1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
These Barren Leaves
"Harsh Would be He Who Denied the B.T.C. a Few Regretful Words at the Obsequies of Integration," but the Commission Has Advanced in the Wrong Direction THE financial results for 1951, the last complete year• before the shadow of denationalization, provide the Road Haulage Executive with an almost perfect cue for its exit. The year before, there was an operating deficit of €1,106,476. In 1951, the R.H.E. had net traffic receipts of £3,246,589, very likely enough to meet the interest on the stock paid for its assets and to leave a little bit over. It would have been a fine gesture in the antique fashion for the R.H.E. to set out these simple facts, murmur: "I have done the State some service," and pass quietly to its execution.
Purely by accident, the initial effect has been something on these lines. The British Transport Commission has published its accounts two or three weeks in advance of its report, and for the time being the figures must speak for themselves. The brief notes accompanying them suggest, however, that the publication of the full report may be used as an opportunity for an attempted justification of everything the R.H.E. stands for.
The profit and loss of the Commission ran a neckand-neck race during 1951. In the end, black triumphed over red and there was a surplus of £113,558, not a vast amount when compared with the accumulated deficit of nearly €40m., but at any rate something on the right side. The B.T.C. subtly describes this narrow .victory as the achievement of equilibrium, thus, giving an indirect rebuke to those people who would have preferred the Commission to lurch into complete solvency.
Harsh would he be who denied the B.T.C. a few regretful words at the obsequies of integration. A section of the notes is devoted to the subject. On the passenger side integration by purchase has been the policy, but the Commission complains that-competition from stage-carriage bus services and long-distance coach , services hinders the process. Concerning integration on the goods side, which "had proceeded much further," the notes give merely a glimpse of the promised land.
Smile Tolerantly
Long-distance traffics contributed to the common purse. The beginnings of a more rational price policy were in sight. Experiments in integrating physical operations were under way. How ominous this would have sounded a year ago. As it is, we can take a dispassionate view of rational prices we are not likely to be called upon to pay. We can also smile tolerantly at the euphemistic ring of the statement that the R.H.E. "effected sundry revisions, as opportunity arose, in the direction of a less unstable and more appropriate basis of charge." , Some stress is laid in the notes upon the hardships of providing a "public service," which seems to correspond roughly to the obligations of a common carrier. . The R.H.E. receives a special word of .praise for "accepting a greater measure of the public obligation?' Does the R.H.E. itself feel that this is expressed in the happiest manner possible? The inference is that it has selfsacrificingly accepted a burden willingly laid aside by some other organization. In fact, the public obligation was inevitable once the Commission had decreed the imposition of the 25-mile limit and the R.H.E. had embarked on the policy of refusing, revoking and withdrawing permits of all kinds.
On the subject of a public service, the notes are not easy to understand. They assert that peak and occasional traffic must be carried; that all users should receive' equal treatment and pay the same rates. So far the argument is reasonably clear, provided no awkward questions are asked about the amount of the rates.
The statement proceeds: "The essence of a public service is that it accepts public obligations of the foregoing character, and it is the extent of these public obligations which makes all the difference to the costs of individual transport services, both directly and through the effect ' of such obligations upon the load factor obtained." Until reading this I had imagined that I knew what was meant by a public service. Now, I can only hope that the language of the full report is a little less opaque.
Obscure Significance
There are other points in the notes where the significance is even more obscure. Most mysterious are some calculations the purpose of which seems to be to refute any allegation that the R.H.E. has too great an administrative staff. In December, 1948, it is stated—when operations were still being conducted through the private companies taken over from the railways or acquired before the organization of the Executive on its present basis began—there was 0.51 managerial, administrative and clerical staff to each motive unit, and 1.14 drivers, mates and vanguards. The ratio per 100 tons carried was 0.62 to 1A4.
In December, 1951, the ratio in respect of each motive unit was 0.39 to 1.04, and for each 100 tons carried the ratio was 0.45 to 120. The figures are illustrated with a neat diagram which, it is Maintained, " clearly " shows "the current ratios of 'black-coated workers' and of vehicle crews to be more favourable than in 1948." On the evidence the concltision may be correct, but what it is supposed to prove I fail to understand.
It may not be a coincidence that the notes continue with the observation that the statistical and accounting apparatus was still in course of absorbing almost 1,000 undertakings during the earlier months of 1951. During the early months of 1952, the apparatus was probably kept just as busy working out abstruse calculations such as those I have summarized above, I hope not unfairly.
If the notes provide a reliable foretaste of the coming report, one may say that it is likely to be -lacking in genuine conviction. The ability and enterprise at present mewed up in the Ivory Tower deserve a better outlet than these barren leaves. The British transport industry has proved that it can make even a bad system work reasonably well. The accounts show that during the year the Commission and its Executives made a notable advance in the direction dictated by the Transport Act. It is no fault of anybody concerned if the direction be wrong. The time has arrived for a new approach. One can only hope that the coming Bill will provide it.