Road rail co-operative v co-operative benefits
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ROAD RAIL co-operation is lot the sole preserve of the UK :ransport purist. It was dis :ussed with enthusiasm in 3aville. The IRU stressed that much had been achieved to move suitable traffics volun:arily from road to rail. Con :ainers, special cargoes and 3iggyback road vehicles were ised as examples.
There had resulted benefits :o both road and rail services !nom co-operative working.
But the delegates were not :onvinced that piggyback ser vices, on a door to door comaarison with road, were as energy saving as had been :laimed.
The European railways' tariffs policies, the diversity of ;echniques employed in Europe and the customs treatment of rail-borne road vehicles were all areas of ioubt. Criticism was levelled at the rail terminal disorgansation with resultant bottleleeks.
Own account operators in 1.1rope had found great )bstacles before them in the Ise of the road/rail mode. All )perators and the railway ompanies in particular found t impossible to balance traffic. IRU resolved that piggy)ack services were not the Danacea and called on the 'responsible authorities" to -ecognise the fact.
In line with British policy :hey declared their confirmed Dpinion that there must be no iirection from road to rail. They also said that control of any piggyback movement must be vested in the road Dperator throughout. Con gress called for a stable rates "iystem which was fair and would not distort the system.
Probably the most evolutionary resolution was :o call on member states to establish road/rail companies with road interests holding the major share. This was the !ramework of the NFC and Freightliners Ltd during the 2ompany's best trading period and before it was transferred jack to British Rail.
The unladen weight of -ailborne road outfits, is, of lecessity, greater than road Drily units and IRU wants 171overnments to waive any oad penalty involving piggypack trailers.