OVERLOADING, SMOKE MAINTENANCE
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Overloading, black smoke, poor maintenance. These are some of the charges most frequently thrown at goods vehicle operators. Many of the charges are biased or irresponsible, but there must be some element of truth in them. To investigate these, and allied problems, "The Commercial Motor" recently arranged an informal luncheon in Manchester, after which two hauliers, an R.H.A. area secretary, and a retired Licensing Authority expressed their views. Because of the importance of the subject, they also discussed the Beeching Report. Taking part were: Mr. F. Williamson, who retired in 1961 as North Western Licensing Authority; Mr. James Holden, director, James Holden Jar. (Crumpsall) Ltd.; Mr. Victor Neatherway, director, Atlas Express Ltd.; and Mr. William Farnorth, North Western (Western) area secretary, Road Haulage Association. In the chair was Alan Havard, the editor.
Harard Operators of goods vehicles are often : criticized for overloading, yet in my view a modest overload isn't a bad thing, modest depending upon the payload of the vehicle. But I do think there is an irresponsible element in haulage who tend to (a) extensively overload and (b) under-maintain, four-wheelers in particular. I would like to start by asking you what degree of overloading, if any, you think is safe.
Williamson: I remember the cases in South Wales some
time ago, in connection with the building of some industrial establishments, when it seemed that the situation had reached something not far short of a public scandal. There were some prosecutions, but prosecutions are not always easy to substantiate in the courts. Relying purely on my own observations. I would say that the people who were prone to overload to a dangerous degree were those who were running tippers either on excavation work or to carry certain types of minerals. Once you allow any sort of regular degree of departure from legal standards you are in danger.
Holden: Frankly, I think that if a person invests in the dearer type of four-wheeler, he is the person (in effect) who is cutting down his payload completely. P32
He is the person who puts a 10-ton load on a vehicle rated for that but weighing four tons unladen, and automatically finds that he is overloading. A man who has a cheaper, lighter, vehicle has the biggest scope not to overload; he can put 10 tons on it legally, and still be inside the limit. I agree with Mr. Williamson that tipper operators, in South Wales especially, have found out recently that they were having to overload because of rates. The general haulier in this country, I believe, is working to the standard of what his vehicle will carry. Legally, the man who invests the most money in transport is getting the least for money invested.
Farnorth: It is very dangerous in an absolute law to
allow any distortion of that law whatsoever. It is important to differentiate between the vehicles themselves. The law is in a bit of a dilemma as the lighter-type vehicle can legally move along the road with the same gross laden weight as the heavier vehicle. The stronger-type vehicle which would appear overloaded can be nothing like so overloaded as the lighter vehicle carrying less. With regard to the type of vehicle which tends to overload, I agree with Mr. Williamson that this appears to be concentrated more in the tipping line. In one respect the N.C.B. have done a splendid job as their vehicles, when leaving the pit-head, are not overloaded. Steel companies in South Wales are very strict about this too. I wish this attitude could be adopted by many more customers than at the present time. In civil engineering and construction jobs, the man who operates the digger is usually paid by results and he tends to put as much in a vehicle as it will possibly hold. Undoubtedly overloading has been responsible for quite substantial rate reductions over past years when the civil engineering world has been very busy. Plating is really the answer to a lot of the problems.
Neat herway: There should be no latitude in the law in respect of overloading. Manufacturers of vehicles have laid down the loadability of the units they produce. Tipping vehicles are the worst offenders possibly, but people engaged in general haulage are also prone to overloading. The " trampers " of the industry also overload and have to do this where they are getting traffic on cut rates and are obliged to overload to get a good return. I do not think general haulage is well organized in this country and there is a lot of room for improvement in securing back loads. This would eliminate cheaper rates and the risk of overloading.
We must differentiate between the many types of traffic carried by tippers. The overloading of tipping vehicles is concentrated in civil engineering, as opposed to the carriage of solid fuel, etc. The N.C.B. and the Gas Board are insistent on these things. The N.C.B. are severe with hauliers and C-licensed operators in making sure Farnorth: that when vehicles leave the pit-head they are loaded within the legal capacities.
