RNA hits out at rail freight
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BRITISH Railways are uneconomic and cause noise and pollution, claims Road Haulage Association director-general, George Newman.
Mr Newman made the claim while giving evidence on the subject of railways to the House of Commons Select Committee on nationalised industries.
Labour MP, R. E. Bean told Mr Newman that he presented a picture of cut-throat competition between road and rail, but the picture in Germany had been one of co-operation between the two.
Mr Bean also said he thought such competition was to the detriment of the country. The Germans presented a picture where long hauls were done by the rail network while short runs were done by road.
In reply to this, Mr Newman said that although the RHA written submission to the committee had condemned the railways, the Association had always co-operated with British Rail in research and the setting up of the Freightliners network.
"With the geography of this country, the rail haul is not long enough to be economical except in bulk minerals and coal which rail do well",he said.
He added: "The idea of road-versus-rail warfare is, we agree, a barren argument. We believe that the transfer of freight from road to rail is a pipedream and British industry has voted with its feet in showing that it wants to move its goods by road."
In its submission to the Select Committee, the RHA stated: "Neither on economic nor on environmental grounds is there a case for the transfer of goods from road to rail.
"The Department of the Environment (now the Department of Transport) has assessed that if the freight tonnage now carried by rail could be increased by 50 per cent, the decrease in road traffic would be less than two per cent." The RHA also told the Committee that investments in new roads, and particularly new by-passes, would yield more in economic benefits than investments in rail freight services.
Millions of pounds of public money had been spent on the railways which carried less than 10 per cent of the nation's goods, while the road transport industry received no grants and carried around 85 per cent of the nation's goods, said the RHA.
In reply to a question from Labour MP, Jo Richardson, Mr Newman told the Committee he thought it right that British Rail freight operations should be expected to pay their way, at least until EEC regulations on the tachograph were being enforced in Britain.
"We take the view that there should be no deficit on rail freight," said Mr Newman.
He pointed out the re-introduction of the differences between own-account and hire and reward hauliers was about to be re-introduced, with the revised transport managers licensing proposals.
"The benefits of re-introducing the difference between the two are that the new licences will tend to reduce the capacity of the hauliers and make sure that more hauliers remain viable longer. They will also improve the image of the haulier.
"They would also mean a greater degree of professionalism in the industry and that we would like to see."
On the question of vehicle taxes contained in the Government's Green Paper on Transport, Mr Newman stated that increased taxation was not the answer. Tory MP Michael McNair-Wilson asked about taxes on the noise levels of vehicles.
But Mr Newman replied that tax was not the answer to the problems of noise or pollution on the road.
In its submission, the RHA commented: "Fiscal and other measures designed to increase the cost of road haulage will not divert traffic to rail. They will merely increase the costs of all those goods which move, and will continue to move by road."
Also giving evidence to the Select Committee was Freight Transport Association chief executive, Hugh Featherstone, who made plain from the start that the FTA was "interested in an effective and viable rail system."
Mr Featherstone told the committee that the key question on the subject of rail was one of distance. "In Europe there are long distances and large concentrations of freight — a 200-mile run in this country is just not an economic haul," he said.
He compared the British Rail situation with European railways, but said that Britain was now better compared with Japan, where the railways carried just five per cent of freight. In its submission to the committee, the FTA said that during the past few years, development has taken place in distribution, and the decline of heavy rail-oriented industry -has been accompanied by the growth of light industry, which is not rail connected. Mr Featherstone added that the German rail industry had seen a massive growth of around 90 per cent, while even in this country, grants to companies willing to operate their own sidings have meant that some run-down and closed slidings have been reopened.
He told Miss Richardson that expecting to see a phasing out of British Rail losses, while road freight was not having EEC regulations on hours and tachos enforced, was "a massive irrelevancy to the true situation."
To introduce both sets of regulations would cost the road haulage industry E706 million a year and, he said, the country just cannot afford it.
On the question of taxation. he told the committee that all forms of transport should cover their track costs, and with that in mind, the FTA would not be opposed to a levelling out of vehicle taxation.
He said that if heavy vehicles were to pay more tax while lighter vehicles paid less, that would be acceptable.
In its submission, th( FTA said that rail debates olio the years had been based on what the users should be doing to help the railways. It also praised the Green Paper for taking the attitude that the railways should be providing a service, and welcomed the Government's rejection of the clauses of the 1968 Transpori Act, allowing rail deficits to be paid.
But it criticised the Green Paper for underestimating the importance of road transport in Britain, in relation to other calls on the country's resources.
The FTA described the document's proposals as being "quite absurd" for social costs to be recovered by the levying of another tax. "This is a unique proposition, inequitable and ineffective in reducing environmental hardship, and offering no compensation to those who suffer from it."