For and Against That 10 Per Cent.
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I WOULD like to compliment you on your editorial A comment in The Commercial Motor of November 11, "Reluctant Hauliers." It was a first-class statement of facts, and the hauliers to whom the rebuke was directed are the bugbear of our industry and always have been. Unfortunately, this attitude of a large number of hauliers results in trade and industry generally having a poor opinion of hauliers.
We are fully alive to this position of necessary increases in rates from time to time, and we were all set to go ahead to notify our customers of an increase in rates from October 1 when we heard that the Road Haulage Association proposed to make a recommendation regarding an increase. We held up our notification to our customers until the R.H.A. recommendation became known, then, early in October, our notification went out that an all-round 10% increase would take effect as and from November 1. As far as we know, we are the only operator other than B.R.S. to have as yet notified any customer in this area to this effect, and we have met with only a little opposition—a few irate comments from customers asking why it was necessary when no other operator intended to implement the recommended increase.
In some cases the customers have been told very definitely by operators that they have no intention of increasing their rates. We cannot understand this attitude of the hauliers, and most of the prominent haulage firms in this area seem afraid to take the initiative in this matter.
We have told a number of people for whom we transport goods that we shall have no further interest in their traffic unless they are prepared to pay a reasonable rate for the services provided.
Botley, Southampton. J. A. HILL, Managing Director, Hill and Sons (Botley and Denmead), Ltd.
Have You Considered All The Reasons ?
THE leading article "Reluctant Hauliers (The Commercial Motor, November 11) is quite obviously directed at people like ourselves, but perhaps you have not considered all the reasons why there is reluctance. Nobody, we are quite sure, will disagree with the reasons put forward for a 10 per cent, increase in rates. But what of the reasons why an increase • cannot be charged?
First and foremost are the ridiculous rates being charged by the railways. Their determination to carry traffic has led them to offer to do so at rates which, in many cases, cannot possibly cover their terminal charges. I would even go so far as to suggest they cannot even cover their originating terminal charges.
This one reason alone mitigates against any hope of increasing road rates. Actually, the reverse operates, and gives all sorts of reasons for lowering rates if traffic is to be held and not lost.
Another very powerful reason against being able to increase rates is the amount of illegally operated transport available to those who seek to get their transport at the nt2 cheapest possible rate. These illegal operators (whether they be owner-drivers or operators of several vehicles), either have no licence whatsoever, or have a C licence, and are therefore in a position very considerably to reduce their overhead costs. Insurance and wages are but two items.
I had a case brought to my notice only this week, where one of this fraternity—an owner-driver operating ostensibly on a " C " Hiring Margin—carried goods for a distance of approximately 80 miles, loaded in one direction only, and rendered an account for the haulage at a rate of 18s. per ton (8-ton loads).
The firm for whom this owner-driver carried these goods (on their "C" Hiring Margin licence), called the ownerdriver into their office and produced documents showing that a local clearing house had already carried some of the traffic at 12s. 6d. per ton. They told this owner-driver that if he wanted to carry the traffic, he could, at us. 6d. per ton. The owner-driver agreed to accept 12s. 6d. per ton for the traffic already carried and undertook. to carry on with further traffic at the rate of Ils. 6d. per ton.
Is it any wonder that I am one among many other "Reluctant Hauliers "?
Wisbech, J. ARCHER TRIBE, Cambs. C. Tribe and Sons.
Converting Rail Tracks To Roads
IN his political commentary (The Commercial Motor, A November 4) Janus mentioned the Railway Conversion League. I would like to make it quite clear that we only want to segregate the fast, long-distance traffic from the slow, short-distance vehicles and regulations reserving these excellent roads, capable of carrying over 1,000 vehicles per hour per lane, solely for the use of a few specially constructed vehicles which never leave the system would be a fantastic waste of valuable road space.
I would suggest that on the vast majority of the converted railway system, regulations similar to those on our existing motorways would be quite adequate. This would exclude all pedestrians, cyclists and mo-peds which account for over half the deaths on our existing medieval roads.
There would, however, be some urban converted railways which would be used only by buses and it would often be necessary to reserve certain lanes for public transport vehicles on the main railway lines running into London and other big cities.
However, this would only be on a very small mileage of the vast system and in the case of some duplicated and disused single-track railways they might just be incorporated into the existing road system or be used as general purpose roads until such time as the traffic was heavy enough to make it necessary to impose motorway regulations and at the same time improve the road by widening and eliminating crossings on the level.
A system of minimum speed limits has a lot to be said for it, but the main thing is to get examples of main, suburban and branch line railways converted into roads as
m as possible. Then, I am sure, we shall find out how A we can make use of them from practical experience.
Harrogate. A. 1. WATKINSON.
Buses on the Wrong Frequency
I a recent article concerning the operation of high-capacity double-deck buses you gave the impression that the luction in frequencies made possible by the use of these nicles was advantageous to all concerned. Doubtless, to ; operator faced with a steadily decreasing number of ssengers, a reduction in frequencies, with its attendant luction in running costs, must seem most desirable. From
passengers' point of view, however, it is little short of curse.
The average person in a large town cannot and should not be expected to know the times of all the buses he wants to use. In reducing the frequencies, the operator is very often forcing that person to wait an uncomfortably long time for his bus, and when this has happened to him a few times he may plan alternative means of travel, in which case the operator will have to face the loss of yet another passenger.
In place of this defensive attitude shown by so many operators, I suggest a policy of aggression. Fight the falloff in passengers by operating high-frequency services with smaller buses operated by one man only wherever possible. Supply the passengers with good heating and ventilation, a smooth ride, and, if there is a demand for them, run limited stop services from the suburbs to the city centre.
In short: if you want to keep your passengers, keep them happy.
Edinburgh, 10. D. R. ANDERSON.