Poor Old Mother
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HOW seldom road transport is loved for itself alone? The railways have no end of fervent admirers willing to lavish upon them every penny of somebody else's money. These worshippers of the permanent way invariably take for granted that the object of their affection is worth helping for its own sake. Their loyalty transcends party politics. Conservatives as well as Socialists proclaim in debate after . debate that the railways must be kept going.
Unequivocal champions of road transport are few and far between. Although occasionally somebody proposes a course of action that will improve the roads or the lot of the road user, the immediate and ostensible purpose of the proposal is usually something quite different. Such road construction as was carried out before the war was mostly intended to provide work . for the unemployed. '
When criticizing the Minister of Supply recently for not providing sufficient steel for the motor industry, Mr. Maurice Edelman, M.P., was concerned chiefly that workers in the industry were being maderedundant. Apart from this aspect, he may care intensely for road, transport and road development, but if so he was careful not to 'reveal his feelings. Nor in his reply did Mr, ouncan Sandys, the Minister, come out very stro
on the side of the road user.
Indeed, in a burst of what the Americans call me-tooism, he sought to prove that the Government was continuing its predecessor's policy, which did not exactly favour road transport. The last Government reduced the allocation of new cars to the home market from 110,000 in -1950 to 80,090 in 1951, and Of commercial vehicles from 105,000 to 80,000. The new ChancellOr of the Exchequer has fixed the home quota for 1952 still lower at 60,006 in each category.
Small 'Agology.
Mr. Duncan Sandys seemed to think that some small apology for this pruning was due to the motor industry, but not, one suspects, to the vehicle user, who is deliberately deprived of any hope of improvement. "Provided that the home quota is not exceeded," said the Minister of Supply, "we hope to be able to assure the motor industry sufficient steel to maintain their present level of exports. Furthermore, if the state of overseas markets justifies the hope that increased sales are possible, we shall certainly try to increase further the allocation of steel to the motor industry for that purpose."
On this particular occasion, Mr. Sandys was not able to deal with the supply of steel to the railways. Had he done so it is reasonably likely that his apologies would have been directed towards the railways themselves and their users rather than towards the makers of locomotives and other equipment. In taking this attitude, he would only be following the example of Mr. Edelman and of other speakers in the debate. Mr. W. F. Deedes, a Conservative M.P., complained of the large number a old wagons on the railways and said that 90,000 hot boxes were experienced last year. Progress towards standardization of rolling stcick, he added, is now made more difficult by the ,steel situation which to-day confronts the railways." Can one doubt that had Mr. Deedes been dialing With:road transport he would have visualized difficulties confronting vehicle manufacturers rather than vehicle users?
Or mark the tone of the motion tabled in the House of Commons by four Labour M.P.s, Mr. Ernest Davies, Mr. 13eswick, Mr. George Rogers and Mr. Parker. It calls upon the Minister of Transport "immediately to review the finances of the British Transport Commission with particular regard to the position of British Railways, with a view to taking any measures, incliAing State assistance, which may be found necessary." The overtone of solicitude for• the railways sounds clear above the turgid official jargon Would Mr. Davies and his friends put down a motion in similar terms for the benefit of road transport?
Railway Welfare
Although in its recent letter to the Minister of Transport there is an acknowledgment that amending legislation would appear to be limited to road transport, the Associationof British Chambers of Commerce cannot resist making some reference to the welfare of the
railways. "The future of British Railways demands the most urgent and considered thought. Accordingly the Association would urge that a speedy but comprehensive inquiry into the administration, operation and zlina,nola.1 structure of the B.T.C.'s services should be
colvierted at the earliest possible moment' 'H .M. Government might in fact consider that such an inquiry
. could with advantage take place before amending legislation is introduced."
An official of the Association recently went even further. The re-equipment of the railways, he said, should be considered in the context of rearmament as well as from the contribution it must make to ihe industrial and commercial life of the country. It should be given the necesSary priority along with ships, guns, Tanks and aircraft. He might have been willing to add roads and road transport to the list. By omitting them he appeared to subscribe to the prevailing assumption that road transport can look after itself, but that the railways need special care and attention, and possibly even financial help.
The anxious affection shown for the railways reminds one of the worthy filial feeling which often expresses itself in the statement that "something must really be done to help poor -old mother " The sentiment is to be respected in spite of what psychologists say about the (Edipus complex. Poor old mother may often seem to outsiders the last person in the world they would wish to help, but those of us who run the risk of answering to the description in years to come are glad of the
thdition, however irrational. A sentimental attachment to the poor 'old railways is not necessarily to be derided. It is only important that it should not distort an impartial appraisal of the transport situation.
The railway problem is serious. While the railways remain they must be looked after and helped so far as is necessary. Sooner or later the Government may have to decide whether they are to be reduced and in some cases scrapped, or whether they are to be continued, and if so upon what terms. They are no longer the dominant force that they were 20 years ago. Road transport has far outstripped them and its greater importance increases every year. These simple facts must be widely known, but the attitude persists that the railways must be helped before anything else is done. Why this should be so it is difficult to understand without recourse to the (Edipus theory.