RAILWAYS AND ROAD TRANSPORT.
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Effective Propaganda Work, on Behalf of Independent Road Transport Units, Against the Efforts of the Railways to Secure Wider Powers.
down the rebuffs which they have received
• THE RAILWAY companies have not taken •lying
down the rebuffs which they have received continuously since the proposal was mooted that they should embark upon the transport of passengers, goods, and live stock—the provision and operation of road transport services irrespective of whether they are connected with the transport of goods by railways, or otherwise.
The report of the Departmental Committee Which was appointed by the Ministry of Transport, and which sat in February last, on the question as to whether the railway companies should have general .. or limited power to carry goods by road, was, by a majority consisting of the representatives of road transport interests' the Federation of British Industries, and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, adverse to the proposal. Those members of the committee who were in favour of granting the powers asked for were directly associated with railway interests. Since the publication of the report of that committee, the railways have carried on active propaganda throughout the country, in order to prepare the public mind for the change which is desired by them. In opposition thereto, -very careful work has been carried out by the Standing Joint Committee of Mechanical Road Transport Associations by the Federation of British Industries, and by the
Associations, Legislation Committee. On Tuesday last a meeting of the Parliamentary Road Transport Committee was convened by Sir William JoynsonHicks, Bart., M.P., chairman, and Viscount Curzon, M.P., hon. see., for the purpose of considering the claim of the railway companies for such powers, because it was then expected that a new clause with that object in view would be moved on the report stage of the Railways Bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
Posting Members of Parliament on the Subject.
A memorandum was .issued, with the notice convening the meeting, in which it was said that it is not disputed by the 'road tranattort interests that road competition does, • in fact, necessarily deprive railway companies of a remunerative class of traffic, and that the useful zone of road transport shows a tendency to extend, but it was contended that, in the public interest, it is most advisable that no check should be placed by the legislature, or by any other means, upon the normal development of an expeditious and economical means of transportation. The question that has to be faced is whether the enlargement of the existing statutory powers of railway companies to provide and operate road services completely independent of the railway systems (for it must be remembered that these wider powers are already held by certain of the railway companies, having been granted many years ago, when independent road transport was not strong enough to offer any opposition) will be likely, either at once or ultimately, to encourage or extend the normal development in the public interest of a comparatively modern industry.
The door would be open to most serious consequences (against, which Parliament has always most assiduously. guarded the public) if it were once admitted that the powers of 'the railway companies could be extended into other spheres or directions, irrespective of their primary functions as railway camera, for the new railway groups set up in the
Railways Bill will, in effect, be monopolists of railway transport in their various zones. With vast capital and vast revenue in their hands, they will have opportunities to divert their money to purposes outside a their proper functions, and this has always called for stringent limitations. There is evidence to show that railway road services, in the past, have not been a financial success, and, if the railways are granted the wider powers asked for, they might do one of two things ; the first would be to develop their-road service to such an extent as to kill competition from independent transport units, and then to drive all the traffic back to the railways, so depriving the public of a useful alternative mode of transport ; or they might take the other _course -of developing the road service with a view to a permanency. In the latter case, it would have to be at the expense of the railways depriving them of the more remunerative classes of traffic, which would zit once throw heavier expenses upon the bulkier and lower grades of goods. Thus it will be seen that, whichever course is taken by the railways, will not be to the benefit• of the public. Manufacturers, traders, and merchants, in the event of the disappearance ,of independent road' haulage units, would be entirely in the hands of monopolists, and one has only to remember what has been done by the railways in the matter of the canals to realize that there would be no compunction on the part of railway interests 'in crOshing out road transport. _
Powers Should be Strictly Limited.
The powers of the new railway groups should be expressly limited to services incidental to the carriage of goods and passengers by rail.At present, the railways, it is agreed, suffer under great limitations in this respect, which are out of date in these days, but, if they are allowed to provide road services incidental to railway traffic, the full needs of the case will be met.
A very interesting and powerful manifesto upon the proposed new clause was addressed to all members of the House of Commons by the Standing Joint Committee of Mechanical Road Transport ASsociaMons, in which the arguments of the railways were assailed, and counter-arguments were put forward in favour of no extension to the powers of railway cempanies beyond what is contained in the .opening paragraph of Clause 44 of the Railways Bill. The railway companies, in effect, enjoy a statutory monopoly and are immune from the. stimulus of competition throughout large • districts ; should they he allowed to establish road transport services, a door must be opened to competition with independent undertakings, due to the impossibility of insuring that the proper apportionment is made, against the accounts of their road traiisnort services, of railway overhead and accommodation .charges.
. It is pointed out that the railway companies, although some few of them enjoy the desired powers, failed to .develop road transport until it was shown that it could compete with them for certain traffic over certain distances.
There is a large amount of capital now invested in road haulage, and, if this is to he duplicated at the present time, the waste that would result would he a national disaster. The railways must pay on their own merits and on their services rendered, instead of by monopoly after ruining independent road transport.