There has been only one case in this area
where a customer was prosecuted for aiding and abetting the conveyance of goods which were not covered by the terms ot the licence. This was an exceptional case, and the only one I can think of in the past 10 years. -Whether this would apply to the connivance of overloading, I would not be at all sure.
How widespread do you think overloading is, not only throughout the North West, but in the whole country? Why does it occur and what effect does it have on haulage rates in general? Jim, perhaps you would like to start things off on that. Havard: In the region of 80 per cent of operators are overloading—not purposely, but just as an unfortunate incident If you invest in a good vehicle you find you are getting 8-9-ton payload to keep within the legal boundary of the law. The customer rings up a haulier and says he has a 10-ton load to go. The haulier says he'll take the load, and sends a four-wheeler, which should legitimately carry 10 tons. But to ensure keeping the law, he should work out the unladen weight of the vehicle and the weight of the load. He would then have to put on a six-wheeled vehicle to make sure he was not breaking the law. A large number of operators are breaking the law day by day; but it is the way the law is set, not through greediness or any other reason. Now, the rates problem. I think the haulage contractor who says: "I want to make money, so I am going to overload ", is only a small percentage of the total operators and does not have a large effect on the rates of the industry. If gross unladen weight is altered it might cover these problems, which happen among the majority of hauliers. Holden: I was surprised to hear Jim say that 80 per cent of operators were overloading. In our section of the industry, overloading is the exception rather than the rule because traffic is bulky and uses vans. Many small operators, who are not well organized, are more prone to overload, perhaps, than the larger companies are. Neatherway: With regard to the question of rates, overloading is no more than an element. The whole point of transport law is to attempt to create a climate within which hauliers can compete fairly and reasonably. When anyone transcends this law (whether it be overloading, speeding, or drivers' hours) it all tends to create a Farnorth: distortion of the climate. Overloading must be aligned with other breakings of the law, and it should not be treated in isolation. Jim's figure of 80 per cent surprised me. I agree that the maximum-load four-wheeler is the machine which dominates transport. All these vehicles can legally perform the same function. Undoubtedly, in these cases, the man with the heavier machine finds himself at a disadvantage and, in order to compete, has to carry the 10-ton load even though it is a transgression of the law. Overloading is not so dramatic as Jim put it; I would cut this figure by half and be very coldblooded about it.
This is an interesting point. Lord Lucas has put the figure in certain instances at 100 per cent. Jim thinks 80 per cent, Bill thinks it's more like 40 per cent. Mr. Williamson, what figure do you think is right? Havard: Williamson: I think 80 per cent is an over-statement. I have no means of checking this, but I base my view on my observations and knowledge of the industry. There might be 80 per cent in certain isolated pockets, but not over the industry as a whole. I can only recollect one case in my 15 years as L.A. when I brought an operator before me to show cause why his licence should not be suspended or revoked largely on the grounds of a succession of overloading prosecutions. Strangely enough, he was a C-licensed operator. The culprit is usually the small man, rather than the large-scale operator, because the latter realizes that he has a lot to lose if he is caught persistently flouting the law. Anyway, his drivers might have something to say about it. But the single individual, with one vehicle on H.P., who has to pay substantial repayments on the vehicle and is anxious to make a good living, does not take the long-term view. He doesn't realize that he is damaging his own vehicle and reducing its life; he is determined to make what he can while he can.
I have an open mind about plating, although I think it would be an effective means of combating overloading. What are your views? Havard: Holden: Plating would level out the haulage con tractors in the industry. If a man is willing to invest money in rolling stock (and therefore in safety), he should get a fair return without breaking the law. The present system rules that a man who invests the least in his rolling stock can legally get the most out of it. I believe that plating should decide what the carrying capacity of the vehicle should be, and has a big part to play on the overloading position. I have always gone for the good, heavy-type vehicle which I know will carry a good payload; but I'm finding now that I would be better off investing my money in the small, lower-priced, four-wheeled vehicle and making a third-axle extension to it. I don't think this is always so safe, and for this reason alone I feel that plating would have a good effect on the industry.
