Who Stands to Gain?
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
N. OT many manufacturers, however much noise they made, would be given as much publicity as Dr. Beeching has received for his plans to reorganize the railways and to make them more competitive. This should not be taken as a criticism of the Press. When all is said and done, the railways are not just another industrial concern. At one time, they were the only considerable providers of transport, and they may well have an important part to play for a long time to come. Public interest in their future is natural and is reflected in the newspapers.
Publicity brings with it certain risks. The problem that attracts too much attention can be exaggerated out of all proportion, and can be taken so solemnly that people no longer ask themselves whether it is worth solving. An additional complication with the railway problem is that many of the commentators are not content merely to state it and leave it at that, although it should contain enough material to satisfy them. They prefer to enliven it, or encumber it, with all kinds of irrelevancies.
USEFUL fuel is ready to hand in the campaign that has recently been waged against road transport. A disquieting number of articles and editorials have supplemented Dr. Beeching's practical ideas with a few suggestions that the writers perhaps imagine to be original. Predictably, they include the elimination, by legal or fiscal restrictions, of the commercial vehicle, which is alleged to stink in the nostrils of other road users, and moreover make them late for their appointments. At one master-stroke, it is said, there would be more revenue for the Government, more traffic for the railways, less money needed to subsidize them', and less money spent on the roads.
The Minister of Transport gave the complete answer to this false line of argument when a Labour M.P., Mr. Stephen Swingler, asked a parliamentary question about the steps being taken "to relieve traffic congestion on the roads by encouraging the fuller use of rail and other forms of transport." Mr. Marples replied with a brief statement on what was being done to help the railways, but added that "the problem of road congestion is really separate." It would be as well if the critics would keep this statement pinned up in a prominent place.
THE railway problem has enough complications of its own. Dr. Beeching's sensible disquisitions should not discourage the doubters who may wish to inquire more closely into the purpose of his proposals. The whole debate is coloured by the assumption that it would be in every way a good thing if the railways could win back a large slice of the traffic that they have lost to road transport. Obviously, it would be a good thing for the railway workers, even if one suspects, echoing Mr. Marples, that logically this issue also is "really separate." Apart from these, who else stands to benefit?
Road users have no complaint about the quality of the service they receive from hauliers or from their own vehicles. The energy, time and money that are being expended on improving the railways are mainly intended, therefore, to supersede a service that appears to be entirely satisfactory. The argument might be as strong, or perhaps even stronger, for converting the railways into roads. If Dr. Beeching succeeds, there will be some redundancy among road transport workers. Nobody has publicly given this point any consideration, although no doubt it has not escaped the attention of the appropriate trade unions.
There have been equally scanty references to the difficulties likely to be caused to hauliers themselves. Government policy, in any case, has consistently been to limit the growth of road goods transport, mainly in the interests of the railways, and operators have been required to prove the need for the services they propose to operate. One cannot suppose, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, that a similar restriction would ever, be imposed upon the railways.
DR. BEECH1NG himself unconsciously provided an interesting comment on this point in his address to the Institute of Directors last week. The wise manufacturer, he suggested, assessed the characteristics of his product, surveyed the potential market for a product with those characteristics, and then planned "to provide his product in quantities to match the foreseeable need." This, Dr. Beeching made clear, was the attitude he intended to adopt towards rail Services. He was merely surprised that it had not been done before.
As an industrialist, Dr. Beeching must obviously know what he is talking about. He would probably agree also that in many cases the manufacturer is wise to survey the market first of all, and only then decide whether or not to go ahead with providing the product that he has in mind. For the past 30 years, this line of approach has been the only one open to the haulier. The fact that he has been able to make so much progress in spite of this speaks volumes for the quality of his service.
ROAD transport was worth developing because it was able to offer something entirely new It opened up fresh possibilities. Its very presence created demands that had previously been recognized as impossible, and linked traders, manufacturers and farmers with new customers who would otherwise have remained forever strangers to them. Naturally and courageously, Dr. Beeching believes that, for some kinds a traffic, his regenerated railways will be able to provide something a little better than road transport. But his ideas have gone no further than the abstraction of traffic; he can hardly claim that the railways will create new markets.
This analysis has admittedly been partial, perhaps in both senses of the word. It would be absurd to suggest that the railways should not do all they can to make themselves solvent and more efficient. The new spirit of emulation that Dr. Beeching is endeavouring to kindle is in every way preferable to the extravagant idea that the public would somehow benefit if road and rail transport were completely merged. Nevertheless, it is as well to remember that the streamlining and strengthening of what after all is no longer the dominant form of transport ought not to be regarded as somehow providing a solution to a transport problem that does not really exist.