OPINIONS
Page 32
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and
QUERIES
DO THE RAILWAYS WELCOME ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES?
WITH reference to the suggestion that if the railways " find themselves temporarily embarrassed they should contact with Traffic Movement, Ltd., for such vehicles as they need to bridge the gap, experience would seem to show that the railways are not in the least bit interested in handling any traffic which cannot pass over their lines, so that the position of requiring vehicles to help them out would not seem to arise.
To-day it is not an uncommon experience for traffic to be offered to the railways, and, in fact, for the railways to insist that the traffic should go by rail, only to find that when it is offered for despatch they refuse to accept it on the score that a section of their line is obstructed. The ordinary haulier, having undertaken to move a block of traffic and finding himself unable to do so at the last minute through circumstances beyond his control, would scour the countryside in an endeavour to obtain alternative facilities in order that his customer should not be let down, but I have-not yet found any suggestion that this course has ever been adopted by the railways.
The time has come when we should no longer blind ourselves to the fact that the railways' sole interest is the railways, in spite of all their blather about the wonderful national effort they are making and all the nauseous, self-adulatory posters, articles and talks which they are putting out.
G. W. Tawric, Secretary, Eastern Area, Cambridge, Associated Road Operators.
SPEED-UP THE RE-OPENING OF BLOCKED ROADS
THEappointment by the Ministry of Home Security of Sir Warren Fisher as a Special Commissioner to co-ordinate and facilitate the work of the authorities responsible for the restoration of the roads damaged by enemy action is welcomed.
The British Road Federation would urge upon the authorities concerned, and upon Sir Warren Fisher, the need for carrying out such repairs as will make any damaged road usable at the very earliest possible moment.
It is, happily, due to the flexibility of road transport that diversions can be made at will, but diversions for any longer than is absolutely necessary are serious additions to the time of journeys and the fuel consumption of vehicles. The delays are increased and the costs enhanced.
No doubt the Minister of Supply would help local authorities to build up a reasonable stock of materials against such calls as may be made on them and the Minister of Labour would enable them to find the men when necessary.
The rapid restoration of traffic routes is an affair of more than local importance, and the Federation hopes that proper steps will be taken to ensure that the dislocation of road traffic is reduced to the minimum..
London, S.W.1. F. Fr. BRISTOW, Hon. Secretary, British Road Federation.
AN ANCILLARY USER'S TRANSPORT TROUBLES
THE following is a copy of a letter that we have received from Bruce's Banquet Products, Ltd., which concern is the maker of portable bacon stoves used for smoking bacon.
" After telephone advice from Scarborough, the writer wired you as follows :—` Smoke houses returned to Scarborough due to railway embargo. Can send to King's Cross if your transport can collect and deliver to destination. Advise Birmingham East 1667 immediately.
These smoke stoves weigh approximately 10 cwt. each and, as they are in sections, could easily be manhandled at King's Cross station. The writer's opinion is that you would be prepared to do this, but, being unaware of conditions in London, he thought it advisable to obtain your confirmation.
(Sgd.) P. W. BAILEY,
Birmingham, 8, for Bruce's Banquet Products."
The contents seem rather contradictory to the letter received by you from the Minister of Transport and referred to in a leader published in your issue, dated October 4.
This is one more personal experience which seems to prove that the railways, despite the opinion of the Ministry, are incapable of handling—under present conditions--anywhere near the amount of traffic that they are expected to carry. Our experience of road haulage also is not too good. We are having to send stuff by our own lorries to our depot at Lewes because the regular carrier—whose name I shall be quite willing to furnish you .with—is unable to deliver the goods under a fortnight, so road hauliers also seem to be in a muddle.
We realize that these are very difficult times and in these circumstances do feel that we should be able to " paddle our own canoe," which we can do only if the Ministry will be a little more reasdnable and issue permits for the purchase of one or two new lorries. We are of the opinion that the actual facts are, for some reason or other, kept back from the higher authorities.
In the meantime, we ourselves are put to considerable inconvenience, and we have definite evidence here of not one case but dozens where the goods are still taking a fortnight by rail, and, at the same time, the ioad hauliers will not take goods because we have not' previously used them in this capacity.
T. R. MOORCROFT, Departmental Manager,
London, E.C.1. p.p. I. Beer and Sons, Ltd.
ROAD TRANSPORT'S VALUE BECOMING RECOGNIZED
I READ with considerable interest in the News Chronicle of of October 23 the article "We Must Use More Lorries," by Lieut.-Colonel Mervyn O'Gorman, in which he deprecates the method of overloading the railways at the ultimate expense of the road-transport industry. He also stresses the amount of transhipment which is disposed of in the use of road transport, as opposed to the railways, When I opened the paper I could hardly believe my eyes to think that the daily Press, which has in recent years pursued the despicable policy of bolstering-up the railways at the expense of the road-transport industry,
had been able to find space for a few words of praise for the latter. Has it taken such a major affair as a war to educate our hitherto somewhat ignorant daily Press to the viewpoint that road transport is of at least some national importance? It cannot be denied that this industry is playing a marvellous part in the national effort, however divided it may be.
