Divorce the Road from a Rail Complex
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Two Systems of Transport Have Nothing in Common and Cannot be Compared, Therefore There Can be No• True Co-ordination of Rules and Rates By,.
"Executive"
IHEARTILY agree with " Tantalus " in his criticism (issue dated August 20) of Mr. Roger Sewill's booklet that to try and arrive at a solution for the road ihdustry by a rates structure based on a give-and-take basis with the railways is so much waste of time—one might as well try to mix oil with water.
Since 1933 and up to 1939 the same old hackneyed suggestion ha 's been put forward by one official or another. For goodness sake let us be honest and stop imitating the ostrich. How can we compare the two transport systems? The railways can never give the equivalent fluid, efficient service to the customer, it is too vast a system for flexibility or personal ,contact, and surely it is elementary that nobody could imagine the railways conceding and welcoming the transport system of the future with open arms, and sitting back content with half a loaf. Is it not human nature to fight competition in any form?
In these remarks I am not disparaging the railway companies, which, in their own class, are just as much a national necessity as is road haulage. Why, cannot we dispel this bogy once and for all, that the successful future of a road-haulage industry lies in its co-operation with the railway companies,? They have absolutely no relationship or common bond whatsoever, and conditions of operation are vastly different. ,
In the flexibility of the modern motor vehicle the haulier has the cheapest medium to transport goods from one point to another, with a minimura of delay and very little labour. Immediately one haul is completed, it calls for very little time or administration to .get the wheels going again for a further profitable operation, •and the personal contact of all these hauliers is , such that waste, delay, and inefficieney of employees . can be dealt with at once. On top of this, hauliers have all the brilliant technical , designers of the whole of the motor industry striving to give them more modern vehicles to do the job even cheaper; this is because the designers themselves are competitive, so that even if the haulier does not get down to fractional costs, the vehicle manufacturer does this for him. How then can road haulage fail to be efficient?
Against this you have the great unwieldy administrationof the railways, with its waste of material, and of .time,. and a large surplus of staff, all of which cannot be avoided awing to the vastness and peculiarities of the rail industry, in which it is impossible for any individual to effect economies to any reasonable extent.
Road Transport as a National Asset • In My opinion, the successful future of the road industry depends on one thing, namely, Governmental recognition that it is impossible to put the clock back or even mark time, for that matter. Let the Government realize that in the road transport industry it has the greatest medium for restoring national prosperity • after this war, if we are to regain our status as a firstclass nation. Surely the assets of a country are its industries, which support themselves, and not those that can exist only by subsidies. • . .Let the Government make • up its mind ths,t.the road industry is of vital 'necessity, and that it is going to
• be 'organized' and run on a proper basis. Then set . up as before, all over the country, the Transport Corn-
missioners, eminent men, who are not pro-rail, but who are instructed to use their power to get order out of chaos and to consider every licensing application as to its degree of. necessity as affecting road traffic only, and its _proof of bona-fide new business, regardless of whether this comes from road or ran.
Let road haulage draw up its rates schedule for every commodity and distance, and the issue of a licence be on condition that these rates are not cut in any way: Failure to abide by them—proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners—should call for the immediate cancelling of the operator's licence.
Let also the issue of a licence be on condition that :the operator is a "paid up" member of one of the leading road associations, and must remain so while a licence holder. The Government should also insist upon the amalgamation of all the associations, so that all matters coneerning legislation for road transport could be conducted through the supreme committee of the combined associations and the Government.
All this, I know, will cause the railways to lose a vast amount of traffic, but it cannot be helped—this is progress. If the railways want to operate on the road they must 'be subject to the same conditions and abide by the rates schedule.
Taxation, inspection and Licensing
Transport taxation should be 'assessed according to the cost of road reconstruction, and not pl4ndere& by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, as has been done in the past to the amount of many millions in a year. . Also, let the Ministry have its own examiners to see that maintenance is kept M a high level, and insist that the loads carried do not exceed the niaximum, as laid dawn by the vehicle manufacturers.
These suggestions of mine concern the difficulties of only A and B operators, as the Defence Permit, which entitles C operators to work for hire or reward, is purely a war-time measure and will stop with the cessation of hostilities, when all C operators should be allowed to carry their own goods only, .although I think that membership of an association should be enforced, and that the vehicles must be subject to maintenance standards, which should be part of the conditions of the licence, The C licensee must, however, be left to conduct his own business, inasmuch as when properly equipped he can operate vehicles as cheaply, 'if not cheaper, than other transport companies ; also his vehicles, if well looked after and of good appearance, are 'his finest means for publicity.
I could enlarge on this future for road haulage, but I have tried to make my suggestions as clear and brief as passible, and if it smacks of a little " forte majeure " in its administration, I think this is necessary to get rid of a lot of the undesirable element in the industry, and to obtain a large body of efficient bona-fide transport operators.
repeat that a successful transport industry can be achieved only by its study as a completely new and progressive industry, distinct from all the laws and rules of rail transport. Itis a matter for road transport only, not road and rail.' Let traders and iverators, also vehicle manufacturers, force this issue,