Co-ordinated Distribution Essential to Industrial Development
Page 29
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE future and efficiency of industrial distribution depend cia many factors, and the co-ordination of all weans for transport is not the least of these. Such co-ordination, moreover, demands individual initiative, enterprise and imagination. If these be available in good measure, then there should be no need o. excuse for the introduction of national control.
It is possible that, while we are so busily and sympathetically, " holding the sponge " for the road-transport industry, we might neglect to cast an occasional glance at the oppesite corner of the " ring" where, perhaps, conditions are not always as they should be. To discard this metaphor for the moment, should we not consider the possible significance of these mergers, and combines that are referred to in the Press •from time to time? Are we quite happy, for example, as to how far the tentacles of the railway octopus actually extend? In this there is food for thought, and we trust that the trade associations are albie to it and .free from contamination, either directly Of indirectly. _
In the•selection Of ouismetaphor, we conceal no desire to promote a light twixt road and rail. In any case. -.ye arc far too late, for the fight is on and has been for a quarter of a century at least.
The point does arise, however, as to whether a corn: promise is possible between these two hoary old pugs, or whether they must go on slogging away at each other, blindly and groggily, until, weary of an expensive ringside seat, the Government steps in and knOcks their heads together before putting them to bed under the blanketing influence of its direct ownership and control. • The only way to avoid such intervention is for both sides to stoP " asking for it," and to get on with the job of organizing co-operative service. Whilst we disclaim the 4 ability to produce a fool-proof solution, there is no reason why we should not have a try at it. .
Here, before us, we imagine we have a railway map of Great Britain-. It plots every branch line not yet acknowledged by the railway companies as obsolescent, To assist us in our study, we shall require an analysis of all traffic that has passed over the whole system, section by section, annually for, say, the three years preceding this war.
Static Railway Policy We shall, also, require data showing any changes in the location, density and distribution relating to every major industry and every i9dustrial centre from which the railways have drawn their traffic. This may sound somewhat ambitious and arbitrary, but we are out for information, and it must be remembered that the British railway system is, to-day, precisely as it was planned and laid down over a century ago for the purpose of meeting demands as they then were. Very few modifications have been attempted since. ,
Now, a century, or even half a century, is a long time in commercial, industrial and 'social development; that is a fact with which nd one can quarrel. In the meantime, highway .constructian has been progressive, although not quite so progressive as most of us might have wished or expected. Anyway, it has not marked time, neither has the industry of commercial-vehicle design and construction.
Trunk, roads and by-passes have acquired a particular significance as arteries of commerce through which the flow of traThi steadily increases.
Before developing any argument against the railways, it would be but fair to point out that, whilst railway shales are no longer in the doldrums, their current valuation and
meteoric rise must be viewed with suspicion. Rolling stock, pf.operty and equipment, all this has deteriorated and would be placed at a very low figure it put on the market, That the war effort of this great and vital service has' earned our sincere admiration and respect cannot be denied. That the railway companies are faced With problems of unprecedented magnitude we fully appreciate. That they will tackle and overcome these in due course we have no doubt. In the meantime, can they be expected to undertake their fair share of post-war industrial traffic without protection and assistance? This query might he said to apply to all other forms of distribution.
If, therefore, we are obliged to seek and accept national 'control for one form of transport, there is no reason to reject it for the others without we are prepared to risk all the hazards of a disjointed contraption that will bungle the whole science and practice of distributibri.
Viewed from this angle, here is something that might merit the profound consideration of those with a deep knowledge of their subject—deep and practical.
.Distributfoia AO Industry
L' usreturn to our study of the railway syatem of Great 'Britain and the facts and figures which we have considered as necessary data. Commercial activities, originally identified with and confined to certain localities, have spread 'beyond ;them, opened up elsewhere or evrn moved lock, stock and barrel to a totally' different part of the country. New industries have been developed. In plain words, the significance of many individual centres, with their reflection-on traffic requirements, have altered very considerably. Also, in equally plain words, the rail way. map of Great Britain requires revision and wit) an appreciation of road development, modification.