Whilst_ it is to be admitted that the road-transport industry cannot, by reason of weight restrictions, etc., carry many heavy indivisible loads, I do not see why that fact should be used as propaganda by the railways against the already over-restricted road-transport industry, for, in my opinion, the present transport situation is, indeed, a direct contradiction of the muchgarbled submission of the railway spokesmen that "our transport facilities are adequate for all the transport needs of the Nation," wifen actually anyone with any knowledge of the railways cannot fail to observe the fact that they are utterly over-congested.
The railway situation to-day seems to be nearly, if not quite, as bad as in the past war, for the officials do not seem to like to tell a person what time a train will arrive or depart; perhaps this is because they do not know.
Another item is the extortionate prices charged by the railways for refreshments for members of H.M. Forces, which is, indeed, a " very fine" example of appreciation by the railways of the assistance rendered them by the Government in pre-war years and shows their real regard for public interest.
The associations representative of road transport should press for licences on a " claimed-tonnage " basis at the end of the war, also automatic renewal of existing licences, and not let the railways object to every haulier's application for a licence merely as "force of habit." HAULIER. Matlock.
DO MIXED ASSOCIATIONS MEET PRESENT NEEDS?
VOUR leading articles of July 20 and September 6 do I really display a pathetic ignorance of the organizations already existing in the road-transport industry. More particularly is this so in the case of the oldest of them all—the Commercial Motor Users Association.
This Association has for the past 30 years and more successfully represented the views of all classes of commercial vehicle operator.
The Associated Road Operators, a younger but very virile association, has also felt able to include hauliers and ancillary users within its organization, and its rapid develoPment suggests that it has done so with no small degree of success.
The British Road Federation has extended this principle on an even greater scale.
Why, then, this recent Press agitation to divide the various classes of operator into " watertight" compartments? Had the ,suggestion come from the railway companies this would be understandable, for it is entirely in their interests to divide their competitors' camp into two or even more divisions, if possible.
To anyone who has any real interest in the roadtransport industry as a whole, it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the industry will never get a "square deal" from Parliament until it possesses an organization with authority to speak on its entire behalf. That has on more than one occasion been admitted by• Members of Parliament themselves.
All this does not imply that matters of sectional interest—and they are .very few—cannot be put forward as sectional matters.
The only subjects on which the haulier wants complete freedom, as opposed to the ancillary user, are in regard to the charges he makes for his services and the rates of pay he gives his employees. Two very essential matters, but definitely matters of limited scope, and covering only a small section of the whole political picture of the industry.
More vital to all concerned in the industry is the freedom to operate their vehicles to their full economic extent, the provision of roads suitable for their operation, and a cessation of penal taxation to prevent their economic development.
The vital question after the war will be whether commercial road transport is to be developed to the full, or be confined to very limited scope as ancillary to other transport interests. In that subject all are concerned alike—manufacturers, ancillary users and hauliers. To win that battle all sections must come together into one organization, such as the C.M.U.A. has provided in the past and provides at present.
C. LE M. GOSSELIN,
Managing Director, H. Viney and Co., Ltd. Preston.
[The writer of this letter, Mr. C. le M. Gosselin, has on frequent occasions contributed to our eolumns. Perhaps we ought to have paid more attention to his articles; then we , might not have displayed the "pathetic ignorance of the organizations already existing in the road-transport industry," of which he accuses us. As a matter of fact, we almost cut our teeth on road transport, and have continued on the commercial side ever since then. This has enabled us to view the matter without bias. We hold no brief for 'any particular association and can look only at the results which have been achieved. To state that the Commercial Motor Users Association has successfully represented the views of all classes of commercial-motor operator is, to say the least of it, incorrect. Certainly it has performed, and is performing, excellent work, but it was because it would not accept the shouldering of the burdens of many engaged on the haulage side of road transport that the younger body, Associated Road Operators, which Mr. Gosselin refers to as a virile association, was constituted. This latter organization does, at present, include a few ancillary operators, but .the bulk of its membership is drawn from hauliers, and the rapid development referred to has resulted from the close attention which it has paid to the many difficulties and problems confronting those who earn their livelihobd by transporting for others. There is no question of Press agitation to divide different classes of operator into water-tight compartments, and we resent Mr. Gosselin's suggestion that this view might have come from the railways. We thought that we had put it very clearly in a recent leading article on the subject, that we preferred not to allude to " differences " between the two branches of transport, but to basic facts. We agree that there are many occasions upon which the whole industry should speak as one voice, and we have made allowances for this desirable object. Ancillary operators and hauliers can become allies in such connections, but even allies do not always agree if they be in the same camp. Each must tackle his own problems, not superficially (as is almost inevitably the case where thC interests are so varied), hut analytically. Steps can then be taken to endeavour to co-ordinate them for presentation. Mr. ,Gosselin may be said to have been hoist by his own petard when he states that it is vital to all concerned that operators should have freedom to run their vehicles to their full economic extent. With the hauliers paying high rates of wages and many ancillary operators paying, in some cases, comparatively low rates, there can be little chance of complete agreement. As regards, the provision of suitable roads and the cessation of penal taxation, there is no doubt that the representatives of both sides • would be in full agreement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. If, as Mr. Gosselin claims, the C.M.U.A. had provided, and provides to-day, fully satisfactory service to all classes of operator, then other organizations concerned more fully with the problems of the haulier would not have been able to have 'made the progress which they have achieved. Acomparison of the membership of the various bodies should point the moral.—En.]