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 
No joy road-to-rail lobby
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ky our Parliamentary correspondent
• Members of Parliament who are vanting to see an "about turn" in the switch freight carrying from rail to road received io encouragement from the Government vhen a test case was discussed in the 2ommons last week.
The Government attitude — as expressed )y junior Environment Minister Mr teginald Eyre — seems to be: it is up to 3ritish Railways to decide whether to aantinue carrying freight, but in any case he amount carried by rail is so small that it would make very little difference to the oads if it went by lorry instead. The 3overnment's role is to see that lorries can ravel efficiently, and with as little interference to the public as possible.
This was in essence what Mr Eyre said ifter Mr R. C. Mitchell (Labour, Southampton. Itchen) had complained about the proposed closing of the conventional rail freight service to Southampton Docks.
This would mean that about 29,000 extra lorries a year — 80 a day — would use the already grossly overcrowded roads into and out of the docks. Mr Mitchell pointed out, adding that British Railways said they were losing £400,000 a year on the service, which was a declining one. What consultations, he asked, had taken place to see if this deficit could be reduced, and what attempts were being made to provide the services and rolling stock which would attract more trade to rail? There were very good reasons for believing British Railways had deliberately run down the service to provide an excuse for closing it. Mr Eyre replied that a decision to withdraw or continue a freight service was a matter for the commercial judgment of British Railways, and the Minister had no power to intervene. There was no evidence that the shrinkage in the amount of freight carried had seriously worsened the position on the roads — some traffic might well have transferred not to the roads but to the Freightliner service.
Suggestions that a large additional load would be thrown on to the roads if the service were closed could not be substantiated, said Mr Eyre. It could be fairly confidently asserted that on the 'very worst assumption there would be not more than 50 additional lorries a day — minimal in the context of the many vehicles already travelling daily to and from the docks.