Farnorth: I want to go back to Mr. Williamson's remarks on the previous question, if I may. It could not be maintained at all that the small man is any more a culprit than the larger operator. The large-scale operator is just as prone to break the law as the small haulier. With regard to plating, I think it might be the answer to overloading. As a rule, transport operators are not engineers, although they naturally accumulate a substantial amount of engineering knowledge in the course of their business. The manufacturer builds a 7-ton machine, sells it as a 7-ton machine, and he is entitled to say that it should be used as such. If he builds a bigger (say 10-ton) machine, he sells it on the understanding it will be used as a 10-ton machine and not as a 12or 15-ton machine. I think that, if it was pressed a little more diligently than it has been in the past, the Ministry would have to accede to plating sooner or later. From a purely transport point of view, it could be the salvation of the industry; it could categorize the use of vehicles.
I've no objection to plating whatsoever. However, it is all very well for manufacturers to lay down the type of vehicle, but in my particular type of work we have to put a body on their chassis; the difficulty comes after you have built the machine in getting it properly plated. The other point is on the question of the difference between the quantity-produced and the specialized vehicle. We always expected to get double the life from the high-class unit and I do not accept the argument that the man who buys the lighter, cheaper vehicle has any just cause for grossly contravening the regulations. His depreciation and establishment charges are very .much less than the man who invests in a vehicle that is costing twice as much. Neatherway: 1 take it that the idea of plating would be to take the manufacturers' recommended maximum load and put a plate on the vehicle,, so that any contravention of it would be illegal. I cannot think of. any better system, but it raises complications regarding the vehicle when extensions are made to it. But I shouldn't think this would be an impossible situation to overcome from a technical point of view. Williamson: Farnorth: The same problem arises under our present system. Take the case of a tank vehicle, which is, in effect, a platform vehicle with a tank on it; its payload is immediately reduced compared with a flat. Furthermore, the operator of the tanker has to pay road fund duty on the extra unladen weight caused by the tank. This is an anomaly in the present law and could be overcome by a technical committee. brought to the courts are a result of police observations and inquiries, rather than those of the L.A. Judging from the fact that overloading is prevalent, you-could say that the enforcement system is not effective. This would be the easy answer, but not necessarily the right one. One difficulty is to determine the overload, and plating would certainly overcome this. By haying a stipulated figure ` you would find on a public weighbridge if an operator was beyond the law.
Holden: Let's face it, we are in business to serve the customer and also make a profit. The lighter type of vehicle is better if you use it for 12-18 months, as compared with a dearer vehicle being run for, say, three or ' five years. We find that when you have to repair the vehicle the heavier types become uneconomical, as labour and materials are tremendously high compared with the lighter models. From a financial position, we are better running the lighter type of vehicle for a shorter period and saving all repairs, tyre renewals, and then scrapping the lorry for what price we can get for it.
H d: I now want to turn avar to black smoke.
The Ministry conducted several surveys last year and they alleged one vehicle in eight emitted visible black smoke. I challenge what they mean by visible black smoke; if you get down to the number of stop notices issued it was one in 600. I feel that smoke is a nuisance and brings a lot of discredit on the industry. But you must differentiate between occasional smoke. What are your views?
Black smoke, it seems to me, is part of the "hate campaign" against road transport. Quite clearly, the decided view of the B.M.A. is that black smoke is not a hazard to public health. It is not as lethal as the fumes from petrol engines. It is quite clear from the observations of the R.H.A. people who were there that the Ministry, tests were completely fair, although a vehicle operating under different conditions can have a different result when it Comes to the emission of black smoke. A vehicle pulling up a hill, for instance, would be worse than one running on the flat. The significant part is the 1-in-600 stop notices. The emission of black smoke is purely and simply a matter of maintenance— and undoubtedly the standard of maintenance is not as high as it should be. But it has brought the attention of the average haulier to black smoke as a nuisance, and he will look at his affairs at home a little more closely than he has done in the past Farnorth: I would like to take you up on the point where you said that bad maintenance was the sole cause. I don't think this is so and I'm borne out in a report issued last week by the I.R.T.E. They said that this was a major factor, but that other contributory causes could be a choked air filter, the extreme case of an engine neglected to the point where it needed a complete overhaul, incorrectly adjusted tappets, worn valves or seats (which leads to a loss of compression), worn timing gears or pump couplings (resulting in incorrect injection or valve timing) and, with pneumatically governed engines, one has to give attention to things like the venturi butterfly adjustment, the condition of the diaphragm, and so on. I think that there are far more things that contribute to black smoke than just pure maintenance. Hayard: Neatherway:
Black smoke is a discredit to the industry and a hazard on the road. There is a great deal to be done by the manufacturers of vehicles, and also by the fuel companies. We have used additives in our fuel to prevent this sort of thing, as we use diesel vehicles extensively. Although we have a rigid system of maintenance, smoke still happens from time to time. What has to be established is some standard of black smoke which constitutes an offence. Where a vehicle is continually emitting smoke it is a serious offence, but where there is an occasional emission, it might be quite a simple thing that had no real significance.
