be pressed into service again if the Government includes transport in the plans it is supposed to have under consideration for the return to free enterprise of parts of the publicly owned sector. Rumour may be misleading. The government may have no such plans. In any case, the interested parties must reserve their final judgment until they know what is proposed. There are a few people, including some hauliers, whose commitment to free enterprise runs deep. They talk of selling "back" the BRS companies as though the original owners were still waiting patiently for a sign after more than 20 years. Most hauliers have accepted the present situation and would not, wish to change it. Trade and industry in general might even actively oppose any move which meant not so much a change of ownership as a fragmentation of the present State-owned companies.

SO far the main reaction has been from people who, one suspects, would oppose the change in any case as a matter of principle. They are creating for the purpose an interpretation of history which anybody who lived through the period concerned might have difficulty in recognizing. The technique usually employed is to go back no further than the Transport Act of 1953 which provided for the denationalization of the greater part of BRS. It is pointed out that even the partial disposal which was actually affected had a "catastrophic effect" on BRS. "Its profitability and its productivity were both impaired." Disposal came to a premature end when "it became progressively more difficult to sell lorries and depots and the Government came under pressure from transport users to preserve the network of trunk haulage services which BRS had built up". The damage to BRS was still considerable. A profit of well over £10m in 1953-1954 fell to £1.8m in 1956, "when denationalization was in full swing" and had recovered only to £3.4m five years later.

THE quotations are from an article in The Guardian last week by Mr Richard Pryke, lecturer in Economics, University of Liverpool, but the same theme has been developed elsewhere. It is a good example of the kind of blinkered history which concentrates on one set of events and ignores or perhaps is unaware of what was happening in other sectors. Mr Pryke may have followed the natural course. The most easily accessible documentation of the period is to be found in the archives of the British Transport Commission, its satellites and its successors. A reading diet exclusively or largely derived from these sources would inevitably lead to the conclusion thaf a terrible injustice was perpetrated by the Act of 1953 and that, had the BTC been left alone, road transport would now be twide as efficient as it is. The more fugitive literature of the period tells a different story. It requires more research and is perhaps less easy to decipher. The indictment of the BTC has to be built up laboriously from innumerable references in the Press and in Parliament, from complaints by individuals and by associations, working up to a climate of opinion that must have been formidable enough to persuade the Government to set foot in the first place on the difficult and slippery path towards denationalization.

HE lesson that Mr Pryke draws from history has a wider application than he may suppose. "Policies towards the nationalized industries which are wholly ideological in nature will lead to disaster," he says. There can be few pieces of legislation more "wholly ideological" than the Transport Act of 1947. It is at this point of time that a properly balanced analysis of post-war transport must begin. At that time the opponents of nationalization maintained that hauliers were giving a satisfactory and even an excellent service. The BTC was not therefore bringing order into a chaotic situation. What it must have done—what it was compelled to do by its terms of reference—was to break up many of the existing services and impose a system of its own. On such operators as remained this must have had a "catastrophic effect" far worse than that which Mr Pryke claims was suffered by BRS after 1953. He points out that a contributory cause of the difficulties in BRS was the loss of some of the best managerial personnel and "the way in which denationalization demoralized those who remained". If one examines it carefully, this assertion is highly questionable. There must have been some freedom for the BRS personnel to determine their own destinies. It was while nationalization was in full swing that operators and their staff had no choice, except in a few cases.

T0 justify the upheaval and misfortune which were the inevitable consequences of the 1947 Act it has to be proved that the BTC and its subordinate executives provided a better service than trade and industry had had previously. Little evidence is available on this point. It would also have to be shown that the network of BRS services which in the 'final reckoning trade and industry were reluctant to see sold was as good as or better than the services available from hauliers before 1947. Even on the face of it, this would be improbable. It must be assumed that some of the nationalized businesses were large, with 1000 or more vehicles each; that they were efficiently organized to cater as exactly as possible for the needs of their customers; that their rates were competitive and therefore keen; and that they had no difficulty in co-operating with each other when this would improve their service. Many smaller operators would be specialists in a limited field. Generally speaking, the road haulage industry, then as now, developed according to the needs of its customers.

IT was hardly fair to expect BRS to match this, unless it was content to run the acquired businesses much as before. The rapid building up of a fleet of 40,000 vehicles—selected by the terms of the Act and not by BRS—must have been an important factor in determining the new pattern of services. No haulier would relish being handed a miscellaneous assortment of assets and staff and then told that he must make a profitable business out of them. To his mind, it would be starting from the wrong end. However, a system of some kind is better than none. By 1953 there were no independent long-distance hauliers. The only system available was that provided by BRS. It is not surprising that, after a considerable number of what Mr Pryke calls "batches of lorries" had been sold back, and no new national networks were seen to be emerging, the large national manufacturers and traders began to have misgivings.

IF the past is to be evoked for present purposes there must be more than a superficial examination of the evidence. There are many questions that the economists should ask themselves. What effect did the 25-mile radial limit have on the profitability of BRS? To what extent were BRS pleased to lose at least some of the disposed assets? Were the units which were put up for sale sufficiently attractive? What was the effect on prospective purchasers of outside events, and in particular the likelihood of an early general election? There may be need for an impartial and comprehensive study of the subject. QOne of my vehicles weighs 3 tons 1 cwt

and is taxed at this weight. I could alter the rear tailboard which is rather heavy, and by' replacing it with lighter material reduce the weight to under 3 tons. This would reduce my road tax and increase my load capacity Could you please give me details of who to see about having the vehicle registered at the new weight?

