AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE RAILWAY ROAD TRANSPORT BILLS.

15th May 1928, Page 51
15th May 1928
Page 51
Page 52
Page 51, 15th May 1928 — THE RAILWAY ROAD TRANSPORT BILLS.
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?

Continuation of the Evidence for the Promoters. The Views of the Opponents Yet to Come.

T"joint committee on the Railway Road Transport Bills is making rather slow progress with the hearing of evidence. The cross-examination of the principal wit-. fleeces by the several opposing interests has taken up much time. We continue our summary of the proceedings with an outline of the main, evidence of Sir Ralph Wedgwood, chief general manager of the L.N.E.R. Co., who was called to the witness chair on Thursday. May 3rd,

In reply to Mr. F. G. Thomas, K.C., he said that he considered that the continuance of road and railway transport in independent Watertight compartments could not prove successful. It was feared that rail traffic would fail unless it could use road transport as an auxiliary.

Railway transport was a large machine of which the success depended upon the volume of business carried and, if that volume diminished, the railway dompanies must either put up 'Tees and thus place further burdens on industries, particularly those which were at present meet distressed, or become unremunerative. Possibly, he continued, an increase of rate charges might kill the business.

Decreasing. Railway Traffic.

An increasing diminution of traffic had begun to show itself in branch-line traffic and, in sonic cases, that traffic was on the point of becoming unremunerative. The closing of branch lines would soon be forced on the railways mlless they were able to use road transport as well.

On the L.N.E.H., between ?.923 and 1927, there had been a decline in passenger receipts of 10 per cent., which was equal to 12,000,000, and a fall of 17 per dent. in the number of passengers carried. The normal growth in this traffic had also been swept away. Previous to 1923, the Passenger revenue had continued to increase, that year being the high-water mark. Coincidentally, there had been an .increase of 4 per cent. in the mileage of• passenger trains.

The total loss of revenue in passenger and goods traffic he computed roughly at between £4,000,000 and X5,000,000, gross per year. With regard to the suggestion that the company was in possession of vast financial resources which would enable it to strangle the competition of road transport, he said that the rumour was without foundation. The reserve Taft for the protection of dividend was £590,000, and it was out of the question . to employ that Sum in promoting adventurous schemes of road transport. He likewise said that the capital reserves of the company were also very limited.

Feeder Services.

The object in seeking extended powers was to bring people from the centres, at present untouched by railways, to some point on the railway—not necessarily the points in immediate proximity. The establishment of feeder services for the railways was the first and most Important use to which the road powers would he put. He remarked that the displacement of labour on the railways was likely to be ranch less if the road powers were conferred. • .Cross-examined by Mr. MOOD, K.C., for the Commercial Motor Users' Association, Sir Ralph admitted that where road hauliers undercut the railway company it had been the practice of the company to reduce its rates. In future it would have two strings to its bow, as it would be able to reduce the road rates, the railways rates, or both.

Counsel asked if there was anything to prevent the company lowering • its rates as much as it liked and the witness replied that there was a very effective safeguard in Clause 7 of the Bill. The feelings of the shareholders would also be an adequate safeguard.

L.M.S.R. Manager's Evidence.

Sir Josieb. Stamp was recalled to the witness chair on Monday, May 7th, to continue his evidence. Replying to the „chairman, he stated that he did not think the railway companies objected to.. the principle of being under an obligation to give the Minister of Transport notice of the inauguration of other than regular road ser

vices, such as experimental services. What they desired was to avoid red tape and unnecessary notices, which might only be pigeon-holed. If the making of Clause 2 (a) was. to be facilitated, • they would consider some method of giving regular notice.

Re-examined by Mr. MacMillan, K.C., Sir Josiah denied that the railway companies had adopted a dog-in-the-manger attitude to the Manchester and Liverpool road scheme, but they took the view that this road was on sd large a scale that plans for it should have been submitted to Parliament just as railway schemes were submitted.

Lord Darling suggested,. amid some laughter, that the real analogy surely was that the road transport companies should be compelled to buy the railways at the railway companies' own' figures.

With regard to rates the witness contended that the • railways bad reacted to the stimulus of road transport competition.

Sir R. Wedgwood Cross-examined.

Sir Ralph Wedgwood, chief general manager of the L.N.E.R., who had given his main evidence during the previous week, was then cross-examined by counsel for _several groups of petitioners. '

-Replying to Mr. Le Queane, K.C., for the National Farmers' Union' he said he would object to a provision beingg inserted in the Bill which would enable the road-transport interests to prevent the railway road services quoting rates _ which were too low, lie considered that it would -be onesided.

Asked whether any deficiency on the railway Need-transport services would be made up by an increase in railway rates, he said that if there were a traceable addition to railway revenue as a result of road transport it iirould be taken into account. •

Mr. E., E. Charteris, K.C., appearing for various corporations, asked whether on routes, where municipal services were already adequate,. road serviees ,of the -railway companies could only establish themselves, by driving off thd road the existing services or decreasing the: traffic which the latter undertakings now carried. Witness -said it must be remembered that in many eases the municipalities came into the field in competition with the railways.

Counsel suggested that they came in because Parliament held that they were wanted by the public. Was it right to duplicate services which were already adequate? Witness replied that Parliament had given no monopoly to the municipalities and that there were private omnibus companies running services besides the municipalities.