I have definite views on this. I agree entirely that there are vehicles which emit black smoke to a great extent. The problem behind it all is that policemen can stop vehicles and say that they are emitting black smoke. I object to one individual being allowed to stop a vehicle. A body of people trying to determine the amount of black smoke emitted would have differing views. Until we get to the stage where it is determined what amount of smoke emitted from a vehicle is detrimental to public health, I will never understand why a policeman (who is no better or more conversant with the matter than I am) can turn round and say a vehicle was a public nuisance. All commercial vehicles, even new ones, emit a certain amount of smoke, depending on the make. I object to a person being able to stop a vehicle which might just emit a puff every time it changes gear, because a summons for smoke is one of the hardest cases to fight.
Holden:
Do you consider the third-axle conversion, wrongly used, can aggravate the problems we are talking about? Do you agree with the finding of the I.R.T.E. that the majority of blame falls on the small operator for lack of maintenance in connection with black smoke?
Havard:
Farnorth: I must speak for the small haulier; I don't
think this is true at all. He is as careful as the large operator. By and large, the small operator is not to be condemned, as he has direct control over his fleet. On the question of third-axle conversions I cannot see how a vehicle which is turned out by a manufacturer as a 7-tonner can overnight (by the introduction of another axle) become an 11or I2-tonner. The engine and braking power were geared to a 7-ton vehicle, and to convert it overnight is to stretch engineering credulity too far. An extended platform is useful for a machine which carries light, bulky loads. But for weight-carrying it is not good enough.
The only case where it's safe to add a third axle is where the conversion is in accordance with the specification of the manufacturers. Steering, braking and engine power should not be insufficient for the conversion. I would only agree to these conversions where they are possible under a maker's specification. On the question of the emission of black smoke, if reasonable precautions are taken to ensure good maintenance it should serve you in good stead if you are served with a summons. But I have not found this to be the case.
Neatherway:
Holden: Coming back to the six-wheeled conversion,
let me make myself quite clear on this. The problem started at the beginning of this discussion with running a heavy-type four-wheeled vehicle and not getting a 10-ton payload. When I talk of a conversion I'm looking for an alternative for that type of load which I have to carry. And as an alternative, I'm on to the small vehicle with the conversion, in place of the heavier four-wheeler; and by doing this we are inside the law. Now we come to the point where we ask, will the vehicle carry this type of load? The answer is "yes ", owing to the bodybuilding and the engine and braking power. It can carry 10-11 tons. But we have the added problem, with a conversion, of going up to the gross laden weight of a six-wheeler (20 tons); then, I say "no ". These converted vehicles are not up to carrying the gross weight of 20 tons; but they are fit to carry loads of up to 10 or 11 tons, as an alternative to a four-wheeler.
