Opinions and Queries
Page 64
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Railways Cannot Handle the Traffic
VOU have recently touched upon the problem of fuel rationing, and mentioned the difficulties of the commercial-vehicle operator.
The Government have received an assurance from the chairman of the British Transport Commission that British Railways can handle all that is transferred from road.
I do not believe this is possible, and I have endeavoured to calculate the approximate additional tonnage that may have to be carried by rail if commercial-vehicle operators are restricted to 75 per cent. of normal fuel requirements. No account is taken of the obvious fact that sorne of the difficult road traffic. especially that which has to be carried to destinations off the main trunk routes, will be the first to be shed by the road people.
The Seventh Report of the Road Haulage Disposals Board reveals the various types of vehicle sold by British Road Services and now operated by long-distance freeenterprise road hauliers. They number 19,303 with an estimated carrying capacity of 159,209 tons. Apart from tM meat and parcels fleets of British Road Services, the Board similarly reveal that 7,669 vehicles are retained by the general haulage side of British Road Services. A fair estimate of the carrying capacity of this fleet is 76,690 tons.
These two fleets are undoubtedly used for longdistance general goods and have a combined daily carrying capacity of 235,899 tons, which for this exercise can be reduced 15 per cent. for repairs, delays, etc.. leaving a figure of 200,514 tons. Taking into account loading efficiency, say, 70 per cent., although it may be less, the daily tonnage carried is estimated at 140,357, and on a 25Q-day-year basis, 35,089,250 tons annually. At a figure of 40s. per ton average charge the freight charges earned total £70,178,500 per annum.
Traffic receipts published by the British Transport Commission in respect of British Railways reveal that, for merchandise and livestock, they earned a gross figure of £87,618,000 in the first 44 weeks of this year— roughly, £104m. for the year.
This traffic classification compares with the road traffic, which earns an estimated £70,178,500, and if a 25 per cent, diversion takes place, British Railways will receive additional freight with an estimated annual value of £14,035,700-16 per cent. The annual tonnage is estimated at 8,772,312, and the daily at 35,089 tons.
Additional to the 26,972 road vehicles already detailed are 61,000 C-licence vehicles, and a balance of 12,697 A. Contract A and B-licence vehicles, which are said by the secretary of the Road Haulage Association to be directly competing with British Road Services and, therefore, assumed to be long-distance vehicles. They total 73,697 units. I have no known means for calculating the carrying capacities of these vehicles, but as the ratio is nearly three to one, another huge transfer of tonnage will, presumably, take place.
Left out of these calculations altogether are the following vehicles:— (a) The low-loading fleet of the country—several hundred vehicles, and road tankers; (b) B.R.S. parcels, 4,109; (c) B.R.S. meat, 491; (d) short-distance A and B licence, 128,000; (e) short-distance C licence, 889,000.
The figures in (d) and (e) were also quoted by the c24 secretary of the Road Haulage Association in The Commercial Motor on September 21 this year.
The actual tonnage that may eventually be4ransferred to rail has to be almost left to the imagination, but is enormous, and I do not see how the railways can possibly undertake the actual carrying, let alone cope with the administration.
Urmston, Nr. Manchester. R. W. ROUSEt
Managing Director. Smith's of Eccles Ltd.
Give Priority to Hauliers
MAY I compliment you on the comments in your leading article, "Crazy Show," in The Commercial Motor dated November 30. Your first paragraph, I think, sums up the whole scheme, which I believe is so silly that it can never succeed.
I agree with your remarks, but with one very serious' exception, that is your suggestion that "an urgent need is the pooling of C licensees and hauliers." I would ask you to look seriously at the present position in which we find ourselves, bearing in mind that C licensees by and large operate their own transport for their own private and particular reasons.
Let us consider the position. Operators of C licences are industrialists, manufacturers or distributors and they look forward to their profits from their own main business as manufacturers or distributors. I could quite well imagine that manufacturers would be righteously indignant if we transport operators commenced manufacturing as an ancillary service. Do please let us accept the principle of "every man to his trade."
The reason I am so strong in my feelings is that if your suggestion were carried out it would, on the one, hand, result in the abstraction of traffic from the legitimate haulier, with a consequent loss of earnings to the haulier, and on the other hand, would increase earnings to the manufacturer and result in additional profits on his "side-line."
We are not at war at the moment, and I cannot visualize any government department directing industry in such a way that earnings are directed from one individual to another. Do please let us have common sense; the manufacturer has to meqt his transport charges, either by employment of transport operators or for the use of his ancillary fleet. Surely, he should suffer some hardship together with the hauliers, not improvement, because of the economic situation.
Stockton-on-Tees. A. DARLEY.
THE suggestion that C licensees might be given short" term B licences during the present emergency is, to my mind, like putting the cart before the horse. Surely, the sensible and proper thing to do is to ensure that Aand B-licensed hauliers are operating to 100 per cent, capacity.
If the professional haulier and the railways together are unable to cope with the volume of traffic offered, then the C licensee might be given special authority to carry return loads provided that he can satisfy the Licensing Authority that there is the need to operate his own vehicles.
The ARTCO set-up is designed primarily to ensure capacity loading in every direction. Give the professional haulier the fuel that would be-wasted by one-way operation and you must obviously create a tremendous saving.