Asked if it had been reported that the road transport facilities were inadequate in any part of the country served by the L.N.E.R., witness said there were cases here and there—for instance, round Sheffield. It was possible, he added, that the company would want to run certain road services in London, at Enfield and Tottenham.

Burden on Ratepayers.

In continuation of the cross-examination last Tuesclayellr. Fitzgerald, who appeared, for the West Riding County Council, suggested that, if the Bill were passed, a greater number of vehicles would be put on the roads, with an increase in wear and tear and in the burdens on the ratepayers. Witness admitted that that was a possibility.

Counsel suggested that there would be a lower rateable value to meet the increased burden on the rates, as diversion of traffic to the roads would decrease the net receipts of the railways and thus decrease their rateable values. That contingency would be avoided if the road undertakings were rated as WIC with the railway undertakings.

It was suggested that it might take a long time for any new organization to come in and take the traffic away. Witness disagreed; road services, he said, could be quickly started with omnibuses obtained on the hire-purchase system.

Colonel Thom instanced the case of a cargo of new potatoes about which they had heard a harrowing tale. Supposing the railway companies closed the offices of their road services at five o'clock and a cargo of new potatoes eame in after that time, what would happen? Were the same

conditions to prevail in regard to transport as those obtaining on the railways at present?

Witness replied that the rail transport of goods was very efficiently conducted. They had to close their stations early in order to catch certain trains. • • The next witness for the promoters was Sir Herbert Walker, general manager of the Southern Railway Co., who, after mentioning that the traffic on his railway consisted of 75 per cent. passenger and 25 per cent, goods, stated that, between 1925 and 1927, receipts had fallen by £460,000.

Between 1400,000 and £500,000 a year had been loston passenger traffic through road competition in spite of the large increase of passenger traffic on electrified suburban lines and Continental services. In the first 16 weeks of this year, goods-traffic receipts had fallen• by £6,000 a week. The company intended to run bus services to feed its electrified lines at such places as Dorking, Caterham and Hayes, and desired to run connecting services.

In reply to Mr. Tyldesley-Jones, K.C., he said he did not think it desirable that the company should have a monopoly in the area of the Southern Railway.

Projected Services.

On Wednesday, Sir Herbert Walker was again crosseatoine51.. In reply to Mr: E.• L.. Charteris, K:C., he said the Company proposed to compete with the London tramways. The London County Council had established an intensive system of tramways to such an extent that the Southern-Railway Co. had been forced to close some of its stations.

Answering Mr. A. Moon, K.C., he said that it was intended to run motor coaches from town to town. He did not admit that in order to compete with existing coach services the Sot/them Railway would necessarily have to charge in all cases lower fares on the road than they did on the railway. In many cases the present road charges were as high as, if not higher than, the rail charges. He did not agree that the company's road service would he subsidized out of the railway revenue.

In reply to Mr. R. S. Cripps, K.C., for the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Traders' Association, witness admitted that there might be individual complaints of fruit from Kent arriving at Covent Garden too late for market, but there were not constant complaints. The company's service for fruit was extremely good. He admitted, however, that they had lost some of this traffic.

Mr. F. G. Thomas, K.C., re-examined witness, who gave as an example of co-ordination between a railway and omnibus the case of the Underground and the London General Omnibus Co. From Morden, which was an Underground terminus, the L.G.O.C. buses radiated extensive services, as a result of which they had taken 4,000,000 pas

scngers away from the eleetrified services of the Southern Railway. This was done. under a financial pooling scheme. The fares charged by the buses were subject to no control.

Mr. James Milne, assistant general manager of the Great Western Railway, was the next witness. Examined by Mr. Graham Robertson, K.C., he Paid that it was essenbal, if his company were to continue a prosperous concern, that they should be given the powers sought by the Bill. The company maintained 173 miles of public road surface without any grant from the Road Fund. Speaking of the effect of road-transport competition, he said that in 1923 the total originated railway-passenger journeys were 124,000,000. By

1927 they had dropped to 112,000,000. This was coincident with an increase in the total mileage fun--from 37,000,000 Miles in 1923 to 39,000,000 miles in 1921. At the same time, the company had given more and mere cheap and excursion fares, with the result that the proportion Of passengers carried at full fares had gone steadily down from 45 per cent. in 1923 to as law as 24.79 per cent. in 1027. He attributed these resultslargely to the competition of road transport.

Existing Road Powers.

Replying to Lord Darling as to whether the company's road operations were illegal, witness said that perhaps the picking-up and setting-down of passengers was a questionable point, but it had not been challenged as far as the law courts. It had obtained powers for light railways which had not been constructed, but the company had first tested the routes with motorbus services and the railways had been found to be unnecessary. In one case this had saved an expenditure of £85,000, and in another had prevented a loss of £75,000. The company had 281 buses and ran 151 separate services, and the profits last year were £10,243, independent of the contributory value of the services to the railway, which was p big item. It also ran an auxiliary good S motor service, which picked up farm produce and delivered it at different points.

Cross-examined by Mr. F. J. Wrottesley, K.C., for the London and Provincial Omnibus Owners' Association, witness said that representatives of that association had asked the Great Western Railway Co. to discontinue its bus services. Ho admitted that it refused, and told the representatives of the association that, in the event of legal 'action, it would carry the case, if necessary, to the House of Lords. • Counsel: This was a threat that you would expose them to the utmost costs you could?

Witness : It was not a threat They told us to discontinue our services, and we said " No."

Counsel: It was more than a threat; it was a promise.


comments powered by Disqus