1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244 
Hauliers might . . . bring up WRITES
Page 83
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
once again the prickly subject of the farmers' C licence'
LIVESTOCK has the distinction of being the only traffic specifically mentioned by the railways and hauliers in their brief statement on co-operation. Redistribution of this traffic is likely to be in one direction only. The railways expect that the cattle truck will soon become an interesting relic, treasured by the antiquarians even if it does not fit into the'modern concept of fast through freight trains. Apart from one or two isolated areas, British Road Services does not set itself out to carry livestock, and the reversion should therefore fall mainly to specialist carriers under free enterprise.
When so much is in the melting pot, hauliers might conskier the moment opportune to bring up once again the prickly subject of the farmers' C licence. They have never ceased to maintain that the unique right of the farmer to carry goods for other people without having to prove need should not have been conceded by the legislators in 1933 and has become more and more of an anomaly as the services of the professional operators have penetrated into the remotest parts of the country.
It might not seem tactful to return to the theme when the railways are in the process of relinquishing their livestock traffic to road. On the other hand, as the railways themselves have found, sheer volume of traffic is not the only measure of an operator's success. Other factors that have to be taken into account include the type of traffic and the ease with which it can be fitted into other work. If it were merely a question of hauliers stepping in to collect a bonus, there would hardly be a need for the machinery for co-operation that is now being set up.
The complaint against the farmer-operator is not generally extended to include the genuine farmer with vehicles travelling to and from the market who sells space in them to his friends and neighbours in the true spirit of the legislation. The haulier is mainly concerned with the pseudo-farmer who regards his possession of a piece of land as a means of entry into the transport business.
The switch from rail to road may mean, especially in the early stages, that a haulier will frequently be asked to pick up traffic that is not particularly remunerative. Co-operation will help to ensure that this does not happen too often, but this means that the co-operation will have to include the farmer as well as the railways and the road operator. The activities of outsiders could add to the•
difficulties, especially during the transitional period. It is not impossible, therefore, that an effort should be made by hauliers to modify the law governing the carriage of goods under C licence by persons engaged in agriculture.
The reaction of the National Farmers Union is more easily predictable. It has consistently rejected any suggestion that the law should be changed. Naturally enough, it would need a good deal of convincing that a privilege peculiar to its members could actually in some cases work to their disadvantage. In the face of determined opposition fibril the Union, the Government would take no action, and in their own interests the railways and the hauliers would not press the matter beyond a certain point. All the same, it would be worth while their putting on the record that some restraint by farmers in the use of their own vehicles for general haulage might in the long run be to their own advantage.
In the preamble to its recommendations on the Beeching plan the Union acknowledges the difficulties that railway regional officers have encountered because they were " left with the more unremunerative flows ", this in spite of better facilities and improved services. The Union suggests that still further improvements are necessary. Rolling stock leaves much to be desired, and there are not sufficient• appliances and equipment to facilitate -transfer between road and rail. Only by a policy of rationalization could the railways hope to compete for the more remunerative traffic at present passing by road.
CLOSER CO-OPERATION WANTED The N.F.U. has, of course, already asked the railways to initiate a road-rail service for the movement of livestock, and it now agrees with the desirability of closer co-operation with the independent haulier over the whole field. This is one of the Union's recommendations. They have been sent in the first instance to the Ministries of Transport and of Agriculture, and will no doubt in due course be transmitted to the railways and perhaps also to
the hauliers. The suggestion that co-operation need not be one-sided ,could therefore be made with complete propriety.
Some of the other proposals from the N.F.U. are .yf interest. It is suggested that there should be."an immediate and significant shift S' in the allocation of central Government funds for major road programmes to rural road improvements and maintenance. This is surely pursuing a special interest too hard. As the union says, the Beeching plan would increase the volume of vehicular traffic on rural roads. Many of the roads can easily cope with a considerable increase. In any case, the correct principal ought to he the allocation of more money for all types of road, and not merely the redistribution of a global sum that is already inadequate. More sensible possibly is the union's view that the Ministry of Transport should relieve local highway authorities of financial responsibility, for maintaining class I and ,11 roads, Another recommendation likely to stimulate controversy is that the first option of purchase on land no longer needed by the railways should continue to be given to the owners or occupiers of adjoining lands. The point of the proposal is clear, but there would have to be important exceptions. The Ministry of Transport ought to have first call on a discontinued stretch of line if there is any possibility that it could play a useful part in the national road system. Other railway property, especially where it has been used as an assembly point for goods traffic, might well continue to play the same role for road transport.