NARROW GAUGE
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EVERY subject has a political angle. if enough time and ingenuity can be devoted to finding it; Until the . .. other day one might have thought that the abnormal and indivisible load was politically neutral, but Mr. James Boyden, M.P., has proved the idea wrong. He has pointed out to Mr. Ernest Marples, Minister of Transport, that the present restrictions on wide loads are an example of "free enterprise doctrinaire notions," apparently because they are not sufficiently restrictive to suit Mr. Boyden's taste.
. He wanted a convoy system for all abnormally wide or dangerous loads. Their movement should be confined to the period between 9 p.m.-7 a.m.; their routes should be announced; and there should be regular police control of the convoys. Mr. Boyden did not define the limits of the normal; perhaps he would regard all loads as too wide or as dangerous. He was certainly, not in the least satisfied with the reply from the Minister, who summarized the present position by saying that notice of the proposed movement of all loads over 9 ft. 6 in. had to be given to the police, who had powers to decide time, date and route, and to escort the loads if they wished. A special order was required from the Minister where the width exceeded 20 ft.
This gave an opening for another Labour M.P; Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn. Proving himself on this occasion one of the many friends of the railways, who have to maintain their own police he suggested that the provision of police escorts free Of charge was a subsidy for road transport. The Minister shrugged the point off as one that concerned the Home Secretary rather than him, and contented himself. withsaying that heavy vehicles paid heaVy taxes. He might have added that if hauliers were..cornpelted to accept police escorts, it was a little hard to
insist that they should also pay far them. • During the discussion on Mr. Boyden 's questiOn, the Minister revealed that he had put out new proposals for controlling the movement of outsize loads, and was now awaiting comments. This development, in fact, finally disposes of another plan circulated nearly five years ago. Nothing has been heard of it for a long time. It met with strong opposition from the manufacturers as well as the carriers of abnormal indivisible loads. There will also be a strong reaction to the new proposals. It will be illuminating to see whether they are any more acceptable to the interests chiefly concerned.
Given Most Attention
The main reason' for restricting the carriage of abnormal loads by road is that they interfere with other traffic, and evidently the main difficulty is thought to be the overall width. This is the item that is given most attention in the new proposals as it was in those of 1955. The present position is broadly as set out by the 'Minister in his reply to Mr. Boyden. It is now suggested that there should be a new category where the overall 'width lies between 14 ft.20 it. The haulier would have to seek permission from the Ministry to carry the load, and before giving permission the Ministry would have to satisfy themselves, possibly after consultation with the consignor, that it was not reasonably Possible to Use rail or sea transport or to divide the load.
. The plan put forward in 1955. aimed at the same effect by a slightly different method. It sought to .reduce from 20, ft. to 18 ft. the maximum overall width for which a special order would have been needed. Permission from the Licensing Authority would have been required if the width
exceeded 12 ft., and it would have been necessary to give reasons why the.loadcould not be carried in any other way. A novefty in the earlier proposals was the introduction of an overall maximum length of 80 ft., beyond which an individual order from-the Minister would have had to be obtained. This has been retained in the new plan, and there are other length restrictions proposed, as in 1955. It is not intended;however, to alter the present. maximum weight limit (withouta speCial order) of 150 tons, although five years ago the idea was to reduce. this to 125 tons. .
In view of their experience last time, the Ministry have evidently chosen their words carefully in announcing the up-to-date version. They no longer suggest, as the did before, that the growth in the number, weight and bulk of indivisible loads represents a growing risk to the roads and bridges of the country. Perhaps this would not be a suitable comment within the context of an expanding road programme. Instead there is a frank acknowledgement that most indivisible loads are vital to the national economy. Restrictions upon their transport, say the Ministry, "must, for the sake of the community at large, he kept to the Minimum compatible with the full use of our road system by all vehicles."
Comes the Pill After the sweetener comes the pill. Road congestion itself. has serious economic consequences, the Ministry continue, "and there is evidence that some consignors make -no attempt to explore alternative methods of transport which would avoid increasing it." This remarkable statement' may' well produce indignant,comments from the organizations Of trade and industry to whom the proposals have been sent, It is -in notable contrast with the cautious
• tone of the, earlier document. This referred to " a widespread feeling?' that the movement of bulky and heavy loads by road' was relatively so easy and so cheap that many consignors did not bother to look any further. Transport by sea is the method that the Ministry seem to think has been most neglected. Their general comments refer to Tàlternativc methods of transport for the bulkier loads, but a more detailed statement on procedure makes no reference to the railways. It is hoped that, very soon after a request has been made for permission to send a load by road, the necessary documents will be issued. Delay will occur only when there appear to he grounds for thinking that sea transport could be employed with the effect of curtailing or eliminating the road movement. The onus will then be on the consignor to prove that sea transport is not reasonably practieable. The MinistrY may also require further information, such as evidence that the load is really indivisible.
The maritime emphasis is in line with an arrangement that has been in force for some two years, whereby the Ministry inform shipping interests in advance of projected movements of abnormal indivisible loads .for which .a special order would be required for road transit. •. This arrangement has presumably not produced satisfactory results. Manufacturers with heavy loads to shift must by now be well aware of the facilities available to them. The fact that the Ministry are now seeking further powers of persuasion is an oblique tribute to the efficiency and economy of road transport. It is a tribute that may not be greatly appreciated by hauliers. If they object, they are likely to have the support of their customers as well as of some other road users,