Williamson: I would like to sum up on the question of
the Ministry statement that one in eight vehicles emits black smoke. There is no doubt that this was a genuine check, properly conducted; but it was never meant to be more than a spot check, and could not be entirely representative. The report of the I.R.T.E. was not far short of the mark when it referred to a major contributory factor in the emission of black smoke being inadequate and insufficient maintenance. This is the view of technical people in the North Western and other traffic areas. I remember perfectly well the annual reports which have been published, for all the world to see, in which certifying officers have made this point time after time. Maintenance is haphazard; there is no proper machinery for it, particularly amongst small operators. What small operator with one or two vehicles keeps any sort of maintenance records? He waits until a unit is completely unroadworthy and cannot be used. I must not generalize too much, but a lot of them wait until this situation is reached before they take any notice of it at all. Lack of systematic maintenance is a contributory factor in the emission of black smoke. Another matter is that of smoke meters. I see the Minister made a statement when he was at Manchester opening the Corporation offices. I saw in one paper that it would be 12 months and in another 18 months before there were smoke meters. I always remember that as long ago as the 1930s there was to be a meter to measure noise in decibels. Some machine was going to come on the road in large numbers so that excessive noise could be stopped. But even after 20 or 30 years there is nothing that measures noise adequately and efficiently. I should think it is very difficult to produce a meter which registers accurately the amount of smoke that vehicles are emitting. This is further away than 12-18 months. On the question of the third axle, I wish I could make a contribution to this, but I do not know sufficient about it technically to venture an opinion, except to say that operators should not depart from the maker's specification. I wonder why the R.H.A. does not introduce some kind of co-operative maintenance for small men? Why it doesn't open businesses where 20 or 30 small operators could combine to have a co-operative workshop? They could obtain additional licences for maintenance vehicles on the ratio of one in 10 or one in 12, so that, when a vehicle was taken off the road for maintenance purposes, another could be put on.
As you know, the road haulage industry has for many years been trying to introduce some kind of co-operative working, largely without success. I feel that " grouping " has always gone about it the wrong way, trying to group traffic. I think it should be just as Mr. Williamson says, and I hereby offer him an invitation to our next area meeting, because I've been trying to put it across for years. This is just the sort of thing the small haulier wants; a co-operative workshop to ensure systematic maintenance, and bulk purchase of spares.
Farnorth: Neatherway:
Let us assume that the average operator is reasonably careful about his maintenance.
The vehicle manufacturers are doing a great deal of research on this, but the fuel companies do not appear to be doing sufficient research on the fuel side. I think they have a big part to play. • Havard: This leads me now to the next point I want to discuss. Bearing in mind black smoke overloading, what responsibility do you feel the manufac and turers of chassis and the suppliers of fuel bear in this connection?
One of the worst things which came to tight on the question of black smoke was the apparent failure of the manufacturers and fuel companies to do any basic research at all. The N.R.T.F. was the first national body, almost, who attempted to get down to the problem and find out what the answer was. Their reports said that the manufacturers had little organized research on this. There is now the British Standards Institute, and I was surprised to read somewhere that there are 17 different grades of diesel fuel. The B.S.I. should introduce a standard, not only for fuel but for the engines as well. I don't think there is enough research into these things; the manufacturers have an obligation. Farnorth: The manufacturers have an obligation and they haven't fulfilled it—that is my view. But this is not so worrying as the fact that any individual can condemn an operator for emitting black smoke. We're getting to the stage where we are victimized. The manufacturers and the fuel companies seem to be lacking in their research into these problems. But my main worry is what an individual can do in deciding if a vehicle is being a nuisance. Holden: Neatherway: From time to time we have been asked by various manufacturers to test certain' equipment for them. And it has been satisfactory for us to do this on regular runs where the vehicles have been doing 1,200 miles a week. But we have never yet been approached by anyone on the fuel side. The manufacturers are doing a fair amount of research, but the fuel companies seem to have a great deal to do in this matter.
Williamson: The more research the manufacturers ani fuel, suppliers undertake the better. . But the responsibility must rest with the user of the vehicle, because he is the man responsible for the maintenance and the loads carried. On the passenger side of the industry the problem of black smoke has been pretty well eliminated. Here there is a form of plating because the maximum number of seats which the vehicle carries is stated, and systematic maintenance is checked by our own technical people. There is the certificate of fitness and there is the yearly inspection by a vehicle examiner—and these are pretty thorough. Now in 1933, when I first came into contact with the passenger and goods business, there were as many passenger vehicles as goods vehicles which were guilty of the emission of black smoke. This is a pointer, you know.
Neatherway: We all talk about black smoke but there is also white smoke. How frequently do we see an old petrol vehicle that is continually emitting obnoxious fumes which must be an equal danger and offence? What is being done about this?