The railway companies have sought to disguise this fact, or, shall we say, have been reluctant to admit it; by publicizing the advantages of siting factories alongside -or sufficiently adjacent to the permanent way for the construction of a convenient siding. It has not followed that those accepting this invitation have taken the fullest advantage of such facilities. They have not recognized an obligation towards the railways regarding a monopoly in their traffic and, in more than one instance, this has led to grave misunderstanding with their aggrieved ground landlords.
There is an explanation, of course, and this is the railways' inferiority in the quality of flexibility which they are struggling so hard to counterbalance by becoming road and air operators on a large scale.
One is tempted to say that if -the railway companies be really/anxious to do the job properly, flexibility is a quality not necessarily confined to operation. ID some instances, has it not been found at a premium in administration, too?
That the railways can and should have bulk traffic is common sense. No road operator in his right mind wants to carry coal to Newcastle! That the railways should attempt door-to-door delivery_ of relatively small consignments is quite another story, and as absurd and uneconomic as would be the delivery of milk to the suburban housewife by a mammoth container.
Many branch lines, the, maintenance and operation cf which have not been justified for years, and many a small railway station or "halt " reminiscent of Mr. Will Hay, should have been scrapped in favour of feeder services by road. Such services, it will be argued, should not necessarily be the prerogative of 'the railway companies, the complex of which has not altered so remarkably since the early days of the nineteenth century. Neither should it be the prerogative of haulage companies now controlled by the railways, for it comes to much the same.
With the greatest respect to the rayway companies, industry, in order to capitalize 100 per cent, on its enterprise and initiative, will, after the war, expect those same qualities reflected in distribution. Road transport is a young and new industry, totally divorced from the type of transport we read about in books. '
A suggestion that has been put forward more than once should receive consideration. It is that these obsolete branch lines with their deserted station yards—overgrown with weeds—should be converted into roadways for the bearing of flexible transport.
We have already considered many points that might be identified, not necessarily with our agreement, as signposts guiding our feet towards nationalization. Before we accept this as inevitable, let us examine a reasonable alternative that has been introduced to us partially through the exigencies of war.
First, we shall accept the axiom that the value of distribution is governed largely-by its measure of flexibility. This country is covered by a network ar railway lines, but they by no means provide a door-to-door delivery.
There are highways and by-ways, up and down the coautry, along which goods must be conveyed by road transport. Until the helicopter comes within the scope of practical politics, and can fetch and carry within the same small compass, the road vehicle will _remain on the map as our very faithful servant.
A Large Net A study of the " Classification of Merchandise " as compiled by the Railway Clearing House Committee, which represents not only the railways themselves, but many leading industries as well, shows very clearly that anything an everything is acceptable to the railways. The net is large and appreciative of the smallest sprats. In a policy where weight, size and distance are no object, there is hound to be something that we can question.
Take, for example,a consignment of mixed groceries which has to be broken down into 30 or 40 deliveries to consignees unable to collect from railhead, or a bulk consignment of so many hundred three-piece suites of furniture that a mass-producing factory is dispatching to nearly as many customers in nearly as many towns and villages.
The logical answer is that, from the point of origination, or a point en route, distribution must be made by road. II it be the former, there is then a substantial saving in packing with its reflection on bulk and weight, and with the elimination of the vexatious problem of " returned empties," for which a 'solution has yet to be discovered that will satisfy all concerned.
The railways have fought wid will continue to fight to_ the last ditch for such traffic. Their struggle to acquire a monopoly as regards household removals was Homeric but unavailing. They have used every argument and eniployed every device within their imagination to retain traffic against the will of both consignors and consignees.
The railways have their problems, and any railwayman will acknowledge that they arise, principally from goods traffic. Why, then, it may be asked, do they seek to aggravate and multiply these problems by seeking-every class of traffic, whether or not it be digestible?
