Plain Speaking at Torquay
Page 39
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Railway and Road Problems Confronting the B.T.C. and Free-enterprise Operators Referred to in Discussions at the I.o.T. Congress
THE president of the Institute of Transport and the council are to be congratulated upon the success of their congress at Torquay. The rule that the names of contributors to the discussion should not be published appeared to remove certain inhibitions, regrettable as is the apparent need for this policy. Opening the congress, the president emphasized the worth of such activities from two points of view: (a) valuable papers would not be written but for them; (b) those functions which were, openly and frankly, social, enabled members and guests to meet in person—without them their names might be only signatures on letters.
Referring to present difficulties with transport, he mentioned the shortage of staff for buses, resulting from the reduced working week and lower output per hour in many cases. The call for workers was general, and it was of little use increasing wages. In this respect he found himself also apologizing on behalf of British Railways, whose Biff and Boll had sung their swan song while they were cygnets. The Mayor of Torquay, welcoming the Institute, said that this town had one of the finest passenger-transport organizations in the country (Devon General). The British Transport Commission had suddenly switched its activities to the South, but the will of the people must prevail, and in Torquay the B.T.C. would come up against a brick wall. There were too many politically minded people looking for big jobs. He 'disliked the idea or having to go through red tape to get into ail office to settle little difficulties. Passenger transport in the area had been peaceable, with no strikes for sonic 15 years.
Sir William Wood's " Apologia "
Last week we gave résumés of the two papers read at the Congress. That by Sir William Wood, K.B.E., a member of the B.T.C., was not read in full, Sir William merely emphasizing certain points. For example, that the running. of trains was largely prohibited for a time by lack of coal. As to difficulties in shutting down certain lines, one mayor had protqled against the closing of a railway lino because " there were not enough passengers to snake a bus pay." The railways had an obligation to give service to all, and could not (using that time-worn phrase) take the cream of the traffic. He strongly criticized the Federation of British Industries for publishing its report without consulting the B.T.C., adding that those who did not realize railway difficulties must live in cuckoo land. He claimed that the railways were carrying a greater burden than ever before. .
During the discussion Sir William was referred to as the "railway advocate par excellence." He had reached the dangerous stage of complete complacency. In view of all the developments elsewhere, had railways progressed sufficiently? They must consider the future, not their past achievements.
Replying, Sir William said that there was no complacency; there had been great progress with the "tools" available, and it must be remembered that much railway equipment had been built to last many years. The question was, how could the obsolescent be scrapped economically. Another difficulty was the loyalty of many of the staff to the old companies. Many utility-type locomotives had been stowed away in white lead for emergencies which he hoped would not arise. The railways had not been subsidized at any time. Traffic was a commodity, just as is steel, Others put up their prices, and why should the railways rt t increase rates to cover additional costs?
Increased Charges—Better Services Another speaker said that the paper was in the nature of an apologia. The author had been less than fair to some of the criticisms made by industry. It would be .nice to feel that users were getting better service for the increased charges.
In response, Sir William said that the railways were not allowed to make up their deficiencies—the money was not made available.
A speaker said that there was bound to be a relationship between the level of charges and railway efficiency. If traders were prepared to consign their goods in a " satisfactory " way. reductions might be possible. Surely there was kstrong case for differential freight charges for various wagon loads. A trader should not be forced to use larger wagons, but if he sent smaller lots then he should pay more.
Sir William stated that operating costs were only a part of the cost of moving goods by rail; there was the question of tunnels, etc., and how could all the differentials be brought together. Some lines, as in Scotland, would never pay. The main difficulty was to get traders to equip their depots for larger wagons. There was a suggestion that division of function should be based on operating costs, leaving the user to choose, but track costs must be equalized. It was necessary to encourage the use of the means best suited to the traffic. Transport should be treated as a whole and not particularly as it concerned railways, but if there was obligation on certain forms of work there must be protection. There should be an investigation into the effects of increased charges on trade and industry. The author replied that C licences were here, and would remain, carrying large amounts of traffic. He did not believe in subsidies of any type at any time. Damaged railway embankments might not be made good for a century. There was great delay in introducing the London Charges Scheme. Railway rates dropped as prices fell, but did not rise nearly so quickly when prices increased. One contributor to the discussion asked why there was now a storm of abuse. It was, he added, because trade and industry could see the growth of a bigger monopoly than ever existed before and were scared stiff. They could see a future of reduced efficiency and increased charges, and the B.T.C. had done little to allay these fears. The Railway Executive appeared to be far too rigid. The recent increase did not take its usual course through the Railway Tribunal. This had caused perturbation, whilst the R.H.E. increase was also arbitrarily proposed. In the past there had been negotiations with road hauliers concerning increases. The new conditions of carriage had also not been properly discussed, and there seemed not to be the same good faith.
