Janus Put Through the Hoop "H AD W nationalization taken place 20 years ago, it
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
would now be accepted as natural." Has " Janus " "dropped a brick "? For he inferred, in his article of February 13, that the Conservative Party would have become extinct or so effete that they would have been unable or unwilling to attempt. de-nationalization—or, was he forecasting that conversion, is inevitable?
Although so much df great importance is happening, "Janus " was so short of material that he chose to comment upon a 20-year-old report. He thus wasted another page.
His strong bias caused him to pass over " The Future of British Transport" published only about two years prior to 1947. Is it remarkable that this report, by a Liberal Party. Committee 13 years' after that by the Labour Party, should so closely resemble the earlier document?
The later one also criticized the railway directorates, discussed the financial difficulties of the railways, quoted the Select Committee 1918 on its co-ordination plan and the 1928 Royal Commission's mention of "a Public• Trust" in its third report. After careful study of the whole situation the Liberal Committee was "driven to the conclusion" that the only way of meeting the railroad problem was to integrate these two services.
This committee held 39 meetings, and finally recommended—largely against its will—that the control and ownership of railways, long distance road haulage and passenger transport, all canals, and railway-owned ports, be transferred to a public utility corporation.
The Liberal Committee dealt at some length with the possible need for the restriction of C-licensed operation. However, the Socialists did not restrain this, but the Prime Minister—in 1952—viewed its expansion with concern and referred to it as wasteful. The transport authorities of both Ulster and Eire have made pungent comments upon its use and abuse.
Passenger road transport has been largely municipally owned and operated for many years, but the Transport Press gives no indication of inertia of the former, Both passenger transport operators and hauliers have made full use of the restrictive provisions of the Acts of 1930 and 1933. They consistently fought "tooth and claw" in the Traffic and Appeal Courts, the colossal cost thereof having been borne by the consumers.
Earlier restrictive taxation cannot be ascribed to the Labour Party, nor can the recent increase of 7I.d. per gallon on fuel.
The reference by " Janus " to "remarkable foresight or of lack of imagination" was most unfortunate, for instead of "what might have been." readers would doubtless wish to be discussed the probable effects of present legislation, including such questions as:—
How keen is railway competition likely to be and will it result in the recapture of large tonnage from the road? If so, will it substantially increase railway revenue?
Can the railways cope with a large increase in tonnage with their present equipment and number and quality of staff?
Will any increase in railway revenue come sufficiently quickly to attract more and better staff by better wages and conditions?
Will the railways still be bound to accept any traffic offered? Will they compete with their former haulage companies? Into whose hands is road haulage likely to fall and what will be the proportions of largeand of smallscale operation?
Are the national networks of R.H.E. services likely to be destroyed, involving, inter alia, lower frequencies of services and causing dispatchers to " hawk " part loads, also inducing the queueing of several competing vehicles at traders' and dock premises?
Will traders who " cream " their traffic to their own vehicles or to small hauliers expect the maintenance of a national transport system to take care of their "odds and awkwards "?
What standard of charges would such a public system be likely to apply to such remnants?
Why are operators afraid of the proposed modification of the licensing system?
To what extent will Licensing Authorities " consider " haulage rates?
Will each require expensive costing departments to check applicants' figures?
How will charging of " licensed " rates be enforced? Will licensees have to apply for individual variations of rates?
Will diserimination, as between customers, be possible under A-licensed operation?
Nottingham. L. DONSON HOLMES, A.M.Inst.T.
Organized Timewasting
THE article by E. Cant in your issue dated February 13, is a good example of specious reasoning.
It assumes that a man who has been driving from London to Glasgow and back (one round trip a week) ought not to be expected to do anything else—even if given the tool and with no more effort on his part.
Taking Mr. Cant's own timings, his imaginary driver could still leave on Sunday with a 30-m.p.h. vehicle, but he would be able to be back in London early on Thursday morning. He could then be employed for the rest of the week on runs nearer his base.
This is, of course, assuming that it is desirable that men should work 66 hours a week. For over 100 years the unions have consistently agitated for an evershortening week. They cannot have it both ways.
And what a farce the double-time for Sundays is! The only possible excuse for this is that working on Sundays stops men from having recreation—physical, mental and spiritual. But these men for whom Mr. Cant speaks apparently do not want recreation!
Of course, Mr. Cant is speaking with his tongue in his cheek. I do not suppose that any regular longdistance driver consistently keeps his lorry down to 20 m.p.h. on the open road and, to put it bluntly, wages are being paid for work which is not done. Is the employer expected for ever to pay men for hanging about to make up time? • In any case the trunk drivers on regular runs for B.R.S., who are making all the fuss, are only a very small proportion of all the drivers of vehicles over 3 tons unladen and it is high time that the interests of the majority took precedence.
Birmingham, 27. C. S. DUNBAR.