Get Off the Road !
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
F. 4VERY time I see an announcement praising the plans of the railways to put hauliers out of business, I wonder what sort of an outcry there would be if the hauliers issued an official declaration of war on the railways. In the minds of the public, road transport is fast becoming one of thedisreputable industries that we could well do without were it not for the -low tastes of certain people. Any other form of transport is to be preferred, and:it becomes almost a national ,duty to see that as much traffic as possible is taken off the roads.
Charges schemes now to be submitted by the British Transport Commission to the Transport Tribunal need do no more than fix a ceiling below which the railways may make practically any variations they please. They will be able, if they wish, to undercut other operators for some traffic, and to quote rates up to the maximum for a consignment they do not particularly want.
This is competition of the most vigorous kind, and should lead to a cheaper and better service however much the Socialists—as they did in the recent debate in the House of Commons—may deplore the abandonment of the philosophy of integration. What I find hard to . understand is why the competition that was something to shudder at when hauliers indulged in it becomes all at once respeotable when the railways decide to make use of their new-found freedom in order to cut rates.
Good for a Cheer Almost any suggestion -for taking traffic off the -road is good for a cheer in almost any circumstances. I have waited in vain for some reply to the statement recently made by Field Marshal Lord Montgomery that bulky and heavy loads should be transferred from the roads to coastal sea traffic and canals. The Field Marshal had what I should have thought the temerity to choose this theme as a suitable opening for the Motor Show at Earls Court. His skill in the calculation of risks had not deserted him. Nobody protested. The Field Marshal might have got away with it even if he had suggested that all traffic consigned by road should be taken out and sunk in the middle of the Atlantic.
The railways like to put it that they are out to win traffic back from hauliers. It is not easy to understand exactly what this means. More traffic was carried by rail in 1953 than in 1952, whereas the tonnage carried by British Road Services declined. Hauliers were severely restricted in the long-distance field, and Still are except for the comparatively small number that have so far bought transport units or hold satisfactory permits. For the most part the hauliers have not yet got the traffic that the railways are proposing to take from them.
There would be more sense in the suggestion that the railways want the trader to stop using his own transport. They may be reluctant to put the point in so many words because they feel the trader has developed an antipathy to the succession of busybodies who make solemn pronouncements on how his traffic should be carried. A section of the Labour Party is harrying the C4icence holder at every opportunity, perhaps under the delusion that such a policy makes a sound plank in an election platform. The railways do not share that delusion, and may think the haulier makes an easier target. The unfortunate impression left is that a fixed volume of traffic is available for professional carriers each year and that road and rail must scramble for the biggest share. This is not much better than schizophrenia in the Ivory Tower, where once there reigned a cloistered integrated peace, undisturbed by the rude outside world where the C-licence holder flourished like a green bay-tree. Competition should not be merely a frenzied squabble over the spoils of the Commission. It should rather be directed outwards towards traffic that the Commission lost or signally failed to gain.
Honest competition does not preclude co-operation on some points. Between road and rail there should be more agreement than discord. Before nationalization there were plans for the two sides to work together. The authors may be a little ashamed of them now after so many years' bitter-sweet experience of forced collaboration. Something new would have to be devised, pointing towards the future and not back to 1946.
Deprived of Means of Life Rusting somewhere in an odd corner is the liaison machinery that it was once hoped would ease the friction between nationalized transport and free enterprise. Like some creature deprived of the means Of life, it lost most of its faculties and now functions mainly as a convenient medium for joint negotiation on licensing matters. The friendly spirit has not evaporated entirely. Ithas always been more cordial, or so it seems, between hauliers and the railways than between hauliers and B.R.S.
A revival and overhaul of the liaison machinery would not be out of place. It is all very well for the railways to talk, as they do, of cutting a rate where it is a case of pleasing a good customer, and leaving a rate alone where they would rather lose the traffic. Rate-cutting is a slippery slope on which it is rarely possible to move gracefully into a prepared position. The trader is a rare bird who cannot successfully play one side off against another.
Not Charging Enough There are reports that road haulage rates are falling, and there may have been room for reduction. It is certainly true that some operators, including certain purchasers of transport units, are not charging enough to give them a reasonable return. They may go out of business in the end, but will have been sufficiently active in the meantime to disturb, if not upset, the carefully laid schemes of the railways.
The Commission are not alone in planning a new rates policy. Many hauliers, as well as the more responsible clearing houses, realize how important it is to have a reasonable schedule of recognized rates. If the railways and the hauliers have the same purpose in mind, it seems sensible for them to get together. Rates need not be identical for both sides, but they could at least bear some relation to each other. The accent of the competition would be on service, and the traffic would have a chance of finding its own level. This appears to be what the railways want. They can best achieve it by co-operation rather than running the risk of a mutually pernicious rates war.