RAILWAYS AND ROAD TRANSPORT.
Page 20
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Case Presented to the Ministry of Transport Committee on Behalf of the Road Transport Industry.
0 N TUESDAY last Major-General S. S. Long, GB., Vice-President of the Commercial Motor
• Users Association, appeared and gave evidence before the Ministry of Transport Committee appointed to inquire and report whether it be desirable that railway companies should have general or limited power to carry goods by road. The following memorandum was drawn up, and upon it Major-General Long gave his evidence :— 1.—In examining this claim, it should be considered from the standpoint of not only the welfare of industry, but also on the much broader grounds as to whether such a concession be desirable or not in the national interests.
In considering the claim, it is desirable that everyone should have certain facts in their minds, namely—
(a) It has been frequently claimed that the railway companies destroyed our canal traffic, by—in some instances—buying them out entirely until they became derelict ; in other instances, by buying up a vital link and choking the traffic thereon, etc. This sweeping assertion as a general proposition cannot be proved, but it can be proved that in numerous instances the railways did adopt thia policy, and as a -consequence, in a considerable measure, it has been the cause of the ruination and stagnation of the greater portion of the canal traffic of the country, to the serious detriment of the country as a whole.
(b) Generally speaking, as the law at present stands, the railway companies, under their .powers, are only empowered to use road transport as necessary to their business, i.e., the collection and delivery of goods which have come by, or are to be forwarded by, rail. The only exceptions to this rule are the Great Eastern and the North-Eastern Railways, which, in 1904, were given powers to work transport on the road.
Parliament Sees the Danger of Extended Road Powers.
Since that date no less than three other great railway companies applied for similar powers and were refused by Parliament.
• It should be recollected that in 1904, when the G.E.R. and the N.E.R. obtained powers, motor haulage was very much in its infancy, and few people appreciated its possible development.
When the other railways applied for similar powers, motor transport was rapidly developing and expanding, and Parliament wisely saw that granting such powers to the railway companies would undoubtedly • strangle the motor industry and tend to cause a dangerous monopoly ; hence the refusal. (c) If the railway companies' claim is allowed, the inevitable result must be as great a monopoly of the railways on the roads as they now hold over their own respective lines.
It does not involve them in any great or heavy expenditure to obtain this monopoly. Attacking the smaller towns or districts one by one, they have only to put motor vehicles in use—working them for a short period at bare cost without making actual profits—and obviously the haulage contneor must go out of business and the trader using his own vehicles must withdraw them from service ; added to which, the railway companies already possess store-houses, handling facilities, etc., which, oven if they were forced to keep separate account for their road enterprises, would not be shown against the road side of their business, as obviously they might claim from an account point of view, that these already existed for
o16 their railways, are charged against them, and should not be charged a second time.
(d) It should be borne in mind that the trader mnkez use of road transport for the following reasons :— (1) Owing to the greatly increased coat of rail trans. port, particularly in the case of class goods, and especially so in the case of " smalls," road haulage .contractors, and those firms in possession of motor vehicle a of their own, find in many instances that they are able successfully to compete against railway charges. (a) A very much more rapid and efficient service. (3) An absence of breakages, damages and claims ; goods being delivered practically from door to door without the additional handling, as by rail. (4) In many instances the removal of the neee•stity for packing. In this connection it should be remembered that it may pay a consigner to pay a much higher charge on the road, owing to being relieved of the• necessity of packing.
The Imperilling of Private Enterprise.
(e) With the eventual monopoly of the roads by the railways, as will be bound to occur should their pre sent claim be allowed, the advantages of individual competition, as at present exist on the road, would disappear, with the result that the railways would force upon the public their definite rides, by-laws, and regulations, as they to-day endeavour to do, and in most instances succeed, as regards the conditions under which they will carry goods.
2.—Ii the railway claims be granted, then it must inevitably logically follow that, having obtained a
monopoly on the roads, it could not well be resisted if they came forward with the claim that they should be permitted a similar extension of their powers as regards shipping. To-day their powers only allow them to run shipping in connection with their rail-borne traffic, but there would be no logical reason for refusing them permission to run coastwise shipping in any direction they chose, when we would arrive at the position that, canal traffic being killed or dead, road traffic absorbed, coast-wise traffic finally absorbed, and the railways would have completed the circle, and the country would be held by the throat by the greatest monopoly that has ever been forced upon the victimized public. 3.—Both the road transport and the .coastwise shipping should undoubtedly be free from any form cvf
control or unfair competition, as would occur if the railways' powers • were extended, as it is only by free competition between all three forms of transit that efficiency, good service, and economical working can., be obtained.
4.—From the economical point of view it certainly appears that the railways' claim is unsound. It has been admitted that the railways should get a fair return upon the capital invested, but that return should be earned in the business in which that money has been invested, and not by going outside and endeavouring to make profits by investing capital in another form of business.
