OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 57
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Further Trenchant Criticisms of the Report of the Rail-Road Conference. Its Effects on Household Removers A Comparison Between Petrol and Oil-engined Vehicles and Steamers Under the Proposed Taxation Schedule
More Views on the Rail and Road Conference Report.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3864] Sir,—I view with alarm, and so does the majority of men employed in the road transport industry, the report of the findings of the Salter Conference.
That it is a deliberate attempt to kill a new industry so that an old one, which cannot put its house in order, may live, is I think apparent to everybody who has studied the report.
I can see. that a central organization embracing hauliers, coach owners and bus companies, is necessary if this menace to the industry is to be combated successfully. As one amongst many thousands of employees whose livelihood depends on the success of road transport, I hope that those "above " will "stand on the gas' and protect their own interests and ours as well.
Wishing your paper every Birmingham. success.
B. P. FISHER, Foreman Fitter.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3865] Sir,—The comment on the report of the Salter Conference contained in the Railway Newsletter is conspicuous by its lack of information.
Particular stress is laid upon the fact that the Conference was able to present a unanimous report, which reflects the greatest possible credit upon the chairman. This may be perfectly true, but the railways assume that the road representatives at the Conference were satisfactory to road interests. This is not so, and if an examination be made of the individual interests of the parties appointed to represent the roads, it is clear that the greatest road interests were in no way protected. The Road Haulage Association asked for representation, but this was refused. The reasons for this refusal are interesting, and no fault of the railways, but if the Minister of Transport wished the findings of the Rail-Road Conference to be of value, for the purposes of legislation and control of the transport services of the country, surely it was imperative that all interested parties should be satisfactorily represented.
The mention that the report coincides completely with the general feeling of the community, based on a desire for strict justice, is not true, and the railways have a peculiar idea of justice if they consider it right to impose increased taxation and vexatious restrictions on their competitors, to give authority to the Minister of Transport to decide by what means a trader's goods are to be carried, and to throw out of employment thousands of men in consequence of a loss of the home market to the motor manufacturing
and allied industries, due to the taxation and imposition of the restrictions referred to.
The railways continue by informing us that the report itself is very large, and represents only a tithe of the huge mass of figures considered. One realizes that an immense volume of data had to be prepared and examined in seeking criteria for allocation of road costs on the bases of speed-tons and petrol consumption, but the unfortunate thing is that the figures considered were evidently inaccurate, since the railways' figure of 60 millions seems to have no foundation in fact, and has been challenged by various recognized authorities, including the chairman of the Roads Im provement Association. Also, from the proposed basis of taxation, it would seem that the Conference has jumped to the conclusion that a vehicle carrying a known load necessarily does twice the road damage of a vehicle carrying half that known load, regardless of the number of wheels and the size and type of tyre employed in carrying such load.
This is obviously a fallacy when one considers that a motor vehicle carrying 6 tons on pneumatic tyres cannot possibly do as much damage to the road on which it runs as a horse-drawn vehicle carrying the same weight on iron tyres, although travelling at less speed. It may be that figures showing actual proof of road damage, as between various classes of road vehicle on different types of tyre at known speeds may be forthcoming to prove the actual amount of road damage caused by the various classes of road vehicle in common use, but it is very interesting to contemplate the fact that a horse-drawn vehicle pays no tax whatever, in spite of the damage it causes, and the greatest users of horse-drawn iron-tyred vehicles are the railways.
It is also not surprising to find that in the proposed new basis of taxation, vehicles operating in an imme diate port area are to be subject to a rebate of 25 per cent., in the case of those exceeding 4 tons in unladen weight, in other words, those subject to the heavy increased taxation in the new proposed schedule.
When we consider that the railways are mainly concerned with carrying goods over long distances by rail, whilst collecting and delivering goods over short distances by road, we see once again how they have contrived to avoid any additional burden upon themselves.
Thus it is that this unanimous Conference, whilst claiming to have found a solution to the problems of road and rail, is quite definitely looking after the well
being of the railways, to the detriment of their competitors, and that great section of the community which seems largely to have been forgotten by the Rail-Road Conference—those who use the transport services of the country.
It must also be realized that the Conference has thought fit to exceed its terms of reference and recommend a proposed new scale of taxation for public service vehicles, conveyances over which it was never appointed to decide, with the result that every taxpayer will be called upon to pay for the increased taxes on buses and other classes of public-service vehicle, either in increased fares or in increased general taxation. If the recommendations are adopted every corporatipn operating buses will have to find many thousands of pounds extra per annum to pay for the privilege of serving its ratepayers, and to pander to the railway companies' desire to force people to travel by rail.
One is naturally forced to the conclusion that the railway interests completely eclipsed those present who should have represented the roads, and the report furnished to the Minister of Transport is deliberately calculated to force the public and the transport user in general back to the railways for both passenger and goods transport.
The Salter Report is nothing else than a subtle piece of railway propaganda, and cannot for one moment be regarded as a serious recommendation by a committee truly representative of the joint interests of road and rail for the future economic working and sound co-operation of the two modes of transport. Liverpool. B. 0. HsaantuN, For T. L. James (Transport) Co.