The speaker who wound up the discussion said that the railways were giving a worse service at a higher price. Therefore, there was no need for surprise to be expressed at the criticisms they received, and any member of the Institute of Transport should welcome criticism. Electricity had not been short until it was nationalized; coal seemed easy to obtain until it was subjected to the same process; there was little criticism of gas because there were no complete cuts. Possibly there was no connection between nationalization and these unfortunate results, but the public linked them together. People were not interested in excuses, but in results. The refusal of the Government to allow expenditure for such an essential service as transport was not understood by the people, and it was important to endeavour to make the Government provide the money.
Parliamentary Control of Transport
iNFORTUNATELY, as a result of receiving a three-line whip at the last moment, Mr. David Renton, MP., was not able to read his paper personalty, and this function was taken over most successfully and in an interesting manner by Sir Joseph Nall, D.S.O., a past-president, who interjected his own remarks as occasion warranted.
Introducing the paper, he said that Parliament did not include many Members with a strong relationship to transport, particularly road transport. In the past there had been in Parliament many knowledgeable railway directors who could also give information to other Members. The separate railways companies also had annual general meetings, which afforded stockholders the opportunity of ventilating complaints. Something like this might have to be arranged in connection with the National Executives and Boards. He also alluded to Biff and Bolf, but, in this case, as Bilge and Bluff. The B.T.C. was not the master in its own house while it could not authorize vital necessary expenditure.
A member pointed out that the liquid assets of the B.T.C. had dwindled to 1100m., yet there had been a great growth in traffic since the war. He agreed with a free Press at all costs, and suggested that the Press should provide useful ammunition which could be used in Parliament. Sir Joseph said that if the progressively large loss went on. the State would eventually have to pay, and nationalized industries must be brought under better public control.
From the body ofthe hall came a suggestion that Parliament had little time to deal with all sorts of questions, something else was needed; for example, a periodical independent examination at, say, every seven years, which would keep the H.T.C. up to scratch.
Sir Joseph thought that seven years was far too long; everything would be out-dated, and there might possibly las new heads of departments who could not answer for the past. In reply to another question Sir Joseph said that charges could not be dealt with adequately in Parliament; there were statutory tribunals available.
No Proof of Bottleneck
One speaker asked if there was any evidence that answers given by the chairman of the Commission were unsatisfactory. It was too early to judge the effects of the Act, A check inquiry could be made after some time. As regards thc B.T.C. acting as a bottleneck, there was no proof of any longer delay in answering inquiries—in fact, the length of time had hardly varied. The chairman would certainly be the first man to smash down any barrier of this sort. Public enterprise should be synonymous with public interest but how could those concerned with it get on with their task with people "breathing down their necks!' It was important to maintain morale, and publicity should be sensible. There were labour difficulties with every large enterprise. One trouble was that so many trifling points were raised by M.P.s, but constructive suggestions did help.
Sir Joseph said that a wrong interpretation had been put on what goes on in Parliament. Questions were not always wrong or foolish.
This was corroborated by another speaker, who said that the two parts of road haulage and, possibly, rail transport must live together, and the sole control was by Parliamentary questions. The private citizen affected could only write to the Press or have his questions put through a Member.
Sir Joseph remarked that the greater the monopoly the more was scrutiny essential.
The president thought it was necessary to reorganize the method of control; 48m. people must have information as to what was happening to their property. In the old days we had the stockholders and the Licensing Authorities. If Mr. Renton had not found a solution of the problem, then it was up to the members of the Institute to find one, but in the absence of Parliamentary questions what could we have?
The other business of the Congress included various visits. amongst these being one to the works of the Devon General Omnibus and Touring Co., Ltd., at Torquay, which greatly impressed visitors by their cleanliness, fine equipment and efficiency.
Another was to the works of the Western National Omnibus Co., Ltd., and Plymouth City Transport. At the former various models of the Bristol buses and touring coaches employed were drawn up, with an explanatory board placed by each. Much interest was displayed in a Bristol Lorlekka, which had already run over 70,000 miles. It was explained that a new model of this will have bevel drive and be 8 ft. wide, whilst the seating capacity will probably be 60 instead of the present 58.