ROAD AND RAIL

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 102, 3 May 1933, Page 9

ROAD AND RAIL

[THE BRITISH PROBLEM

GREAT NEED FOR CHANGE

DIRECTION &.AVORKING

Two points which arise in the present welter of argument over the case of railways versus road transport should steadfastly be borne in mind. The first is that the railways* are entitled to no more than a fair dealprovided that their house is in proper order. The second is that tho presont depression is not entirely confined to tho railway side of the transport industry, says a writer in the "Manchester Guardiau." Have the railways received a fandeal1 in tho immediate past? It is doubtful. Tho gist of section 58 of the Eailways Act of 1921 is that the railways nxo to receive 5 per cont. interest on their capital, and that tho Bates Tribunal is to adjust charges so that the' railways receivo this sum, provided that they arc run ,with pfli ciency and economy. It may yet be necessary to call upon tho Kates Tubunal to fix: "the charges necessary to produce- tho standard revenue" (section 58, paragraph 4.). Is road transport charged with capital costs, rates, and the like v v' comparable with those imposed on railways? Again it is doubtun. j.,*.. standing facts arc that road transport -has been provided with its own track (the highway) free of capital cost, and that the public have to disburso large sums towards the maintenance of this highway in a "state far above the standard that the public requires either as .pedestrians or as inhabitants. It is admitted that the use of tho highway by vehicles is subject to many restrictions distasteful to'hauliers, but tho facts of free capital provision nn<] r-*<>-i payers' disbursements remain. Th* railway claim for assistance mignt therefore be based on the failure of the 1921 Act to carry, out the Government side of tho bargain, and also on the uneven iacidoncc of capital and rating charges. Too, much reliance ought not'to be placed either on tho Saltcr Report, which, although its recommendations may be fully-justified and applied, may yet fail to produce the advantages to the railways confidently expected in, certain quarters, or on "co-ordination i of road iyid rail interests,'^ a highsounding phrase inviting the question what exactly is meant by "co-ordina-tion" and who is to decide on its application? REASONABLE AID. _____ Some form of present assistance seems reasonable—provided that at tho time of fixing the standard rates and fares tho railways wero being run with efficiency and economy. That this was so at the time of tho hearing in connection with the "appointed day "-cannot now bo disputed. Is it a fact today? Perhaps not. Tho writer, who is a railway officer experienced in two other countries in ■ addition to England, would suggest that there are Ample openings for reorganisation in railway administration, operation, and business methods. The first suggestion for administrative improvement is that there should be a clear division between the business and the scientific sides of railway management. Tho division would bo based on the generally accepted assumption that the business of selling commodities requires, an entirely different typo of ability, and experience from that needed in'tho actual manii fae'tu ro of commodities. Tho first field deals ■with the buying public and its requirements, and the second with the requirements of aeieneo and wHtt tho stuff concerned. The second suggestion is that tho directorate- should be reformed. Tho sums expended on tho direction of such enormous concerns as tho railways are aot too largo, but there certainly is a lack of .actual railway experience on the boards. A number of the directors have so many other interests) that they cannot attend properly to the railways. How, for instance, is a chairman of another large organisation to attend all railway board meetings, which certainly should be held daily? SEDUCTION POSSIBLE. It might, indeed, be advantageous to reduce the numbers of the directorate" in order to increase the fees and the attraction, to appoint a number of senior officers to tho hoard, and to publish a precis of each , director's activities ou behalf of his railway which could bo passed on to the shareholders. .■Reorganisation of methods of working centre round tho train schedules and the efficiency of tho motive power. Passenger time-tables are a casual growth. Judging from tho proportion cf locomotive timo actually {spent in hauling trains to that spent standing in steam, fully manned but idle,- thes« time-tables require drastic alteration. Except for thoso working the moat important trains the locomotives used ar> not as efficient as they might be. Those designed anything from twenty-five- to fifty years ago should be scrapped. These obsolete machines are usually to be found on branch lines hauling trains ,of coaches which arc unnecessarily heavy and generally out of date. They should be replaced by light modern self-contained units of the Diesel or Sentinel type—although it must be said in fairness that the former has barely emerged from the experimental stage and has not yet established its working economies as the latter has. WAGONS AND RATES. The operating costs of the steam type, however, are now well known to be well under half those of the usual types of engines and trains met with on , branch lines and other not necessarily unimportant services. Great economics in the operation of through goods trains could also be had by the uso o-f small shunting engines, worked by one man, which would relieve the road- engine (naturally quite unsuited to yard work) from shunting at roadside stations. This would accelerate the passage of tho train, and also decrease the cost of shunting. But jthe_ vital improvements needed in jfreight-train operation' aro the aboliition of tho private ownership of wagons and an increase in the standard jeapaoity of wagons from 10-12 tons to 50-60 tons' for mineral wagons, and , 80-40 tons for goods wagons. The first Btep'is bound to be full railway' ownership of goods wagons. Obviously this is a matter for Government interven,tion, since the railways themselves cannot be expected to got at loggerheads ■with their principal customers by a (distasteful alteration of methods sanctioned by long usage. The first business, necessity is that ihe railways should be givenl the rightequal to that of their competitors—to ■vary railway rates without reference to Government tribunals, provided that they do not exceed an officially published maximum. There should also be a simplification of the rates'in the existing rate-book, and a standard passenger faro .should be fixed which can be adhered to.