AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Discussion on Brig.-General Mance's Paper

27th September 1935
Page 35
Page 35, 27th September 1935 — Discussion on Brig.-General Mance's Paper
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?

THE discussion on the paper, "Steps That Have Been Taken to Solve the Transport Problems of the Country," was opened by Mr. W. A. Winson, who pointed out that the railways enjoy complete monopoly of their rail services, whilst competing on the road and in the air. There are no grounds for giving the railways monopoly, but in drafting recent legislation only the road transport services of the country had been placed under review. There is no formula for ,any division of function, geographical, physical or by the nature of goods carried. He suggested a cold scientific study by an independent body stch as a national transport board, which would allocate the work intelligently.

Mr. G. H. Searle thought that the State might be forced to intervene; he suggested that the root of the problem is the railway classification by weight, packing and value— a system by which rates for low-class traffic balance rates for high-class. This principle of classification might be utilized on the road side by some equalization fund. It was notable that the railways had not asked to be relieved from classification.

Mr. C. C. M. Gosselin suggested the error of taking the railways on their face value. The whole railway system should be examined closely and technically as there must be an enormous amount of " dead driftwood " that should be removed. On the other hand road transport must assume the function of a public service.

Mr. G. Mackenzie Junner (Editor, The Commercial 3loior) could not believe that co-ordination with the railways would mean anything less than complete subjection. He could not forget the "Bridges Clause" in the 1930 and 1933 Acts and the paralyzing effect it would have had on

road transport if it had been brought into force in the manner intended by the railways. The railway policy is a gradual process of absorption or elimination, ancillary users need not yet congratulate themselves; they had already been accused of malpractices and might be the subject of further restrictive legislation. Only unity can give road transport strength to resist further encroachment on its shores, otherwise it may be choked by the sand of law and politics. In war the railways would be more vulnerable than ever and vve might have to rely on road transport to save the country.

Mr. NV. E. Macve stated that the Acts of 1930 and 1933 had done nothing towards co-ordination, they were both destructive and if it were to be achieved they must be scrapped. Ile asked why the ancillary user should take on general operating. The ancillary problem would prove vital. Industry demands efficient transport, and if it cannot obtain this will perform its own transport work.

Mr. J. N. Southern blamed the horse for most of the congestion of our streets and said that it should be abolished., He advocated the battery-electric vehicle.

Mr. F. H. Wort was tired of hearing of " co-ordination" from the railway side. The Government should set up a Salter Conference to investigate railway matters. The cry is what road transport has done to the railways: be would like to know what railways are doing for themselves. They had no system of depreciation and no other business could work on such lines. If railways had the same young and virile body of men, backed by efficient engineers, as had the road'they would have nothing to fear.

[Further contributions to the discussions on this and the other papers will be given next week. —En. ]


comments powered by Disqus