We geed voltage tiatito
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
As former adviser to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries during their inquiry into BR, I would like to correct the simplified comments made by Mr Thomson in your issue of June 17_ His comments might have been more useful had he read the Report itself, rather than the inevitably brief reviews published elsewhere. The Report specifically avoids supporting the 450km EEC limit, quoting it as one of the aspects of 543/69 that might well be revised prior to its wider enforcement within Europe.
The Committee met road hauliers in Germany and Holland during its visits to other European countries, and a Dutch haulier took the opportunity to make the point that such a limit might be quite inappropriate on the high-quality road network of Holland, for example. The point being made was that it would be desirable to agree on realistic mileage and hours limits for common enforcement through the EEC (including France!), in place of the existing confused pattern.
The reference to BR running buses does not relate to take-over of any existing bus services, but the operation of buses that might replace secondary rail services.
Finally, the reference to increased taxation for the heaviest lorries relates primarily to an attempt to ensure that they cover their "track costs." Under the 'present pattern, the heaviest vehicles are effectively cross-subsidised by other road traffic, leading to a misallocation of resources.
Mr Thomson's reference to wasting of money is entirely misplaced — the Report suggests a halving of existing rail support payments, including