What the Industry Thinks
Page 54
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
of the "Report"
The Associated Equipment Co., Ltd.
The Report of the Conference on Road and Rail Transport offers no satisfactory solution to a much-debated problem, nor gives a true statement of the views of the operator of road vehicles.
It is stated the report is published representing compromises on the part of the conflicting interests, but an examination of the recommendations suggests heavy impositions on the heavy-duty vehicle, constituting a complete sacrifice on the part of the road interests. The recommended scale of taxation must be strongly opposed, and it is obvious the members of the Conference have not taken the opinions of the operators who employ vehicles which are affected.
The modern heavy-duty vehicle of two or three-axled
design, having an unladen weight of from four to seven tons and equipped with pneumatic tyres, is capable of very economical operation in terms of cost per ton-mile, and, due to its degree of flexibility and -first-class suspension, is not destructive of road surfaces, nor does it warrant an increase in taxation amounting to 125 per cent.
The employment of vehicles incorporating oil engines is subject to additional taxation, which will retard the development of a power unit designed for the consumption of home-produced fuel, and it is discouraging to makers, who have made great progress in the design of such units.
It is obviously the intention of the committee to attack one class of vehicle, the type which is admittedly most opposed to the interests of the railway, but, nevertheless, the vehicle which in certain classes of transport is most efficient and economical. The terms of reference before the committee deal with road and rail interests, but the report as published concentrates on only one side of the problem. It is difficult to presume an acceptance by certain vitally concerned sections of the industry which have had no representation before the committee.
Many other recommendations are equally unacceptable.
The system of controlling licensing and inspection is a serious restriction to development. The elimination of unsafe or obsolete vehicles is necessary, but, on the other hand, a vast proportion of heavy-duty transport is in the hands of firms of high repute, operating vehicles which are well maintained and mechanically efficient.
The motor industry, in its response to the report, suffers one very severe handicap, and that is its failure to present a united front. Many associations and organizations dealing with certain specific problems have ineffectively endeavoured to respond to the attack made on heavy-duty road transport. Obviously a very close co-ordination is desirable, and the interests affected must prepare a true response to the one-sided recommendations now under review.
N. A. HARDIE, (Chairman, Petrol-vehicle Section, and Vice-president, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Ltd.)
Commer Cars, Ltd.
. Although it is realized that the proposals made by the Joint Committee of Road and Rail Transport Services are only proposals, and not neces-sarily likely to become law without considerable modification, we cannot help viewing these proposals with considerable alarm.
That vehicles should pay for the use of the roads in direct proportion to the wear they cause to them is sound. but to put such staggering taxes on the heavier class of vehicle would appear to be going too far, and there is no doubt that the manufacture and sale of this class of vehicle will be very severely curtailed.
The fact that the vehicle using a compression-ignition engine is to be taxed so much higher is, in a way, fair, so as to make up for the loss the Revenue sustains through its not paying a petrol tax, but it would seem to be a very severe handicap to concerns that have turned their B36 attention to making this type of engine suitable for road transport, and is calculated to hamper development. There is no doubt that the lighter types of vehicle will be called upon to carry a greatly increased load, should these proposals come into force. It is sincerely hoped that if another organization be set up to deal with the mechanical fitness of vehicles and the licensing of users, it will work to a definite centralized plan.
At the present time, on the passenger-vehicle side, manufacturers have been put to very considerable cost and trouble through officials working in more or less watertight compartments, and having their own sdarate readings of the regulations and enforcing them in their own ways. If this should happen with the goods-carrying vehicle then the plight of the manufacturer and user will indeed be a sorry one. T. It. KEEP, Director.
Armstrong-Saurer Commercial Vehicles, Ltd.
Regarding the recommendations of the Salter Conference, we find it difficult to give an opinion, owing to the fact that, before any legislation can be effected, the whole scheme will have to be considered by the various interests concerned and possibly modified. We feel, however, that we ought to say that the very cheap operating costs resulting from the use of oil-cngined vehicles will make them, in all probability, less adversely affected.
