AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Ex-hauliers Should Mobilize

23rd November 1951
Page 46
Page 47
Page 46, 23rd November 1951 — Ex-hauliers Should Mobilize
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

HAVING read the report concerning the plan of the Road Haulage Association for the denationalization of road haulage, I feel that it is about time that the ex-hauliers themselves started getting together to put forward their own plan.

will agree that there are some good points in the R.H.A. plan, including all the vehicles owned by the Road Haulage Executive being required to have A licences, also the principles to be applied for the repurchase from the R.H.E. of the vehicles, property, stock, etc. It seems to me, however, that, otherwise, it is very much a plan put forward by the still-free hauliers to feather their own nests first. On the whole, I do not think that they are much worse off to-day than they were prior to nationalization. There is no doubt that if the 25-mile limit were taken off they would go after all the long-distance traffic they could obtain in order to get in before the compulsorily acquired undertakings were returned to private ownership.

Then, again, I fail to see any reason • why the so called compulsorily acquired undertakings should have any right to re-enter the industry any earlier than the voluntarily acquired ones. I think most ex-hauliers are aware that many of the concerns compulsorily acquired would have preferred to go voluntarily.

I think a much better scheme would be for any ex-haulier, voluntarily acquired or otherwise, who wishes to regain his business to apply to the Licensing Authority in the area in which his vehicles were previously based, for a return of his licences. He should be required to support this with a promise of a return of their traffic by the firms for whom he previously worked. The tonnage granted should be governed by the amount of work promised and, in any case, it should not exceed the amount • originally authorized on the A or B licence issued prior to nationalization. It should be agreed, however, that if the tonnage granted were less than this, then, if proof of need could be obtained at a later date, the difference would be granted without too much trouble.

Special care should be taken by the Licensing Authorities to see that firms were not duplicating their promises of work to a haulier, and except for some special reason these firms should be only those for whom the haulier worked prior to nationalization.

Furthermore, to see that these conditions were met, each A or B licence for long-distance work should be endorsed with either the route on which the vehicle is to run, as at present applied to the p.s.v. tours and excursion licences, or with the names of the firms concerned.

Whilst these conditions would, no doubt, help the railways, I knolk that they are not sufficient to make sure that enough work would be given to the railways to make them a paying proposition. The only further suggestion I can make to meet this problem is that all long-distance hauliers should pay a special tax to be used to subsidize the railways or that the haulier should hand over a percentage of his long-distance work to

them. The railways could, perhaps, in return, give the hauliers some of their local work and shut many more of their side-line stations.

As to the drivers, I know that there are still some who would prefer to work for the R.H.E., but there A36 are, in my opinion, considerably more who are fed up to the teeth with nationalization. I suggest that they should try to get together to see that their views are heard, in order to press forward with denationalization. Most of them now belong to a trade union and they could, as a start, ask the union to form a section for this purpose. They could also write to their Members of Parliament expressing their views on this matter.

Henley-on-Thames. A. G. SPIERS, M.I.R.T.E.

PREPARING TO FREE HAULAGE THE first step in the general plan for denationalizing I road haulage as prepared by the Road Haulage Association seems to be to abolish the 25-mile limit.

So far as my opinion goes, since the larger operators were nationalized, those remaining in the industry have experienced a prosperous time, business coming to them from sources which, a year or two ago, would not have been thought possible. Perhaps they have also been assisted, although not intentionally, by the Road Haulage Executive suffering from all the disadvantages inherent in nationalized transport.

To give the free hauliers a larger share of the transport " cake " and afford them the opportunity of making themselves even more secure before those at present nationalized are permitted to return to the industry is, in my view, open to strong objection. There will be plenty of difficulties for the returning hauliers; this should not be made one of them.

Northampton. "WHEELER RHODES."

TRUE COSTS WITHOUT TAXATION FOR many months past, there has been a ceaseless flow of learned statistics on rising costs. The effort ascribed to R. C. Moore, Minst.T., general manager of Sheffield Transport Department, in your issue dated October 5, poses the pertinent query: "Has the time come for subsidy?" It appears to me that by intent or accident, 90 per cent, of the managers of our leading municipal transport undertakings ignore one of the prime sources of increased cost. This, if taken into account and thrown back to its wicked progenitor, would, I think, remove at one fell swoop, at least 50per cent. of the current increases in total operating costs over, say, those of 1938.

I refer to the direct and indirect taxation of goods, services and allied facilities in the operation of public service vehicles.

Why ask the Government to give back by subsidy what it has acquired by taxation? The tax on oil fuel has been grievously inequitable. •

I therefore ask through your columns that, either your costs expert, or better still, both he and some interested municipal manager, should get out the total operating costs for a 33-seater single-deck oil-engined vehicle, under the following conditions: (a) Stage carriage service, (b) medium-distance excursion, and (c) long-distance express service. But in doing so, comparative tables should be made for the same vehicle and conditions, less all the taxes on materials and services. We would

then, I contend, have the real operating costs instead of the synthetic conditions imPosed upon our industry by Government policy.

These basic figures would reveal that, had the roadpassenger industry not had to bear a grossly disproportionate share of direct and indirect taxation, it would now stand even higher in operating economies than its privileged opponent, the railways

If, on the other hand, someone is intentionally driving road operators to seek either subsidy or acquisition, by making their services increasingly difficult to maintain then, of course, we might be wasting our time in giving the matter sincere and considered study.

Rotherham. DEREK MOORE-HEPPLESTON.

(For Messrs. Peel's Tours.) BUS DESIGN OF THE FUTURE?

RECENT articles on the economics of road transport that appeared in your journal have been read by me with much interest.

Comparing the essential factors that decide whether passenger-carrying will be carried on at a profit or loss, one can see that the subject needs a new approach.

In my view, the modern public-service vehicle is not very clever. The greatest fault appears to lie in the

• suspension. It seems 'that because of the shortcomings of the ordinary type of leaf spring and the use Of complete axles, the chassis frame and body must be particularly robust. Consequently, the springs must be stiff. By using four-wheel independent suspension with, say, bonded-rubber bushes and torsion bars, a different and lighter type of structure could be employed.

The p.s.v. to meet modern demands should be almost entirely constructed of pressed steel. In the view. of some, there is no better material for strength, lightness, durability and low initial cost. The power unit I favour would be a two-stroke oil engine placed as near as possible to the driving wheels, whilst the differential and gearbox should be built as a unit in such a way as to take a primary part in.the structural -strength.'

A vehicle built on these lines should be most attractive, maintenance costs would be reduced to the minimum, and a much smaller engine—meaning reduced con• sumption of oil fuel and lubricant—could be used. The lower initial cost would allow fleets to be renewed after a shorter period.

Wirksworth, Derby. G. Con.


comments powered by Disqus