THE TRANSPORT QUESTION.
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Critical Consideration of the Expressed Views of Sir Norman Hill on Motors v. Railways.
THERE has been published recently. in The Observer a very, interesting interview with Sir Norman Hill, who is concerned with motor haulage as it affects his task of clearing up the congestion of our ports. On the whole, the views he expresses are both well informed and moderate.
It has already been suggested in The Commercial Motor that many people have gone too far in their enthusiasm for motor transport, arising out of the tremendous success of the emergency organization brought into being during the railway strike. Much hot air has been talked about the supersession of railways by motor transport. While this sort of thing is more pleasant than the abuse to which we have grown accustomed, it is possibly no. less damaging, inasmuch as, :whenthe case is properly, analysed, it will be found that all these glowing prophecies cannot be fulfilled. alt that juncture, the natural disappointment of enthusiasts might well lead to a 'violent fluctuation of opinion to the opposite extreme. ,
Sir Norman "Hill recognizes the great probability that motors will be used extensively for the organized carriage of comparatively light loads and particularly of Perishable goods such as milk and vegetables. He points out that there are other bulky loads which must continue to be conveyed by goods trains. There is only one important point in his statement with which one can reasonably quarrel, and even this one opening is due less to what he says than to the possibility of his views being distorted by the removal of their context-.
Thus, one may take two quotations as they stand. (1) "How does the cost of motor taansport compare with the cost of railway transport l That is the question that must and will be decisive."
(2) "The motor has its own advantages. The use of it saves a great deal of re-handling of goods, and it can take its load direct from one point to another with a minimum of delay, but these advantages in themselves will not be sufficient to enable it to supplant the railway unless it can also do the work more cheaply.'
, If these quotations are read in the light of an admission that there is a great field for motor transport in the carriage of light and perishable articles, they'are comparatively innocuous. The latter half of the second quotation, however, goes very near to a suggestion that the actual cost of transport must in every case be the ultimately decisive factor. This is, of course, incorrect.
It is true when the load is not perishable and when its value to the consignee bears no relation whatever to the time of its delivery. It is not true when the load is perishable or easily damaged, or when the time of delivery is a matter of urgent importance.
One could quote endless common examples to show that speed or punctuality are 'often of greater value than direct economy of transit. The whole case in favour of civilian aeronautics is based almost entirely on the speed factor, People send telegrams instead of letters when the greater rapidity more than balances the greater east. A man whose time is of value may be more than justified in paying highly for quick transport instead of paying much less for slow trans
port. .
Directly we begin to focus our attention on comparative costs of transport, we 'are apt to forget that there are other expenses and savings to which we ought to attach a proper measure of importance. Sir Norman mentions that, in estimating costs of motor transport, one must take everything into account—
e32 the cost of the vehicle and of its fuel, the wages of the men who drive it, and the cast of the road on which it runs. He does not mention, but it is equally true, that in making a comparison, we must take into account the cost of terminal cartage, the loss in value of the load due to handling or delay, and the costs which delay may impose upon the receiver of the goods. Sir Norman himself admits that, at the moment, in dealing with the problem of the docks, the great thing is to get rid of the congestion, whatever it may cost to do so. This fact is emphasized just at the present, but it never loses all its importance. If we have a method that is particularly valuable from the point of view of promptness and the prevention of congestion, then it may well be perfectly good business to adopt that method in preference to some other, which, if only direct costs are taken into account, may appear to be cheaper. When considering perishable goods it is important to the community as a whole that goods, amble of these goods should not be lost to the community by their depreciation in transit. We must also remember to take into account the possibility of a system of transport being such as to cause expense or loss to others than those immediately 'concerned. Sir Norman Hill recognizes this aspect when he talks of the shortage of trucks due to so many being run into factories and left there until their loads are required. When this happens, Ale consignee may get his transport more cheaply, but tho loss to the community may well overbalance the gain to the individual.
We cannot quite understand why Sir Norman hesitates to. advise demobilized soldiers to set up in business in the motor transport line, on the grounds that the whole thing is too much in the experimental stage. The Success of an enterprise of this sort is not, as he suggests, dependenten a straight answer to the question of what is the cheapest way, of carrying, -say, -a. ton of cotton from Liverpool to Manehestera Even if we dissociate ourselves altogether froni-the extremists it is apparent that there is 'plenty of work for motor vehicles. to do Which.cannot possibly be done by railways, and oonsequently; there,isat least a reaeonable probability of -financial success in a motor transport business established by demobilized men, when properly qualified.
The thing is only experimental if we use it to do in emergency what the goods train does as a general rule. The work of motor haulage has long passed the experimental stage, a fact which every soldier must fully recognize from personal experience.
One more small point. Sir Norman Hill has a very poor opinion of the suggestion that special motor loads should be constructed, dues being charged for their use. He appears to think that these would-oper. ate to restrict the capability of the motor vehicle to work exactly from one point to any other. The fact that part of a journey can be made on a special road where high speeds are possible, because slow horsed traffic is prohibited., does. not prevent the motor vehicle from branching off on to the ordinary road and delivering its goods at the client's door. It merely affords a better opportunity for economical running over a part of the roarbe.
We are, however, more or less in agreement with him that special motor roads would not be justified. The money required to build them would, we think, be better spent on the widening of existing thoroughfares, maintaining all the natural connections with by-roads, but in practice, reserving a free passage on the centre portion of every main road, from which all slow traffic would have to be strictly excluded.