Removal Contractors and the Conference Proposals.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3866] Sir,—The Salter Conference Report commences with the terms of reference dated April 11th, 1932, and concludes with the signatures appended on July 29th. In little over three months a staggering complexity of figures was analysed, decisions were debated and an immense problem in mathematics was worked out to produce a revised system of taxation which promises to affect, directly or indirectly, the cost of transport to every member of the community.
Most Government Commissions and Conferences are renowned for their tardiness. One is constrained to wonder whether, in this case, sufficient time was allowed for even a tursory examination of so large and difficult a subject. Is "unladen weight" the only basis (apart from the petrol duty) on which taxation can be assessed? Surely the experience of the railways, with their widely varying rates for different classes of goods, should have suggested that it is impossible to ignore the differences between various classes of road haulage.
With the exception of the favoured showmen and agriculturists, every other road user is, for taxation purposes, relegated to one category, a small rebate being allowed only for heavy vehicles exclusively used in a specified port area. What could be more arbitrary or unfair?
Let me take an example based upon our own experience as contractors for household removals in a country town within 50 miles of London. Unlike most ordinary hauliers, our vehicles are constructed to accommodate bulky loads, which must be fully enclosed and adequately protected from the weather ; unladen weight is consequently high in proportion to pay load.
I enclose figures showing that in one ease this ratio is nearly two to one, whereas according to the data assumed in Appendix C of the Report the average is given as about two to three for this particular weight class. Again, according to the Conference statistics, a full load is anticipated for nearly every mile covered.
This may be the fortunate experience of some expressservice hauliers, but our records show that, allowing proportionately for part loads very occasionally brought on return journeys, only 51.56 per cent, of the miles run are revenue-producing.
Finally, the removal contractor's annual mileage is much less than the average for other vehicles. This is largely accounted for by the fact that loading furniture from a private house—where there may be a certain quantity of china and glass to be packed and u40
many household and personal sundries to be handled —takes much longer than more straightforward loads. In every respect, the removal contractor is to be at a disadvantage compared with other hauliers; yet he may, I think, be rightly regarded as the pioneer of the road transport of goods.
One appreciates the difficulties of evolving an equitable scheme of taxation as between various classes of road users, and removal contractors have, in the past, been content to accept the position. But I wonder what the average haulier would say if, like ray firm, he were asked to pay in taxation 6.66d. per loaded mile run (this in respect of a modern vehicle purchased this year), or, assuming all full 3-ton loads, a crippling imposition of 2.22d. for every ton carried ! [Our correspondent has enclosed his calculations showing how these figures have been arrived at.—ED.1
REMOVAL CONTRA,CTOR.
"All-round Opposition to the ' Report.' " The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3867] Sir,—On page 74 of your issue dated September 2nd, you published a selection of letters under the above heading.
In one of these, your correspondent, Mr. W. H. Goddard, has given some figures to show how the oilengined vehicle would compare with the petrol-engined vehicle in the event of the recommendations of the Report becoming law.
Without criticizing his figures, it would be equally interesting to include one other popular type of vehicle, namely, the modern pneumatic-tyred steam-engined machine. The result of such a comparison will be surprising to many. Assuming the same classification of vehicle, the same annual mileage, coal at 35s. per ton, and the same final figure of "fuel plus tax," let us now compare the oil-engined vehicle with the modern steam-engined vehicle. In the 4-5-ton class the figures would be practically identiCal, namely, £162. In the 5-6-ton class the steamer would show a saving of at least £20 per annum, and in the 6-7-ton class the steamer would Show a saving of at least £25 per annum.
But I would suggest adding one other very important factor to Mr. Goddard's tabulated figures, one which a user cannot afford to overlook, even when trying to make a very rough comparison between the respective types of road vehicle, and that is, initial cost. Although items such as depreciation, interest, insurance and maintenance, all have their direct influence on the final figure, these are not included in this rough estimate, but surely no user will accept a basis of comparison which does not take into consideration the cost of the vehicle.
I suggest, therefore, that Mr. Goddard's table should be altered to include the cost of the vehicle, and that his final figure should comprise the three items which cannot be split up to the advantage of any one type of vehicle, namely, "the price of vehicle, plus fuel, plus tax." Take one example, to illustrate the point, and what do we find? In the 5-6-ton class we can take the Price (taken from the last commercial show catalogue) of equivalent petrol, oil and steam-engined vehicles, as approximately £1,080, £1,600, and 11,012, respectively. Adding these to Mr. Goddard's table we get a final figure of £1,413 for the petrol-engined vehicle, £1;819 for the oil-engined vehicle, and 11,211 for the steam-engined vehicle. In conclusion, the steam machine appears to be still the cheapest form of road transport, and, in addition, it uses a home-produced fuel. It is, therefore, wholly British, because, apart from the economy which it offers to all users of road transport, every penny earned by its manufacture, and, most important of all, the production of its fuel, means wages paid to none but British workmen, and not the 'greater part to foreigners, ENGINEER. Leeds.