AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

JANUS • • . . . confidence tr ic k wh i ch the .

27th September 1963
Page 62
Page 62, 27th September 1963 — JANUS • • . . . confidence tr ic k wh i ch the .
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?

. . confidence trick which the WRITES railways have been working with

Gereat success'

LUCKY JIM, in the novel named after him, argued that a great many learned papers and theses did no more than throw a pseudo-light on non-problems. Much the same impression is left by the report from a working group of British and French officials on the proposals for a fixed Channel link. The general reaction, it must be admitted, is that the report in some way or another throws a new and penetrating light on the problem and that after a century and a half of discussion neither Government any longer has a reason for delay. Even a cursory reading of the report, however, shows that it contributes little that is new.

For this the terms of reference are mainly responsible. The working group was told to concentrate on the proposal for a rail tunnel put forward by the Channel Study Group in March, 1960, and the proposal for a combined road and rail bridge put forward by the bridge group 18 months later. Other projects have not been given detailed consideration and the working group has had to ignore the general far-reaching consequences of a link of either kind. The main effort has been directed towards a comparison of the technical and financial merits of the two proposals, their superioiity to the established means of crossing by sea or air and any problems which they may pose in the fields of international law or of defence.

Within this restricted compass, the result was a foregone conclusion. The technical problems posed by a bridge are greater than those of a tunnel and the initial cost is certain to be higher, especially in view of the double facilities that would be provided. Either form of link would be bound to give some advantage over air and sea transport to the extent to which they have at present been developed. The tunnel has the undisputed merit of interfering with nobody, whereas a bridge would inevitably raise certain navigational and legal problems, even if they could easily be solved.

.APPARENT OFFICIAL BACKING

The main result of the working group's deliberations has been to provide apparent official backing for the confidence trick which the railways have been working with great success for several years. They have thrown their full weight behind a plan for a link which would be exclusive to them; they have publicized the plan at every opportunity with the powerful support of the tunnel group; they have been able to narrow the controversy down to a technical and financial comparison , with one other moreexpensive and less-publicized plan; and they will no doubt now claim that their own plan has been proved the winner and is henceforward alone in the field.

Most of the really important issues have thus been skilfully sidestepped. Road operators in particular should be surprised that, although the dispute is between one link exclusive to rail and another for both rail and road, not even a passing reference is made in the report to the relative merits of the two forms of transport. It is apparently al4 assumed that, because cars and lorries will be able to travel through the tunnel on flat railway wagons, there will be no operational difference between the tunnel and the bridge.

Year after year the statistics show relentlessly that the importance of the railways is declining. Even the Beeching Plan fits into this pattern, in that it recommends that the railways, like the old Roman Empire, would do better to give up their outposts and_ concentrate on defending their main routes against the encroaching barbarians. For a long time to come the railways will have an important, even an indispensable, part to play in British transport, but it is likely to diminish and may disappear in the end. The time scale used by the working group for their calculations is 50 years. It is taking a risk to assume that in the year 2018 the railways will still be flourishing much the same as they are today, either in Britain or on the rest of the Continent.

If not, one may wonder how the tunnel would be thriving at that point of time, always supposing that it has been constructed. A vestigial railway system on each side of the Channel may still be running. but nearly all the traffic using the tunnel will travel to the approaches by road and will either transfer to rail vehicles or make the journey on its own wheels standing on flat trucks.

CONVEYOR BELT OR PIPELINE

In these circumstances the under-Channel route will be indistinguishable from a conveyor belt or pipeline taking vehicles instead of other products or raw materials. If this is a possibility, there might be an advantage from the very beginning in taking vehicles through the tunnel in the same way as people are carried on an escalator. The most economical use would thus be made of the available space and all vehicles would be treated alike, whether trains, lorries, buses, coaches, private cars or trailers.

If such a proposal seems far-fetched, the same might have been said not long ago about the principles on which the hydrofoil or hovercraft is based. These new developments, says the working group, have not been overlooked in their examination of a Channel link. On the other hand, the effect of new inventions is largely left out of account in the report. The working group admits, for example, that "Too little was known about large hovercraft to permit an assessment of their potentialities and cost which would provide a valid basis for comparison with the fixed links or with established means ".

A detailed examination of the hovercraft might have been outside the scope of the report. It-will have to be made at some time if a proper decision on the Channel lihk is to be reached: On no account must the Government be, hurried by vested interests or by mistaken public clamour into committing themselves to building a link likely to absorb men and materials badly needed elsewhere. There must be better reasons than have so far been advanced.

Tags

People: Roman Empire

comments powered by Disqus