Political Commentary By JAN US
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Backing the Wrong Horse
The Inherent Possibilities of Mechanical Handling Improve the Prospects of Road Transport's Efficiency, but the B.T.C. Continues to Regard the Railways as being of Primary Importance CONFIRMATION of rumours that the Road Haulage Association is rounding-up its displaced persons comes at an appropriate time. Even the progenitors of British Road Services are dubious about the progress made by their offspring, and any plan for the future of integrated transport which is now maturing in the Ivory Tower may be outmoded by such technical developments as those admirably summarized in the report on freight handling just issued by the AngloAmerican Council on Productivity.
If Mr. Arthur Deakin, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, be not yet an apostate, he is at least learning to trim his sails to the wind. A Labour Government appealing to the country in October with a programme involving great extension of its nationalization proposals would, he has said, "get the biggest whacking" in its history. Mr. Deakin has no doubt been listening keenly to the chorus of criticism from trade and industry, and has caught the murmur of disapproval from the public at what has so far happened to the industries taken over by the State.
Some echoes of dissent may also have been heard in the Ivory Tower, but they are not being allowed to deflect the British Transport Commission from its predetermined course. The Commission has nailed its colours to the railways. The greater part of its report for 1950 is a sustained and skilful attempt to show that the railways have been for a long time unjustifiably under a cloud, which at last is lifting.
The operating costs of road and rail, says the B.T.0 's report, in building up its ingenious argument, cannot sensibly be compared. Road transport depends upon oil and rubber where the railways use coal and steel. The prices of the imported .pair and the indigenous pair are affected by completely different sets of circumstances. By keeping the tax on oil fuels at the pre-war figure until 1950, and by not increasing licence duties, the Government gave the impression to everybody (except the Commission) that the efficiency of road transport was increasing and that of the railways declining Pre-war Relationship Restored imposition of another 9d. per gallon on fuel last year apparently helped to restore the pre-war relationship between road and rail costs. The deduction presumably is that it also helped to put British Road Services in the red. One cannot be certain, for at this point the report shoots off on a different tack and the reader is left to draw his own conclusions. The loss on British Road Services, however unfortunate it may be, has been turned to good advantage in working out the general theme, according to which the apparent superiority of road transport over rail was an anomaly, certain to be exposed as soon as the railways had a fair chance.
No sooner has this verbal triumph been won than the freight-handling report comes to throw the whole issue c8 into the melting pot again. The team responsible for the report makes no claim to bring back wonders from the brave New World, but interest is now likely to be stimulated, especially among hauliers, in the use of pallets and of the mechanical devices that go with them.
The B.T.C. is right in stressing the difficulty of finding a genuine basis for comparison between road and rail. The significance of time spent in loading and unloading is a case in point. Any reduction in the time involved is welcome, but it is not so vital to the railways. Idle trucks do not mean idle drivers, and schedules allowing plenty of time at terminals may not easily be altered even if the time be greatly reduced.,
More Journeys per Vehicle A haulier, especially a short-distance operator, will often find that quicker turn-round enables him to get more journeys out of his vehicles. More journeys means increased tonnage and possible lowering of rates. The intelligent use of pallets and the other devices described in the freight-handling report should mean to the haulier a noticeable rise in transport efficiency, which was, after all, the ultimate object of the team's visit to the U.S.A. Transport efficiency on the railways may also be improved, but not to anything like the same extent.
The B.T.C., in its report for 1950, has committed itself fairly, deeply on the side of the railways. Among other things, it asks for adequate financial and physical resources "to replace and re-equip and remodel the transport system" (which to the Commission apparently means the railways). It points out that, if permission were granted, it would be able to borrow over £200m. for the purpose. At a time when so many people think that too much money has already been sunk in the railways, these are brave words. The fact remains that the Commission has still to justify feeding the railways this Gargantuan meal at the expense of starving road transport. Perhaps, after all, the Commission is backing the wrong horse.
Post-election planners have the advantage that they can see which way the Commission is going and strive to avoid its mistakes. Denationalization of road transport will make it easier to establish co-ordination rather than integration between road and rail. Each side will be free to develop along the lines that suit it best and to apply new technical discoveries in the most profitable way.
A plan for free enterprise should not content itself with turning the clock back to 1947. It should take tribute from investigations such as those summarized in the freight-handling report, and even from what may be found' useful in the experiment in nationalization so far as it has gone. Whatever road transport system takes the place of the present, it will certainly not be at all like the one that vanished with the passing of the Transport Act.