If you consider a 12-ton petrol-engined long-distance haulage vehicle running 60,000 miles per annum—and this is nothing unusual—then taking its all-in costs per mile at an index figure of 100 calculated on the present basis of taxation, this, under the new system, becomes 109.
With an oil-engined vehicle of similar capacity, the present index figure is 71.8, and under the new system this would rise to 91, which would still be considerably less than that for the petrol vehicle, even before this is subjected to an increase.
L. W. HANCOCK, Publicity Manager.
Multiwheelers, Ltd.
I have had an opportunity for perusing the report of the Salter Conference and I am amazed, in view of the representation of road-transport interests on the Conference, that the report should have been a unanimous one.
From the commercial-vehicle manufacturers' standpoint, the immediate effect will be the holding up of orders for commercial vehicles until such time as the Minister of Transport shall accept or reject the whole or part of the report. This in itself, on top of the present general trade depression, will be a heavy blow to the commercial-vehicle industry.
The principle of licensing I prefer not to comment .upon, other than to say that its success must depend .entirely upon the honesty and integrity of those administering the law.
The recommendation that the Ministry of Transport should be empowered to prevent the transference of certain classes of goods from the railways to the roads, would appear to be the equivalent of suggesting that the Ministry of Transport should become honorary representative of the railway company to advocate which classes of goods the railway companies do not wish to carry.
The fact that certain classes of goods carried by road may be of such a weight as to be detrimental to the roads is, of course, presumably covered by the Construction and Use Regulations. The fact would appear to be lost sight of in the report that, irrespective of the class of load to be carried, or the weight of the load to be carried, there is an economic distance which goods should be taken by road.
No doubt the suggestions for increased taxation will meet with the approval of the °henceilor of the Exchequer, who will have added incentive for robbing the Road Pend, Apart from this, however, it can achieve no object other than to cause an intense depression over the entire haulage trade and the conimer6al-vehic1e industry in general.
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the Conference did net define more clearly the meaning of the wards "undesirable forms of goods vehicles on the road" and "undesirable traffic which is taken by road."
My summary of the situation is that a simple form of licensing, its suggested, providing there are no unwarrantable restrictions, is to be recommended, but the suggested rates for taxation would effectively place the road-haulage industry in the Same situation as at present obtains in Germany and. South Africa.
CHAS. J. 0; BOUCHER, Managing Director.
M.R.S., Ltd.
In my opinion, if the report of the Salter Conference is carried into law a definite charter will be given to the railways. The findings must have a disastrous effect on the price of transport to industry generally throughout the country. The present transport rates are particularly low and will not allow of the increased taxation; therefore, such increase must be passed on to manufacturers and merchants. In my opinion, this is not the time, in the national interest, to increase or make more difficult the trade of this country.
In respect to licensing there is no reasonable argument why the Commissioners should have power to restrict road hauliers from operating on the grounds of congestion of the roads and, at the same time, exclude ancillary users from being so restricted. The suggestion reflects the personal interest of the ancillary users on the committee.
The R.H.A. is issuing a detailed criticism of the report and is inviting all interested bodies to support its fight against a report which can reSult only in the extermination of road haulage. Every man on the road should rally to the Relif.A. and assist in this vital fight for his existence.
E. C. MARSTON, Chairman.
An Important Group of Manufacturing Companies.
It is an astounding and monstrous report—astounding in so much as it purports to be unanimous when the decisions are entirely one-sided, and monstrous as it does a gross injustice to the man in the street, compelling him to pay more for his transport without the slightest justification.
One of the causes of the present depression is the most extraordinary and dangerous modern tendency to tax one man to nay another without any question of destitution or subsistence being at stake. The report so coolly produced merely resolves itself into a further tax on industry to the benefit of the railway shareholders. Surely a Conservative Government would not be guilty of such folly?
There is not the slightest justification for any increase whatsoever in the rates of licences. Nor does the industry seek control. Control means the dead hand of the bureaucrat, and leads to stagnation. The expenditure on the roads since the end of the War has largely been of a political character, and in any event ample money is now being provided by road users for maintenance purposes.
