Fair Shares for Road and Rail
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Division of the Functions of the Two Systems Seems Inevitable, and the Time is Ripe for Going Thoroughly Into This Problem
SINCE the Transport Advisory 'Council, in its report, last year, has fought shy of the task of laying down guidance on the highly contentious subject of division of function. as between road and rail interests, it may seem, at present, somewhat presumptuous to discuss the matter.
The whole aim of this short series of articles, however, is to examine the potentialities inherent in the next five years for road transport as a whole. With such an aim, the question of division of function will have to be faced, in sortie form or other, in the not-far-distant future.
I have emphasized, previously, the impossibility of a rigid schedule of traffic for one or other form of transport, whilst even the most pliable kind of schedule must be a matter for detailed consideration by experts. Whatever the decisions may be, however, we may take it for granted that the incidental moves will be hotly contested on both sides, and, in any such contest the advantages will surely lie mainly with road interests.
Unsupported Objections.
Objections by the railways, on the grounds of unsuitability, can carry but little weight with serious and impartial judges. Already the industrial public is fully acquainted with the announcements that the railways are to-day capable of conveying almost anything, from a pin to a pantomime, by road-rail services.
Moreover, the railways themselves are, to-day, the biggest individual owners of road transport. Thus, it is possible that any move in the direction of taking traffic from the roads may conceivably have a boomerang effect on the railways.
Notwithstanding the T.A.C. report, there is a considerable volume of opinion that favours some kind of division of function. The Salter report, a few years ago, discussed the possibility of the Minister of Transport's placing a ban on certain kinds of traffic by mad. There is, at least, an equal claim to certain traffics being barred to the railways, although freedom of choice for the trader must, of course, remain the guiding principle.
If ever division of function reaches the stage of definite proposal the road interests will be able to present an extremely strong case, and the reasons are not far to seek. Until the main-line railways began to find a serious decrease in the volume of business for the conveyance of all types of goods, road transport was regarded by them as of little or no account.
It is precisely from that time that the "advance" of the railways to the roads is traceable. Thus, the railways' advent as road competitors was, itself, a direct result of the necessary competition that grew out of a monopoly system.
If, as the T.A.C. report urges, all forms of transport ultimately are rate-controlled, but not state-controlled, the foundations of true competition will• be healthily strengthened, and road transport will reap its own reward. The main complaint to-day is that the road operator, representative of a great and growing power in the service of industry in general, ' has no such ground of objection to the erstwhile monopolist as the railways have in relation to their most powerful rival.
Implementing Freedom-of-choice Principle.
Nevertheless, the freedom-of-choice principle of the T.A.C. report will be sufficient if the road-transport industry be, itself, united in insisting that the principle is implemented in practice. The ever-increasing efficiency of road services to commerce in every channel will enable them to meet the railways on more level terms. Division of function, then, would come naturally instead of artificially.
One of the chief factors to be taken into consideration is the high degree of flexibility of the road services to industry, compared with that of the railways. It may be admitted that, on certain long-distance runs, the railways can point to an advantage in adherence to time schedules, and to some assistance in the relief of road congestion, although it by no means follows that the advantage would extend to the actual time taken for the delivery of goods.
Acceptance of these two facts brings us back once more to a point that is frequently made, yet one which always needs emphasis in order to maintain a clear outlook on this vast problem—namely, that road and rail transport services are complementary, besides competitive.
So we come to the remarkable manifestations of interest—not to use any stronger term—in the future of individual road-transport concerns. Such activity, it cannot be too often repeated, is no reason for any road-transport operator, who has weathered the stormy passages of the past ten years, to be either persuaded or stampeded into disposing of his undertaking at the very moment when signs are distinctly favourable to the substantial financial appreciation of such interests.
It is, above all else, the flexibility of road transport that has met the need of modern industry in a manner that the railways, by their, very nature, could not accomplish.
Preparation for Attack.
These are factors to be borne in mind when there is lethargy in the business of hammering-out a rates schedule for the whole country. That is a job to be tackled vigorously.
At the same time those charged with the duty of watching roadtransport interests must look ahead for the next attack on the free development of their industry. It may well take the familiar form once again that the industry is not capable of organizing itself efficiently, and that it cannot regulate its own business. That warning should be taken at once, for delay—and, still worse, division—at the present vital point in formulating plans for the next five years, would be fatal.
The truth is that there never has been a time in the history of the industry when all the circumstances so greatly favoured action in complete unity to obtain the full benefits that are awaiting a long-suffering industry. Incidentally—and, no doubt, for the same reason—there never has been a time when certain extraneous and uninstructed interests sought to acquire such extensive control of road-transport undertakings.
Owners, I am convinced, will make a grave error if they allow a situation of such promise to be exploited by those who have little or no knowledge of the technicalities of the industry, and have taken little or no part in the fight for the benefits that, given united action, are to-day in sight. C.E.C.