On the other hand, road-haulage operators-must also be prepared to exercise discrimination. After all, it' is not a question of what the railways wish to do, or what road transport would like to do. The choice lies with the industries the main object of which lies in putting their goods before us and before the world,
That a trader or manufacturer should be allowed to use his own vehicles seems self-evident—but is it? Is there any reason why lie should not place his requirements in the hands of the public carrier—road, rail, canal DI coastwise shipping, or even the airways—according to circumstances? On the principle of each man to his own job, there seems to be some solidity in this argument, particularly when the job is that of a transport specialist.
Now, there is the question of co-operative distribution, the advantages of which are so obvious that we can only assume the hindrance to adopting it might possibly be trade jealousy, suspicion and greed.
Consider an example. Laundries in every large and spreading town are not necessarily located within one small area; neither are they confined to one side of the town. They will be found, in fact, in practically every district, but not to serve that district alone. A28
They normally fetch and carry, each one of them, froth all points of the compass. Their vans cross and recross each other's tracks for the sake of retaining a goodwill that hardly justifies the petrol, and certainly does not justify the wear and tear to our roads, or the contribution to our traffic problems, If they must hang on to. this far-flung custom and cannot devise amongst themselves a co-operative service, organized and protected, as sonic of them have been forced to do to-day, then for what purpose are their trade associations, and is not the answer a registration of customers by some higher authority?
Here is another case. A progressive-minded dealer in the London provisions market endeavoured to introduce a plan of pooled transport for the trade. " Why," was his argument, " should I send a 50-cwt. Van 10 miles beyond the area of the bulk of -its deliveries because Brown, has bought one side of bacon from me and another from the folk next door? As it is, we both accumulate dead mileage, whilst the two sides of bacon could very well travel by one van—his or mine." He added significantly, " especially as we are onmeting on cost of delivery and' nothing else." Unfortunately, this wasteful practice is common to most trades, and the answer appears to be to restrict the operation of privately owned transport covered by.0 licences to a radius representing the bulk of its deliveries, leaving everything beyond that to the public carrier. Municipal authorities maintain large fleets of goodscarrying vehicles. Here is another possible direction in which co-operation might be planned, or the services of the public carrier might be considered. It is presumed that. in the interests of the ratepayer, elimination of wasted effort and unnecessary cost is a principle that guides the policy of the average local government.
The Part-time Carriers " Should recognition of the part-time carrier be con. tinued? " is another vexed question. One is inclined In argue that he is, by special privilege, able to subsidize his legitimate business, or else use that business to support his
activities as a carrier. Out of common fairness to the a public carrier, it would appear that the B-licensee is nothing more or less than a poacher with an official permit.
The railways have been disinclined to oppose applications for limited carriers' licences for the obvious reason that, . in this, there is no direct menace to their interests, Of course they are wrong, for every ton he handles is one less for the public-carrier by road and, therefore, one less for the railways. At present the control of licensing is in the hands of a dozen Regional Transport Commissioners.
The suggestion is that, in due course, within each prescribed traffic area, all mechanically propelled goodscarrying vehicles, however now employed, should be licensed, registered, classified and held available by the respective operators for direction from a central authority in the area to wherever their services are necessary. The vehicles would work under statutory conditions to which both owner and hirer would be bound.
The directing authority; or, in other words, a committee the members of whieh would be elected by, and representative of, all concerned, would be guided by a general classification of merchandise for purposes of distribution. This classification would be sufficiently comprehensive to indicate, at once and beyond 'all argument, the nature of goods, bulk, weight, packing, distribation and rate. This plan, on the face of it, might be considered some
what grandiose and revolutionary. It is meant to be revolutionary, for there must be something very active if it is to be submitted as an alternative to .nationalization. It is a plan subject to considerable amplification, but it does contain, within it, a definite prospect of the elimination of wasted effort without undue interference on the part of the government. •
Lest it be thought that the object of the foregoing is to deprive the railways of their inherent rights, it is pointed out that a great deal of traffic which they seek to monopolize now arises from the creation and development of entirely new industries. Finally, if it be the policy of H.M. Government, plus the will of the Nation, that the railway companies should develop their flexibility by attempting to monopolize the road and the air, then let us have nationalization in fact and not in nightmare.