A What you should do in the circumstances

you described is make the alterations and then get the vehicle weighed at a public weighbridge. You should send the weight ticket to the Motor Taxation Department of your County or County Borough Council advising them that the vehicle is now lighter in weight and needs reclassing at the lower weight. They will either do this automatically or ask you to present the vehicle at a public weighbridge with one of their inspectors present to have the weight checked.

n am a fitter in a heavy goods vehicle 'garage and I have to do most of the

driving of hgv. if I start work on Sunday morning and work 10 hours every day without doing any driving on the first six days, am I allowed by law to drive a heavy vehicle for more than four hours on the seventh day? Also, would the answer be the same if I had worked the same hours but had driven a heavy goods vehicle :– i) for less than four hours on some of the first six days; W for less than four hours on every day; iii) for more than four hours on some of the first six days; iv) for more than four hours on the first day but not at all on the remaining days; v) for more than four hours on the first day and less than four hours on some of the remaining days; vi) for more than four hours on the first day and less than four hours on all of the remaining days?

Is an hgv driver allowed to drive 120 hours on 12 consecutive days between two rest days?

Could you clear up several points on the subject of towing with heavy goods vehicles:

7) Am I allowed by law to tow a hgv, fitted with brakes, by means of a chain or rope, or does the law require me to use a rigid towbar?

2) Is there any law related to towing hgv which are heavier than the towing vehicles; for instance, am I allowed to tow a hgv which is loaded, with an empty hgv?

3) Is there a law against towing an articulated vehicle consisting of a tractor and an empty trailer?

4) Is there a law against towing an articulated vehicle consisting of a tractor and a loaded trailer?

5) Is there a law against towing a tanker, which is loaded with petrol or other inflammable cargo, with another ordinary licensed hgv? 6) Is a man who does not hold an hgv driving licence, and whose ordinary drivMg licence has been renewed since the new driving laws came into force, allowed to steer an hgv which is being towed?

A The answers to your questions are as follows;—

If you drive a goods vehicle for more than four hours on the seventh day of the week you must have complied with the regulations regarding on duty and rest periods on the previous six days, otherwise the law will have been broken on the seventh day and on each of the previous days when you exceeded the hours.

Your subsequent questions are all related to this and more or less the same applies, i.e. if you drive a vehicle for more than four hours on any day of the week the regulations apply for the whole of that week. If you do not drive for more than four hours on any day then you are exempt from the hours regulations.

A driver is allowed to be on duty (including driving) for 120 hours on 12 consecutive days between two rest days.

You are allowed to tow an hgv with brakes (provided they are working) by means of a chain or rope but the distance must not exceed 1511 between the two vehicles.

There is no law against a heavier vehicle than the towing vehicle being towed but the maximum train weight of the two vehicles must not exceed 24 tons.

An articulated vehicle with a loaded trailer may only be towed by a locomotive (a tractor with an unladen weight of more than 7. tons).

An articulated vehicle with an empty trailer may be towed by another vehicle. But an articulated vehicle may not be towed by another articulated vehicle.

There is no law against towing a petrol tanker with another vehicle.

If the vehicle which is being towed is broken down and cannot in any way be driven, the person steering it while it is on tow does not need an hgv driving licence or even an ordinary licence. This, at least, was the ruling in a case where a court decided that steering such a vehicle is not "driving."

rb / am interested to know what the Iegal requirements regarding licences are in relation to heavy haulage.

There is a possibility that I will have to apply for the necessary licences to haul from various ports to destinations inland, so could you please inform me how to obtain them and how much they will cost? A It should be possible for you to obtain

an operator's licence to start in business. but this cannot be guaranteed. It would be better to apply for one before buying a vehicle.

You have to apply to the Licensing Authority for the traffic area in which your operating base will be, on the appropriate form, and await his decision which may take a few weeks. His decision will be based on whether or not you are a "fit and proper person" to hold a licence, whether you have made adequate arrangements for the maintenance of your vehicle and whether you have the financial ability to keep the vehicle maintained to the required standard. Also he will want to be sure that you will observe the drivers' hours and records regulations and will not overload your vehicle. There may also be objections from the RHA, FTA, the unions, police or a local authority, any of whom may say that for some reason they do not consider you to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence but if they do object they have to prove their point. Subject to the LA being satisfied on all these points, he should grant you a licence.

The cost of an 0 licence is £4 per vehicle per year.

Full details of what is required and the forms can be obtained from the Licensing Authority's office in your traffic area.

AA transfer case is usually called a transfer

box or gearbox when it is applied to a unit in a vehicle transmission system, although it may be used to describe any unit employed to transfer Power from one drive line to another. In a four-wheel-drive vehicle, for example, power is transferred from the engine/backaxle drive line to the drive of the front axle by means of a transfer box. Typically the gears of the transfer box can be disengaged to enable the drive to be transmitted through the rear wheels only. In this way "wind-up" between the front and rear axles can be avoided.

When a four-wheel-drive vehicle is travelling on any type of surface, there is typically a tendency for the wheels of the front and rear axles to rotate at slightly different speeds because of differences in the effective diameters of the tyres which is not counteracted bythe action of the axle differential, as is the case of wheels on opposite sides of the same axle. This results in wind-up or strain in the transmission gears and shafts which increases until the torque produced is sufficient to skid one or more of the wheels. If the tyres are in contact with a hard dry surface a relatively high torque is required to skid a tyre, and the transmission is stressed proportionately. Conversely, the poor adhesion of the tyres of a vehicle running on a slippery surface (for which four-wheel drive is particularly advantageous) reduces the torque necessary to skid a tyre and this limits wind-up to a negligible maximum.

It may be relevant to mention that an appreciable amount of extra power is required to operate the transmission of the front-axle drive, whether or not it is engaged. Fitting the front wheels with free-wheel units enables the vehicle to be driven by the rear wheels without rotation of the shafts and gears of the front-wheel transmission and this can provide an appreciable saving in fuel.


comments powered by Disqus