A Pig-by-Rail Monopoly
Page 31
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ADRASTIC example of the dire effects which railway agreed charges May exercise upon the future of transport by road, is shown by the recent arrangements which the Pigs Marketing Board has made, subject to the approval of the Railway Rates Tribunal. In order that the Board shall be able to obtain a low fiat rate (we understand that this will be Is. 8d. per pig) for the carriage of live pigs between the premises of the producers and the registered bacon curers, it is agreed that all pigs included in the contract must be carried by the railway company or the railway agents for any distance over five miles from the curer's factory.
There is a proviso that cases of special hardship can be referred to a committee composed of the Pigs Marketing Board, the Bacon Marketing Board and railway representatives, and this committee can, at its discretion, allow the pigs in question to be carried by road up to 15 miles. Presumably, this concession would, however, be difficult to obtain, except in districts where it would not meet the convenience of the railways to perform their own transport.
Persons and Loads Affected.
That the matter is one of the greatest importance can well be understood if consideration be given to the number of persons and loads affected. The Pigs Marketing Board held its first meeting last July, but already there are 142,000 registered producers and nearly 1,000 registered bacon curers. Many of these producers have,. until now, employed either their own road vehicles or those of hauliers, and there is much resentment amongst them at what is considered to be an unwarrantable interference with their liberty, whilst many may suffer direct loss through inability to use their vehicles to anything like their economic capacity. The producers may be said to be in a cleft stick, because if they do not register with the Board they can only sell to unregistered curers, and only curers turning out less than 5 cwt. of bacon per week may remain unregistered.
We would emphasize that this is but one example of the policy of browbeating the nation into employing rail in preference to road transport. It cannot be classified as fair trading or legitimate competition, and if the railways continue to adopt this all-or-nothing policy the producers of this country should see that they get nothing.
. Rail Rates on the Percentage Basis.
Almost, if not quite, as pernicious is the percentage basis of calculating freight rates. In this system practically no consideration is given to the size or weight of articles to be carried, the rates being computed upon their value in the mass. The result is that big concerns can put a fixed transport cost upon any article in any part of the country and thus enter into the most severe competition with local traders, who must pay much heavier rates upon their comparatively small consignments, whether these be brought to them by rail or by road.
No one can reasonably object to the railways endeavouring to attract more custom by reorganizing and improving their service, but it is most questionable whether such methods as these can be considered as being in the best interests of the country as a whole; they will certainly tend towards the creation of a monopoly and the repression of legitimate competition and trading. Railway leaders are glibly talking of co-operation with the road. Road-transport operators, our legislators and the whole trading community of this country may well ask themselves if these methods are conducive to that end.
Oil Filtering in Compressionignition Engines
A N authority on lubrication in an informative ./paper points to the unwisdom of including in the oil-circulation systems of compressionignition engines a filter capable of arresting the passage of the colloidal-carbon particles suspended in the lubricant. He shows that these must, in a comparatively short time; choke the filter, rendering it no longer able to pass any oil at all, and argues that the presence of the particles diminishes the lubricating properties of the oil hut little.
Whilst not denying the truth of these statements, we consider that to eliminate such a filter is, all the same, the wrong course to follow. It would surely be better to provide a by-pass, the oil being drawn from a coarser gauze filter, and then given a choice of two paths by which to reach the bearings, etc.—through either the fabric filter or a spring-loaded valve. In any case the filter element should be renewed frequently (an inexpensive matter) to avoid all risk of choking.
Alternatively, or as well, the lubricant should be renewed regularly and often, that drained off being filtered and purified in a separate apparatus. Oil fuel, which cannot easily be extracted from used lubricant, is not in itself harmful, and admixture with oil of higher viscosity compensates for any material effect as a diluent which it might otherwise have.
Vaporizing Devices which Result in Increased Taxation
THERE appears still to be some misunderstand' ing as to the interpretation of the Finance Act, 1933, in its reference to vehicles which are equipped with devices whereby paraffin and similar fuels other than petrol can be consumed. The matter was dealt with very fully in our issue dated December 8, 1933, when we pointed out that the statute is very clear on this point, inasmuch as the lowest rate of taxation, widely appreciated as applying to petrol-engined vehicles, is described as applicable to goods vehicles "which are not constructed or adapted to use as fuel any fuel other than light oils." It is quite obvious, in view of that clear description, that the fitting of any device which " adapts " a vehicle to use other than petrol immediately brings that vehicle into the category for increased taxation.
Indeed, it is only reasonable that this should be so. Petrol is subject to a tax of 8d. per gallon ; other fuel oils to only id. per gallon. The increased taxation on those which do not use petrol is intended to compensate, so far as is possible, for avoidance of the petrol tax.
Cases have come to our notice recently in which it has actually been represented to users that, by the use of these devices, they at one and the same time evade the tax on petrol and the higher tax on oil-engined vehicles. This is incorrect, and any vehicle owner discovered to be operating vehicles in that way is liable to prosecution for evasion.