OPINIONS and
Page 31
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
UERIES
VINDICATION OF THE CLEARING-HOUSE PRINCIPLE LAST April one of the transport journals published an article of mine under the heading of " Opportunities for Co-ordination," of which the following is an extract:—
" There is far too much overlapping of interests, crosshauls and independent running, without a planned schedule, attached to goods transport, and I firmly believe that the industry must attempt to put its own house in order in this respect. Perhaps the principle underlying the functions of the much-maligned clearing houses may be the solution to the present uncontrolled operational system. Why not a string of central control points set up by the industry under one controlling body—' The Greater Road Transport Association '—the functions of which will be to co-ordinate the allocation of all outgoing and incoming traffic? "
In connection with the opinion expressed here, it of particular interest to note that the American roadtransport industry has actual plans in progress to set up a control on the suggested lines, according to Mr. Ted V. Rodgers, President of the American Trucking Associations, as shown by the following extract from a special article by this gentleman, published in "The Commercial Motor" for October 9:—
" Plans are in progress now to establish trucking clearing houses or information offices at key points throughout the country, to assist motor carriers in their efforts to conserve equipment and eliminate unnecessary runs. A primary benefit of such offices will be that they will• tend to curtail movement of empty or partially loaded vehicles by enabling 'carriers to exchange loads and equipment to best advantage."
It is particularly gratifying to learn that the American haulage industry, with its'enormous potentialities, is setting up a structure to exercise central control of operation, but one wonders how long it will be before the haulage industry of this country realizes that the introduction of such a scheme here is lork overdue.
L. C. ANDERSON, Transport Manager. For the Hoffmann Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Chelmsford DIFFICULTIES IN OBTAINING QUICKER TURN-ROUND QOME time ago there was an official propaganda cam
paign calling attention to the need for conserving road transport by encouraging the quisaii turn-round of vehicles, and one of the statements .m.W,ras that "this is a battle of the loading bays."
Since that time I have collected loads of cement from an important works in the South Midlands, using an 8-ton vehicle. Such loading has taken anything from two to three hours, the greater part of the time being .occupied by waiting in a rank of vehicles for my turn, the actual loading taking only 20 minutes. I have had similar experiences at flour mills, waiting for some two hours" for a freight which took only 20 minutes to load.
It is at these points where so much loss. of time occurs, and it is by no means confined to the classes of goods to which specific reference has been made; it applies also to almost any load at docks or railheads. It is not the fault of the loading gangs. They often work like Trojans, and as fast as one vehicle is finished with another takes its place. It appears to be the organization that is at fault. Too many vehicles arrive at the same time or follow too closely. Much time is also often wasted in the handling of bricks. At one rail-head depot, 10 lorries, each carrying 6 tons, endeavour to perform two deliveries a day, which means the turn-round of about 10 railway trucks. The drivers, however, have no assistance and have to tranship every brick from truck to wagon. Under favourable conditions this takes one man a couple of hours, but if the conditions be not so good, it may take three hours or more, this being through the use of what are known as dog-kennel trucks, or by shunting delays. It will be readily understood that this is a herculean task, and, consequently, assistance would undoubtedly be appreciated and would effect a much more rapid turnround of both lorries and trucks.
It is a somewhat invidious comparison when two stalwarts arrive with a 30-cwt. lorry to pick up a few lumps of coal from a truck on a near-by siding or when half a
dozen soldiers come to load a 3-tonner. ACLOLAD. Slough.
PROS AND CONS OF THE MEAT TRANSPORT POOL
lkipt. QUICK-SMITH, in your issue of October 9, says: LVI"The Ministry of Food eventually realized the value of the Pool and co-operated enthusiastically, but in the early days a serious handicap was the consistent refusal of the Board of Trade (as it was then) to give definite approval to the plans particularly on the financial side. This caused much delay . . ." As Director-designate of Food Transport in the months immediately before the war, ,and as Director from the outbreak of war until June; 1940, I am second to none in my appreciation of the excellent work done by the Meat Pool, and in my admiration of the scheme, as a work of creative thinking, but I think Mr. Quick-Smith is rather unfair in his criticism of the Food (Defence Plans) Department. It was I who advised caution in the full-blooded acceptance of the scheme before the war:—
(a) On the financial side: Because the scheme, in some respects, involved the Ministry in unknown liabilities; e.g., administrative expenses, as to which the Meat Pool had not supplied me with adequate information, even by the time I left the Ministry. (b) On political grounds: Because:— (i) The scheme was monopolistic. (ii) It was strongly opposed by some meat hauliers (and still is).
(iii) I thought the road haulage industry ought to be dealt with as a whole.
(iv) I did not like the idea of the Ministry of Food having a vested interest in one group of hauliers, any more than I like the Government having a vested interest in the railways, or in the chartered fleet of road vehicles.
(v) I thought (and still think) the scheme ought to be applied to the whole of the road-haulage industry. Please see the "Vigilance for Victory Bulletin" on the "Organization of Transport for War," January, 1941.
(c) On practical grounds: Because I thought road and rail specialized equipment for meat haulage should be considered as a whole. Failing this, it was impossible to measure requirements for vehicle strength. Months befote the war I proposed a scheme of roadrail co-ordination which was not adopted until the middlt of 1941. As in many other directions, I was years in advance of the times; it took the " blitz" of
1940-1941 to bring about even this limited degree of road-rail co-ordination. Lord Woolton has paid a generous tribute to the success of this scheme, but did not mention its origin or early history.
Nothing that I have said ought to detract, or can detract from the real public service rendered by those who conceived the Meat Transport Pool Scheme. They wrought so well that they do not need the cheap inverted glory which appears to come from the criticism of others. The handful of civil servants who comprised the Food (Defence Plans) Department of the Board of Trade in the three years immediately before the war did a marvellous job in the most difficult circumstances. They were, indeed, much more progressive and ready for action than many of the business men who advised them. Some day a historian will, I hope, tell the story. Meanwhile, criticism of the Department in relation to the Meat Transport Pool in the pre-war period is neither justified nor necessary to the lustre of the Pool.
Northwood. FREDERICK SMITH.
WHY WAS THIS HAULIER AGGRIEVED?
IN your issue dated September 4, F. L. Bailey, of Turvdy, "Another Aggrieved Meat Haulier.stated that from 1925 his firm had been engaged in the whole sale -meat cartage with two A licensed meat vehicles and .that, on the appointment of the Meat Pool, they were dismissed, in February, 1940, with less than a week's notice, vehicles from London replacing those that they were employing on this work.
As these facts appeared to be completely contrary to the policy of the W.M.T.A., of giving complete priority to vehicles of A licensed operators engaged prior to the war on the transport of meat, I caused investigations to be made and have received a report from which the following appear to be the facts:—
(1) Although -it is stated that two vehicles were engaged on the cartage of meat, my information is that the weekly account for the cartage of meat was, at the most, £1.
(2) At the time the Bedfordshire County Transport manager made investigations, the fact that F. L. Bailey carried meat was not reported to him.
(3) At no time did Bailey apply to this Association for a contract to carry meat.
It will thus be clear that, if my report be correct, your correspondent's letter is very misleading and quite unfair, and this Association is entitled to an agology.
G. .W. QUICK SMITH, Secretary, Wholesale Meat and Provisions Transport
London, S.W.1. ( De fence ) Association.