Convert the Railways into Roadways
Page 70
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
There is No Room for Both Road and Rail, and Road Transport Must. Inevitably Win Through
in the End
says Walter Gammons
Economic Transport can be Achieved Only by Converting the Unwieldy Railway Machine Into a Fluid
System
T was, indeed, a red-letter day in my life when, some 35 years ago, I took delivery of my first motor lorries at EIstree. Looking back over that period, one marvels at the adaptation of the motor engine to so many purposes. It has forced its way wholly into our life.
say " forced" advisedly, for, despite the fact that its advent has been a national boon, it has literally had to force its way through hard, reactionary soil. It has never had a fair chance.
The moment the road motor showed its head, it was cut down. If it was not frost it was drought— anything to cripple its growth—but all the hardships that it suffered helped to build a stronger constitution. Even its worst enemies have been compelled not only to recognize its advantages, but actually to employ it extensively.
Frustration . .
Nevertheless, it is a deplorable fact that the Commercial Motor Shows of to-day represent only what is legally permissible—not what is easily possible, desirable and really necessary. But for restrictions, we should now be commonly employing 56-ton and even 100-ton units, and enjoying the most economic transport.
Unfortunately, road transport is indirectly controlled by its worst enemies. Virtually, it is under notice to quit. Say the railways : "We intend to carry the business for which the railways were designed—a controlled monopoly." That means: "Where there's the will there's the way ! "
My fleet of 35 years ago meant a new era in my transport life and work. It meant freedom from railway bondage. Still more important, n30 it meant natural transport, i.e., door to door, as against the artificial rail method of piecemeal handling, repeated shunting, etc., with the consequent losses, delays, damage, and need for expensive packing.
My fleet proved to he the most forceful political weapon imaginable wherewith to fight the railway sins of omission and commission, such as apathy, lethargy, autocracy, tyranny —characteristics of most monopolies.
Take it or leave it ". was the railways' idea of business. Moreover, if one did not mind one's ps and qs and dared to refuse payment of charges which one was clearly justified in withholding, crack came a pistol at one's head, thus : "II you do not restore these amounts by the , your credit will be stopped." Incidentally, this is a good example of the railways' obligation to carry everything, which they so strongly stress.
Annihilation . . .
Actually, prior to the motor era, the railways held us in the hollow of their hand, and, at times, had no compunction in closing that hand tightly enough to prove fatal to business. It should be remembered that I write as an ex-railway employee, as well as a railway trader, and I know the ropes.
Inasmuch as practically all railborne traffic is, first and last, road borne, railway transport is obviously artificial. For many indivisible loads it is useless.
Therefore, except for tube-train passenger traffic, I would abandon the railways and convert the tracks into roadways. If all the present rail-borne traffic were to be manipulated on the simple lines Which obtain with road traffic, it could be handled at a fraction of the present rail cost and, obviously, far more efficiently.
The strongest argument for the practicability of this idea lies in the indisputable fact that road transport was making such rapid strides that severe restrictive measures were necessary solely to prevent its annihilating railway traffic. As it achieved such amazing results on its own and in spite of severe handicaps, it is easy to foresee the complete... withdrawal of railway traffic were road haulage officially encouraged or even allowed to develop its visible inherent possibilities.
Revelation . . .
Consequently, it is even more easy to foresee quicker and better results from the erstwhile railways operating their own roadways, free from all the encumbrances common to the users of the present roads. The former railway companies Would operate in a closed compartment for the major portion of their business, whereas the users of other roads would be required to pass through crowds of obstacles, to say nothing of roads paved with "thou shalt nots "—railway "forget-me-nots" !
The present railway system is not only hopelessly complicated, stricken with anomalies and cumbersome, but appallingly expensive to administer. Actually, it is an a.nachronism.
With the railway tracks converted into roadways, and, of course, their whole business conducted on the simple lines of an ordinary roadtransport company, some of the advantages accruing therefrom would be as follow :— (1) An end would be put to the present strife between rail and road, and to the millions sterling now being wasted in the conflict on both sides, and in bolstering up the railways. A common classification and rates structure would be possible.
(2) The conversion would save many further millions sterling on each of the following, railway considerations:—(a) Signalling; (b) track upkeep; (c) shunting and marshalling; (d) station and siding accommodation; (e) local cartage services; (f) empty wagon mileage; (g) general mileage; (h) checking; (i) loading and unloading of trucks; (j) wagon-number taking; (k) claims for damage to goods; (1) rates and charges system; (m) sundry staff and labour costs generally; (n) colossal overheads; (o) elaborate time-tables; (p) abolition of Railway Clearing House; (q) haulage of railway coal supplies; (r) superfluous departments and officials; (s) merging of goods, mineral and passenger departments; (t) engineers' (ballast) trains; (u). general accountancy; (v) propaganda; (w) routeing system And so on.
Capitulation . .
There is no other solution of the road-rail-problem. The two methods are as wide apart as the two poles. We must decide upon one or the other, and obviously the choice should be the road method. The railways clearly realize that it must be one or the other, hence their bid for a rail monopoly.
Owing to the fact that the powers that be and the 'public generally have been bamboozled into thinking that the railways are a national indispensability and must, therefore, be preserved at all costs, it is futile to try to get a square deal for road transport.
Until the public realizes that road transport is the indispensable transport system, railway interests will continue to dominate, and, without avail, we can plead for road transport's true cause until doomsday. That, surely, is common sense.
But can the public be made to realize_ the situation? Certainly, if road interests properly combine and make it clear that the only alternative to unfettared road transport would be a rail monopoly, with its inevitable consequences. The road combination must be much more than the present trifling affair. If road transport is to remain a separate entity, first and foremost stands the necessity of a really national association to demand and secure the cancellation of the notice to quit and freedom to develop.
That is precisely what the railways have accomplished in respect of their interests, and road transport has no alternative but to secure similar conditions to prevent suppression. Numerically, the road interests are stronger than the railways, and should, therefore, send sufficient representatives to Parliament to protect their cause. There should be only two camps, road and rail. He who is not for the roads is against them.
The national association must
include all and sundry in any way connected with roads. All vehicle owners should be compelled to belong to the association by the terms of their licences, and they should then automatically secure the membership of most, if not all, other interests, by declining to buy vehicles or supplies from nonmembers.
Even the Pedestrians Association, public garages and petrol stations should be included. Such an association could see justice done to road interests. A recent radio discussion between a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian revealed the astonishing fact that, althPugh bitter things were said about each other, it was finally agreed that the one remedy for all their grievances was proper road accommodation.