At a recent conference of ARTCO traffic managers it was unanimously agreed that, during the em.ergency, all ARTCO members would backload sub-contractors used by members in order to save fuel.• Our organization is ready and anxious to co-operate with any Government authority or trade organization in the study of ways and means t6 keep traffic moving efficiently with the minimum use of fuel.
London, S.W.1. Ni. W. HARRIS.
*Chairman.
Associated Road Transport Contractors, Ltd.
Save Fuel By Raising Limit ?
REGARDING the possible saving of fuel, necessitated as a result of the Suez affair, I would suggest that this could be assisted by immediately raising the speed limit for the " heavies " to 30 m.p.h.
At the lower speed, a well-laden vehicle can seldom remain in top gear for any long period, in fact, more often than not it has to run in a lower ratio.
Now the situation is not going to be improved, if we have police patrols throwing their blue bags and catching drivers at about 22.5 m.p.h.
Fochabers, Moray. ALEXANDER Ross.
Has the Millennium Arrived ?
IT is not surprising that there have been murmurs of I protest against a proposed commission of inquiry into road transport, and your correspondent,. "Janus," has demolished the idea in his usual effective manner. Unfortunately, all minds do not see the subject through the same eyes as "Janus."
In my letter, "Will There be a Next Time?" (The Commercial Motor, November 2, 1956) I asked:—" Is it impossible for a commission to be set up by Parliament, with wide powers of inquiry, to report on the functions of the present and future pattern of all road transport in Britain?" I inferred that the operative word was " but admittedly did not make it clear that private cars and passenger vehicles should come within the scope of such an inquiry; which would include the physical as well as the political aspects; and from which the railway angle could not be excluded.
Again, in an earlier letter. " is Saturation Roint (of motor vehicles) Approaching?" (The Commercial Motor, May 4, 1956), I said:—" The subject is far above the purely sectional vehicle interests, and it is easier to suggest an alternative than a solution. The obvious alternative is restrictions upon the numbers of all classes of vehicle to the capacities of the towns and cities to absorb them. Before this comes about and each class of vehicle user is set against the other, it might be Well for all affected parties to appraise the present and future positions with a singleness of purpose."
The foregoing ties up with the statement of Mr. Hugh Molson, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, at Aldenham, where he was reported as saying "That the Minister intended to relieve congestion in London by reducing the number of cars in London streets."
It is only too true that road transport requires a period of tranquillity to do an honest job, but I submit that, even if the political aspect is extinguished, which it is not, road transport cannot do its job anything like 100 per cent. efficiently because of the ever-increasing physical aspect of congestion. It is also true that we do not want more Government guidance and controls, but can they be avoided?
No one who can recall the chaotic conditions prevail ing before 1930 will say that the Road Traffic Acts of 1930 and 1933 did anything but good for the industry. The two Acts instituted the system of licensing that we have today for passenger and goods vehicles. They were virtually the birth of the orderly development of road transport.
It was due to that progression, guided if you like, that civilian transport was able to play such an effective part during the war period. Had there been no system of vehicle licensing and restriction of driving hours, it requires no stretch of the imagination to visualize what conditions would have been like now with the number of vehicles on the road trebled. With no licensing would the multiplier have stayed at three? It is certainly • very doubtful.
Even assuming that there had been no ideologic political interference since 1945, the big question of congestion would still have arisen and be outstanding. It cannot be much longer denied. Whilst roads can be made to contain an ever-expanding number of vehicles, the position of towns and cities is different. Only by flattening and rebuilding them could a cure be effected.
We have now reached the stage, not entirely edifying,
where one section blames the other for its individual ills. Public services fault the inroads of the private car and appear to be in the position of the railways of the "square deal" days. The private-car user complains about the " juggernauts " of the highways, and says that those goods should go by rail. The small-van user rants at the private car and the heavier commercial vehicle, whilst the operator of the " heavy " in turn points out the delays caused by the other two.
Local authorities have tried, and are trying, several things to ameliorate conditions; such as one-way streets; " no waiting this side ''; no deliveries after 10 a.m.," etc. None of the palliatives is, however, freeing the slowly clogging wheels, and the difficulties of operating transport are becoming more pronounced. As time goes on, the position will steadily deteriorate, with sectional demands becoming more vociferous.
There is also the overall economic aspect of the country to be considered. One of the reasons given for denationalization was that it was hoped that the rapid increase in C licences would slacken off. Whilst the tempo has lessened the hope has not been confirmed. At the same time the increase in private cars has been fantastic. Taking 10 years as being the average vehicle life, it now requires an output of over 500,000 vehicles of all classes—excluding motorcycles—for replacement purposes only. Using, as they do, imported fuel, can Britain afford all this? It is not forgotten than an assured home market for the manufacturers is a sound basis for the export trade.
In my opinion the motive behind purchase tax and the credit squeeze is definite restriction on the increasing number of motor vehicles coming on the roads, and I venture to suggest that if the object is not achieved more severe methods in some form will, perforce, have to be adopted.
It may be, "Janus," that there is little faith left in the efficacy of the collective wisdom that such as an inquiry might produce, but a lot of hard thinking must he done soon by somebody.
Glasgow, W.4. ARTHTIR R. WILSON, M.I.R.T.E.