. . giving pleasure only to the transport mandarins'
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FROM the outset the railways evidence to the Geddes Committee on the subject of track costs made the most satisfactory sense if it were considered as an exercise in the literature of the absurd. It was at no time discussed in this column in any other terms, but as usual the support of a more considerable authority was needed before the idea became generally acceptable. Often it is not so much what is said as who says it. The appropriate —and what ought to be the last word—has now come from no less impressive a source than the Transport Holding Company.
Not so long ago British Road Services—which is the same as the Transport Holding Company in the present context--were so dominated by the proximity of the railways that they had little to say on any important issue. Now and again, especially on the too frequent occasions when a Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to add to the burden of taxation on road transport, B.R.S. would nerve themselves to give a bleat of protest, like a sheep in wolfs clothing. Only with greater freedom to manage their own affairs have they acquired an authentic voice.
The voice is unmistakable in last week's memorandum to the Geddes Committee. Methodically, bit by bit, the hatchet men of B.R.S. chop into pieces the flimsy structure built a few months ago by Dr. Beeching's backroom boys —jestingly described by them as a study of relative true costs. Subsequent comments on this study have been rather like a Dutch auction, with each interest in turn cutting a little more off the railways' estimate of the cost of providing roads for the heavy goods vehicle. The calculations of the Transport Holding Company produce the lowest figures yet
Whereas the railways claimed that the cost of providing roads amounted to 7-02d. per mile for a 10-ton capacity lorry and 10-34d. for a 16-tonner, the latest rebuttal fixes the cost at only 2144. and 2.71d. respectively. Operators of such vehicles, the memorandum continues, are already paying tax equivalent to 4-0d. and 5-2d. per mile, and would still not be making a loss for the Government if these payments were halved rather than doubled or trebled as the railways have claimed.
The new memorandum does not stop at this point. It criticizes the whole approach of the railways to their subject. The original study was concerned only with trunk roads and motorways, The Transport Holding Company suggests that it is not valid to regard these 8,500 miles of road as a separate cost entity distinct from the total road network of nearly 20,000. Goods vehicles require and use all classes of road.
Without putting it in so many words the memorandum hints that any direct comparison between road and rail costs can only be misleading. It rejects the idea that the costs should be pooled or equalized in some way and points to the hidden or manifest financial advantages which the railways enjoy. Their capital accumulated before 1955 no longer bears interest and they are getting a heavy subsidy direct from the Exchequer. On the other hand they no longer suffer from the constraints which might have made a cost comparison equitable. They are no longer common carriers. They no longer have to publish rates and can close lines and discriminate between traffic.
Perhaps the Geddes Committee will listen to the new voice and draw a line finally under what has been, one must admit, a sterile controversy giving pleasure only to the transport mandarins. If the memorandum contributes towards this effect the Transport Holding Company will have performed a valuable service to the whole of the road transport industry.
Another onslaught on a cherished idol came last week from Mr. G. K. Newman, secretary-general, Road Haulage Association. He has exposed the concept of a transport overlord as nothing more or less than a disguised attempt to re-shape road transport in the supposed interests of the railways. The existing controls, mainly exercised by the licensing authorities and possibly to be brought up-to-date by the Geddes Committee, were imposed to help the railways and are already sufficient. Difficulties such as urban congestion and the financial decline of the railways, said Mr. Newman, are no excuse for wholesale interference with those elements in the transport pattern which are functioning satisfactorily. There is increasing co-operation between hauliers and the railways. The best hope for the future lies in this direction rather than in yet more one-sided restrictions.
An advisory committee on transport or a high-level inquiry would be a different matter, said Mr. Newman. Although he did not draw it the obvious parallel is the appointment of Dr. Beeching to formulate proposals to put the railways on their feet. Dr. Beeching is yet another example of an authoritative voice stating no more than the obvious. His proposals were not novel. They set out clearly what for many years many people had been saying ought to be done.
The magic of the plan for re-shaping the railways lies chiefly in the personality of its accredited author. Dr. Beeching has not merely grasped the solution to the railway problem; he has had the strength of character to overcome the daunting obstacles in the way of putting that solution into effect. For almost the first time the public are able to put a face to the railways. It may be a temptation to suppose that the same face and the same personality can produce the same kind of results over the transport industry as a whole.
This is an illusion. There is no transport problem in the same way as there is a railway problem. It is more correct to say that there is a situation some aspects of which are causing concern. Because there is no straightforward problem there is equally no straightforward solution.
Any attempt to find one on the lines of the Beeching plan for the railways would more than likely, as Mr. Newman suggests, lead in a retrograde direction towards the hopeless decision of bolstering up a declining form of transport.