That the railways can earn their dividends, if their present system of working, handling, etc., is reformed, is the considered opinion of many thoughtful students of railway matters. 5.—The capital value of the roads of the country is generally stated to be not less than the capital value of all the railways, and if this is so, then there can be no possible justification for giving the railways, si5 far as the carrying trade is concerned, the monopoly on these roads.
0.—The admission of the railway companies' claims would inevitably, in the end, most seriously damage, if it did not almost destroy, one of our valuable industries—viz., the motor trade—for the following reasons :- (a) At first, as great users, they would be in the position to .force the motor trade to give them the most preferential treatment.
(b) In time, they would undoubtedly build their own motor vehicles, as they do today in the case of locomotives, rolling stock, and horse-drawn vehicles. Note.—During the war some of the railway cornpanie.s made large quantities of parts for some of our leading motor inanufacturere, in larder to assist the supply of vehicles urgently required by the military authorities.
(c) The railway companies, starting their own motor factories, and with the virtual disappearance of heavy motor vehicles from the road, other than railway owned, the heavy motor trade of the country, including its very valuable export trade, would be bound to disappear.
7.---4"he acknowledging of the railway companies' claims would be-seriously detrimental to the defences of the country, for the following reasons : (a) The railway companies (and from a commercial point of view, quite rightly), would adopt a form of motor vehicle-which was best suitable to their par: tieular needs, regardless as to whether that vehicle was suitable for military purposes. It is true powers might be taken in any Act of Parliament giving the railways powers to go on the road; stipulating that the vehicles must meet the requirements of certain military standards, but it is doubtful whether, in the long run, in times of profound peace, such requirements would be fully carded out. (b) To-day there is *little doubt that one of the most eeonoinical vehicles as regards running expenses is the electric power qne, so long as that vehicle's radius of operation is limited to, say, 10 miles. Such vehicles can to-day, as regards motive power, be TIM for about one-third of the cost of the petrol lorry and, judging by the action already taken by one railway in this respect, there is little doubt that most of the other railways would also follow upon the above lines.,
If this occurred, then it should be noted that such vehicles would be absolutely and entirely worthless from a military point of view, and, in the event of mobilization, the country would practically be deprived of the eseential mechanical transport necessary for military purposes. (c) With the elimination of the greater number (if not the whole) of haulage contractors, and possibly a very considerable number of commercial users as well, the •country would thereby be depsived of the great reserve• of commercial. vehicles which is to-day available in the event of the country's needs, (8) Lastly, there is the most important point of the safety of the country to be considered, from an industrial unrest point of view. To-day the carters and motormen employed by the railways are members of the N.U.R. If the railways' claims were admitted, the strength of that Union would be enormously increased.
We have only lately gone through -a disastrous strike on the part of the coal miners, and have seen the immense less -which the -country's industry and trade have suffered in consequence ; but, even so, when miners strike, it does not bring the economical life of the country, to an absolute standstill; but, with the establishment of a railway monopoly on both rail and roads comes the natural corollary that the employees in those industries belong to one huge union, ready at any moment to obey the behests and orders of a few irresponsible leaders.
A Strike Would Stop All Movement.
We have only a short time ago seen the result of a railway strike, when (owing to the difficulties of
leaders of separate unions agreeing amongst them:
selves, and also that numbers of public haulage contractors, etc., all owned large numbers of motor vehicles) we were able to counter the railwaymen, and so force them to an agreement ; but with one huge monopoly we could no longer be in that positi,on, and, as a consequence, Me Thomas, or any other future railway leader, would be in a position, at any moment, by a lightning strike, having brought all movement to a standstill by actual starvation, to compel the nation to agree to the Union's demands, no • matter how Prepesterous. At one time h was strongly weed and recommended, and found considerable favour with the
• authorities, that the Post Office should hold and maintain a road transport of their CIWD ; but, solely for the
very reason that there was the grave danger, from the trade unrest point of view, of the complete holding up of the mails and postal matter of the country, this proposal was rejected.
9. —In a considerable measure, the arguments previously brought forward equally apply to passenger traffic by road.
10.—Bearing all the above points in mind, it is sug • gested that in no circumstances should the railways' present powers as regards the use of road trans
port be in any way extended. In fact, on the contrary, those companies who now have extended powers should undoubtedly have the same curtailed. . Note.—The National Council of the Commercial Motor Users Association at its last meeting Unanimously passed the following resolution :--" The National Council of the Cominercial Motor Users Association is of opinion that the granting of general road-transport powers to railway companies (other than for purely terminal and incidental services in connection with rail-borne traffic) would. (I) be contraryeto the national interest by conferring undue advantages upon the railway companies, (2) lead to the extinction of independent motor-haulage contractors who new provide traders with alternative transport, and (3) inevitably bring about the establishment of an effective monopoly of inland transport facilities.