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
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220 
by Janus
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Survival technique
EVERY DAY, or so it seems, and sometimes twice a day, an economic forecast tells us either that we are on the road to recovery or that the proverbial corner is still a long way away. An occasional pessimist may even suggest that we shall never reach it.
The statistical section of the Government's consultation document on transport tries to put the situation in the best light. It contains a number of graphs showing the volume of goods traffic by different modes of transport over the period between 1965 and 1985.
At about the halfway mark, a year or two each side of the present day, the indication of a more or less smooth growth in traffic (with the unfortunate exception of rail traffic) is abruptly reversed, to be resumed a little later at an accelerating pace — the imagination of the composer being allowed more scope in his scenario for the future — until at the end of the 20 years the line almost disappears off the graph.
Consultation documents can afford to speculate over a generous time scale. Road operators must be more interested in the here and now. At the national spokesman level, their statements incline towards the gloomy end of the spectrum. There are few signs that trade and industry are making greater demands on hauliers, it is said, and until this happens optimism must be kept in check.
The representatives of the industry cannot see an early increase in business as a whole and make their judgments accordingly. Individual operators may look at the situation from a different point of view.
They find nothing novel in a policy of retrenchment. There are many hauliers who, long before the start of the current recession, reached the conclusion that they were running a
substantial business more for the benefit of their customers than themselves.
They were making the kind of profit that would be appropriate for a fleet, half the size. There was the additional danger that a drop in demand might leave them losing money.
No doubt the alternatives were to expand, a process that might involve changing the whole structure of the undertaking, or to contract. This meant reducing the number of vehicles. Most of the operators, conscious of their own possibly specialised merit, and with no wish to bite off more than they could chew, decided that the most sensible course was to keep those vehicles running which earned a satisfactory revenue, and lay up or dispose of the remainder.
On a smaller scale, this kind of manoeuvre comes almost natural to the established haulier. Philanthropy has no place in his business transactions. If one of his vehicles is not making an adequate profit, he lays it up or gets rid of it.