The Conference, I submit, should properly have directed its attention to promoting the efficiency of the railways, so that the country would derive some benefit and service from these effete and inefficient organizations. I see no recommendation for the removal of the restrictions placed on the railways by the Railways Act, 1921. The Conference is content to disregard the needs of industry and to recommend, instead, additional restrictions on transport.
Is there no sanity in the country? Could not the members of the Conference see that industry and trade cannot stand one single additional tax or restriction? However, the trade associations of the country will have something pertinent to say On the matter. It cannot be expected that such a stupid and unpatriotic report, which can coolly disregard the present desperate plight of the country, will be adopted.
The encouragement of trailer haulage will further advance the popularity of trailers and light six-wheelers, following the practice in all foreign countries with advanced roadtransport development, but -the support given to the light vehicle, as is a further effect of the report, is, to my mind, a false move. The development should unquestionably be on the basis of increasing the number of wheels and the redue
thin of dead weight instead of increasing the number of transport units travelling on the road with a reduced pay load.
It is obvious to all thinking men who are acquainted with transport problems that the imsprevement of the country should have been brought about by the Conference freeing the railways from the restrictions and laws which hamper them and leaving them free to enter into open competition with other forms of transport.
Competition is life and the natural order of existence. Nature does not recognize an alternative. Without comneti: tion theie is stagnation and ultimate death. The report is thoroughly Unsound and bad.
H. R. HOOD B=7.=. Managing Director, G. Scannuell and Nephew, Ltd., Carrimore Six Wheelers Ltd., The Mann Steam and Wagon Co., Ltd. The Steel Barrel Co. of Uxbridge, Ltd.
Transport Development, Ltd.
I have read the report of the conference with considerable interest, but with the greatest regret. Initially, I would record my complete agreement that road-transport operators should "stand their corner" so far as the upkeep of the roads is concerned, also relative to the abolition of overloading, together with the necessity for mechanical fitness, but I cannot conceive why they should be penalized to the extent suggested.
Indubitably the best form of defence in such a case is attack, and I would strongly recommend that the smaller owners immediately take the fullest advantage of outstanding publicity, efficient organization and co-operative district agreements, by means of which their hands can be very considerably strengthened.
Apparently enterprise is to be for the chosen few; personally, I am with the owner of small fleets, and I am sure that there are many who are at one with me in discouraging any attempt to suppress that enterprise which has been responsible for building the British Empire, and which is essential if we are to retain our place amongst the foremost nations of the world. Pause to consider the extent of assistance rendered by small owners in response to the nation's dire used in 1926; briefly, their existence is essential to our security. W. A. SMITH, Managing Director.
A Prominent Commercial Vehicle Manufacturer
As a means for increasing unemployment in the eomrnercial-vehicle-manufacturing industry nothing better than the adoption of the recommendations of the Salter Conference could be devised.
Whilst the increased licence duties may be equitable, and will tend to reduce the competition between the railways and road-transport undertakings, they will, at the same time, tend to reduce the number of mad vehicles which can be used, particularly of the heavier types.
Perhaps this is really the object of the railway companies, which would, without doubt, wish to see the road-transport interests dealt with in the same manner as the canals were dealt with years ago.
No consideration seems to have been given to the manufacturing side of the industry. If the recommendations be adopted many road-haulage contractors will be unable to keep their businesses, which can only result in fewer vehicles being required, with consequent increased unemployment in all branches of the industry.
Tyneside Haulage Contractors.
Tyneside hauliers have received with mixed feelings the proposals made by the Salter Conference for new taxation of commercial road vehicles. An official of Messrs. Carrie and Co., road hauliers, Newcastle-on-Tyne, stated in an interview that the proposals would mean a serious increase in operating costs, and an increase in freight charges seemed certain. On the other hand, insistence on fair wages and working conditions for employees would help the better firms, and might lead to a general reorganization of the roadtransport industry, with helpful co-operation instead of wasteful competition. The Transport Workers Union welcomes the proposal that operating licences shall be issued and made contingent upon the granting of fair wages and conditions to employees. The proposal with regard to licences, said a Union official, would implement the work of the Road Traffic Act and accelerate the reorganization of an industry which had developed chaotically. A number of small haulage contractors have expressed the opinion that it is another move by the " big men "to force the little man out of business.