1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162 
to ic
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Reserved judgement
by janus
PRUDENTLY excluded from the annual report of the Licensing Authorities for 1970 is any inkling of their preference as between the old licensing system and the new. Some of them must have at least a fleeting regret for the opportunities once available to shape the destinies of hauliers and to control the flow of traffic.
Formerly, the reports often contained shrewd comments on the changes in transport requirements brought about by the development of new industries and perhaps the decline of some others. The Licensing Authority had to keep himself informed of what was happening and must have taken pleasure in calculating a grant which exactly fitted a need.
Whether or not this subtle analysis promoted efficiency and road safety, it is no longer required of the Licensing Authority. His task is limited to summing up the resources and sometimes assessing the character of applicants.
Admittedly, he has a little more discretion than was originally proposed. The first draft regulations envisaged a virtual inventory of the applicant's equipment and premises. On this basis, it might almost have been possible to replace the Licensing Authority by a computer. Even as things are, however, he must be very much in the hands of his examiners. He must generally accept their verdict on an operator's facilities and this will determine the size of the grant.
WITHOUT being able to help himself, the examiner is coming , to take the place of the objector under the old system. The traffic courts must sometimes seem empty, and deprived of drama, when the representatives of hauliers and of the railways no longer appear to argue against the necessity for granting a licence. The objections were so numerous that nobody bothered to count them. But the reports show that up to the end of September last there were only 12 objections to applications for operators' licences. Of the total, six were lodged by the police, five by the Road Haulage Association and one by a local authority. Neither the Freight Transport Association nor the six qualified trade unions saw any reason to object.
Most Licensing Authorities would agree with the verdict of Mr John Else in the West Midland area that it is "much too early to express any opinion on the value and ultimate effectiveness of this new licensing system". In its annual report for 1970 the British Railways Board has endeavoured to propagate much the same opinion on its own activities following implementation of the 1968 Transport Act.
WITH the most careful retouching, the railway picture can hardly be made to look dazzling. On a turnover of £658m, the overall working surplus for the year was £9.5m, less than
two-thirds of the surplus of L14.7m in 1969. Traffic reckoned in passenger miles or ton miles went up slightly and revenue also increased, but the return on work done cannot be entirely satisfactory. For example. the • receipt per net ton mile of 1.29p in 1970 was the same as in the previous year, although clearly the cost had risen.
Unpalatable as the figures may seem, BR has not allowed them to disturb its serenity. Many of the problems facing the railways are played down in the report, perhaps deliberately. The drop in the surplus is attributed to the Menai Bridge fire, the coal and dock strikes and changes in the Government's grant-aid rules.
Obviously, the time is not ripe for a further appeal for assistance. Successive Transport Acts have made generous provisions to steer the railways towards solvency. The historian of the future may come to the conclusion that this was the main. if not the sole, reason for the legislation. For the present, and for at least as long as a surplus of some size is visible, the railways must show a confident face.
ONE brief reference is permitted as a kind of insurance against future calamity. Abolition of carriers' licensing from December 1 last, the report points out, gives freedom of operation to all goods vehicles for the first time in nearly 40 years. The change had little immediate effect ' "hut is bound to affect rail carryings adversely in future years," the report continues.
This is as far as BR will permit itself to go in criticism. One year ago, the 1969 report was boldly urging the Government to give effect to the legislation which has now been dismantled. While recognizing the problems involved, BR considered that there was "a strong case for the early introduction of quantity licensing in certain special cases, for example, the short-distance haulage of heavy bulk traffics such as aggregates". . Evidently, BR keeps itself carefully tuned in to the right political wave-length. The aggressive tone of the 1969 report was appropriate in the final period of the Government which had passed the 1968 Act. The railways wanted to secure the maximum benefit while there Was time, knowing that a change of Government would inevitably bring a change in the climate.
BR has adapted itself. in 1970 report by exchanging aggression for a concern about the environment. It was particularly appropriate to dwell on the subject, says the report, because 1970 was European Conservation Year. No doubt it is even more appropriate that the year saw the creation of the new Department of the Environment, with a powerful head in Mr Peter Walker.
.Investment in railways can produce a service to the public with minimum damage to the environment, the report claims. "The scars created by railway construction have long since healed. The disturbance of the environment created by railways is now small indeed compared with that caused by airfields and, especially, motorways—those 'voracious consumers of land', as they have been described. Atmospheric pollution from railways is trifling compared with that generated by motor transport."
R at the moment, the report complains, has much unused
capacity that can be taken up at minimum additional cost, "inflicting minimum damage on. the -environment". The case should not be expressed in terms of sentiment or even of amenity alone. "Social costs are real costs, at any rate in the long term; and relying solely on the test of short-term profitability may well produce consequences which posterity will condemn."
From the context, it is not clear whether the report is concerned with road transport in general, or with commuter traffic or long-distance haulage in particular. There is certainly an implied challenge to the Government which can be followed up by Mr Richard Marsh as BR chairman.
THE appointment is confirmation enough that the Conservatives are at least as much concerned about the railways as their predecessors in office. Operators cannot afford to ignore the indications, in the 1970 report and elsewhere, that the railways are conducting a strong campaign for public support, with the environment as the trump card.
Statistics published recently by the Department ought to provide an immediate answer to such a campaign. They show, not only that toad transport's share of the traffic is increasing, but that the total volume of traffic is also increasing. Transfer of a little extra from road to rail would make no perceptible impression on the problem. The environment issue is not relevant to the road-rail argument.