ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22022, 3 August 1933, Page 2

ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT

DIFFICULTIES OF CO-ORDINA-TION

The chief article in this month’s circular of the Bank of New South Wales is one by Professor Hyttcn on “ Road and Rail Transport.” The article deals with the difficulties of achieving coordination between the two forms of transport and contends that no country has, as yet, found the solution to the problem. Expedients of all kinds have been tried and have achieved some success, but no scheme has been entirely successful although there arc in some of the experiments tried the germs of ideas that may eventually point to success. “If it were a matter,” states the article, “of one form of transport entirely superseding the other on account of greater efficiency the problem would be comparatively simple, but this is not the case. In some spheres the railway is indispensable, and the time when it may become out of date is not in sight. But, on the other hand, there are spheres in which it is already obsolete or obsolescent, and In these it must be superseded by the road vehicle. The problem is, therefore, to define the respective economic spheres of the two forms of transport. In seeking a solution the public interest must be considered to the exclusion of all other, keeping in mind the fact that although the railways in Australia are public property, the public interests may nevertheless be best served by the curtailment of their operations,” The problem is complicated by the fact that, since motor transport is for the moment progressing at a faster rate than railway technique, no solution can be permanent, since the growing efficiency of motor transport will demand for it increasing encroachments on railway territory. The article sets out the relative advantages of the two forms of transport, and points out that road transport in being able to carry goods from the producer’s door direct to destination without transhipment eliminates terminal charges. This means that over short distances the road motor is more economical than railways, whereas over longer distances the railway is the more economical of the two. Added to this, the motor vehicle has the advantage of being operated in small units allowing for more frequent services. It provides undivided responsibility, thereby avoiding disputes over breakages and losses in transit, and in some cases obviates the necessity of the careful packing the railway demands for fragile goods. All these are real and economic advantages, but the road motor also is able to take certain unfair advantages which make it necessary to regulate motor traffic. These are summarised under three headings:— 1. The overhead charges of road transport are' of less importance and they have not the same need to differentiate between classes of traffic, which in practice means that they carry the goods f(|r which the railways charge high rates, leaving the latter with the low grade traffic in which they cannot compete. 2. They have not tihe eame heavy charges for the construction and maintenance of the road.

3. They are not subject to the same rigid labour regulations and sometimes escape other costs unfairly. In connection with the latter point the article deals with the small owner-drivers who sometimes escape costs merely by failing to meet them. “There are many of these people,” states the article, “who will work day and night to get a living with a motor truck. By overloading they do damage both to truck and road, and the general result is that the truck is worn out before it is paid for. The owner goes bankrupt or his truck is repossessed by the dealer, but in the meantime he has done a great deal of damage to the railway in that he has exit his rates and forced other motor owners to follow his lead,”

Discussing possible remedies the article points out that it is sometimes necessary to curtail road transport, while at other times the railway is more economical and has to be protected. The fact that the railways are State railways is no special reason for their protection. All industries scrap plant that has become uneconomical on account of obsolescence, .no matter what its cost. If cheaper transport is available, it is uneconomical to keep even costly railway plant. Because the problem is constantly changing a flexible form of regulation is recommended. This can best be undertaken by transport boards with wide powers and equally wide sympathies. Such boards should make it their aim to achieve as much co-operation as possible between railways and road carriers, closing uneconomical railway lines and eliminating road competition with others, aiming constantly at making road vehicles feeders to the railway lines.

Speaking of future developments the article points out that these are likely to be in the direction of the levelling out of differences between the two forms of transport. Railways are already adopting lighter and faster units on lines with sparse traffic in order to provide more frequent services. On the other hand development in road transport organisation points to the integration of road transport into larger units. It points out that the small owner-driver who overworks both himself and his vehicle in time becomes a menace to other road carriers, to those who finance him, and even to himself. Road transport will not work ns efficiently as it should without more careful organisation of services which will provide vehicles with full or reasonably full loads. This will mean the elimination of competition by the amalgamation of competing interests or by the agreement for the establishment of organised services with freight-cleariug houses at terminals. Once motor is organised on these lines, it is not unlikely that it will develop freight tariffs on the same lines as those of the railways, charging different rates for different types of goods. There is a tendency in that direction now caused by the amount of overhead charges incurred, and the importance of overhead costs must grow with these developments. “There is a great deal of nonsense talked,” says the article, “on the matter of differential railway rates, which are generally considered unfair only because the principles underlying them are not understood. Motor carriers join the chorus of jeers because it seems gool propaganda; but they will gradually be forced to adopt the same principle. It must be adopted sooner or later in industries in which overhead costs play a substantial part. The justification for differential rates is not to be found in the fact that some commodities, being more valuable than others, can afford to pay more. The justification lies deeper, in the fact that differential rates conduce the fullest use of the service since it allows some articles to be transported which could not stand transport at average payable rates. Thus large areas of wheat lands in • Australia would new have boon developed had wheat been required to pay the same rate as every other commodity.” The article is supported by a page of transport statistics, iu addition to which there are three interesting graphs portraying the wheat situation, and the usual graphs and tables of commodity prices.