Havard: I would now like to turn to Dr. Beeching and his railways. It seems to me he is pinning a tremendous amount of faith in these Liner trains. He B36 envisages, for instance, a cost for a 16-ton container of 23s. 6d. a ton on a 200-mile trunk journey. This seems to be largely dependent upon a two-hour turnround of the trains, which gives him some three minutes to handle and place every container on or off the train. How competitive do you think the Liner trains will be?
Whilst we admit that railway costings are a closed book to everybody; I cannot see how he can do the trunk haul and the collection and delivery service at 23s. 6d. a ton. I imagine that his present handling facilities cost themselves out at a great deal more than 23s. 6d: a ton for c. and d. itself. It would seem that 23s. 6d. is a very. optimistic figure. I certainly know from conversations with railway officials that-the-actual trunk cost from point A to point B by the railways is an extremely low figure indeed, and one which astonishes road haulage people. But I say that 23s. 6d. is optimistic.
Farnorth: Neatherwa The costs are extremely y: low for a 200-mile journey, but they are costs and not what they would charge the public. They might add 100 per cent to these costs, and even then it would still be cheap. We do use the railway container service to a certain extent, but we don't get anywhere near these rates. The rates we get from them are commensurate with what we get on the road. Of course, we cannot compete with the Condor service that operates from Glasgow to London, where you can load containers in Glasgow in the afternoon and they will be in London in the morning. You cannot possibly do this by road transport, either legally or physically. Obviously these "costs are on specialized traffic. I did have discussions with the railways some months ago on this
question and they tackled several people in the Manchester area where they were hoping to make up a train of these neW road-railers. But I do not know how theyarrive at their costs. Quite obviously they are out for specific traffic where it lies in very big quantities. So far as the smalls carriers are concerned, I think we have a very large part to play in the reorganization of British ,Railways.
Holden: My immediate thoughts are that the figures
are quite staggering to see. I have found that with the previous container service that British Railways have been operating, the general haulage contractor (and I don't mein the type that specializes in the bulk delivery of coal, etc.) is going to be fairly well situated. One of the main reasons why Dr. Beeching's ideas will not go through isthe inability of the manufacturer to meet a time during the day when he has to get the goods off his premises, loaded into a container so that they are at a certain point for dispatch for the 200-mile run to London, Glasgow, or wherever it might be. This is one of the biggest problems in our daily, business life. The manufacturers cannot work to a set timetable. If they could, it would be very pleasant for road transport. Therefore I don't think it will work for B.R. if this system comes in. I think that the haulage contractor will find out that the door-todoor basis of service which' he has always tried to achieve to the best of his ability is going to over-rule the points that Dr. Beeching has put forward. Dr. Beeching will get roadtraffic, but you come to an ordinary, general manufacturer and he will find that if it is an order for his customer that he has to produce for a certain time, he cannot take advantage of Dr. Beeching's system for transporting his goods, because of his inability to meet this time schedule.
Williamson: It seems to me to pre-suppose a very, very
high degree of efficiency for the railways.
I don't know if they can attain it, but if they do attain it and Continued on page ea
charge anything like these costs plus a reasonable percentage, then there is going to be intense competition with road haulage people on general merchandise.
There is another point. The Liner train carries 360 tons in 10and 16-ton containers: let us look at the position if they are all 10-ton ones. Dr. Beeching has the idea of turning one of these Liners round in two hours, so he is going to have 72 10-ton containers to unload and load in two hours. He will have to arrange for his own transport or our type of transport to be available at a certain time with 36 10-ton vehicles or trailers to load and unload back onto the Liner. Holden: We have to tie this up with the closure of stations and the establishment of 100 reception depots. This will mean that each depot will be responsible for a very large "watershed ", if you like, of collection. Let's take Manchester, being responsible for the whole of south-east Lancashire. It will pose a tremendous c. and d. problem, the like of which we have never seen in transport. Particularly if road hauliers, B.R.S. and private C-licensed operators are to engage in this c. and d. Apparently there is no central direction or anything like that. It would be a tremendous physical problem to co-ordinate this c. and d. service on this tight two. hour schedule which they talk about. Farnorth: Havard: Yes, I agree. Assuming Dr. Beeching gets his way and does all he says he is going to do, what do you think is going to be the haulier's best line of defence? Would it be better to produce lower rates or to produce a better service?
Neatherway Co-operation. That's it in a simple word. I recently had discussions with top people in B.R.S. and they are already looking at certain uneconomical services which they operate, where they know that private enterprise is also operating uneconomically. There you have duplication of services, state and private, where it would be better if one service was operated at a profit. And that is where the two sides of the industry can get together. Where the railways are going to close these branch lines either the state or private road transport must provide the service that was previously being provided by B.R. I think road transport has a very big part to play in the reorganization, and what I envisage is that B.R.S. to a great extent, and possibly private road transport to a lesser extent, will become feeder services if B.R. can provide the really efficient trunking services.
F arnorth: One of the problems posed by this is that • 13.12. are attempting to cream away traffic from the main trunk routes. In the economics of road transport there is a definite element of equalization; one takes the rough with the smooth. From the report it would appear that B.R. intend to take away the smooth and we are going to be left with the cross-country runs, the split consignments to multi-deliveries, and all the rest of it. I feel that the cost of road transport may tend to rise rather than fall, because of the fact that we may have to concentrate on the rough. On the road transport trunk routes themselves, I can hardly think that the rates now prevailing will stand any paring at all; they are nearly as low as it is possible for them to be. I hope that whatever success Dr. Beeching has it will not be accompanied by any penal legislation because one of the aspects of road transport over the past 10 or 15 years has been the ability of the industry to lower costs and it would be a tragic thing for the country if this still very maturing industry were to be stopped in mid-flight, so to speak, and traffic was physically diverted from road to rail.
Holden: We have got to the stage where efficiency is nearly at its peak. The customer is getting the efficient service, and if this report does go through I think the repercussion will be on rates and not on efficiency. On long-distance hauls we are finding that they have got near to the bare bone of pricing. We have got to the stage where many hauliers are carrying small parcels because they are also getting the cream loads. If the report comes into force the haulier will still be doing the trunk operations because the problem will arise of getting all the small items through from the customer to the destination. The rates will have to start steadily rising then to combat the loss of the cream traffic which was done at a bulk rate. Efficiency will still be the same but one or two long-distance hauliers may go out of business, there's no doubt about it. Rates will go up, efficiency cannot be any better.
Farnorth: Efficiency is very important because I main tain that we are on the verge of a revolution. For instance, a lot of members have spoken to me during the last 18 months about the chaps engaged in the ManchesterLondon trunk. Very shortly we shall have a motorway practically the whole way. Members whose opinions I respect are now seriously speaking about London and back in one night. This is a tremendous step forward and I hope there is nothing in this Beeching report which will stop the logical development of road transport along these lines.
Few manufacturers, in my opinion, can ignore the question of costs. It is always n prevalent element in their minds. But now fewer and fewer stocks are kept and service becomes all the more important. The evidence that used to be given in court of the urgency of certain types of traffic was very impressive indeed. In such cases service is as important as costs. But on a great deal of the traffic, costs would be the criterion; traffic would go to B.R. or fail to go to B.R. on the question of costs.
Williamson: '
Holden: The manufacturer will find out that, over
all, people are not holding a stock of goods and the smaller customers cannot take bulk orders all at once. They have to keep taking a small amount, and if this happens the small traffics will be the ones on which Dr. Beeching will have to charge more.
What I find so difficult to appreciate is that other countries can provide a very efficient railway service, which we have not done for years. I have seen this in North America and on the Continent, where railways are used extensively for the long haul. Some of the biggest firms in the U.S.A. and Canada do the local collection work with these huge trailers which are then conveyed 200 miles or so overnight on the railway piggy-back service. French and German railways provide a very efficient service and Dr. Beeching is aiming at similar service in this country. Geographical situation must have a great bearing on the problem, but I think he has got something in his ideas. Neatherway: I think we must agree that there is a tremendous wastage of transport in this country. It is a cheap commodity and like all cheap commodities is used very carelessly. Farnorth: