Marsh urges a new look at overall transport policy
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by CM reporter • In his presidential talk to the newly formed Transport and Distribution Industry Marketing Group on Monday, Mr Richard Marsh, chairman of British Rail, and an ex-Minister of Transport, spoke forthrightly on major transport problems. He asserted that Cabinet Government on the lines as we had known it for many years past was a ludicrous agency to devise transport policies or determine investment priorities. The Minister of Transport was not even a member of the Cabinet and the majority of Cabinet Ministers would have no idea of the implications of one decision as opposed to another.
Mr Marsh said those marketing transport services of all kinds were unable to exercise the imagination of some politicians because the Trade Descriptions Act would prevent this. He thought marketing needed to improve its status as a necessary service. Marketing men were often regarded as akin to salesmen and made to sit "below the salt". The marketing skill wai either too narrowly defined or it operated at too low a level.
Lost status Because the railway did nothing to market itself as a social organization, it lost the status it once held and in the recent past it had degenerated into a music hall joke. It became more and more apologetic and attitudes towards it became increasingly unfair. Its infrastructure was rotting like a snowball in hell. He was delighted to read recently in a road transport journal: "The railwayman today is not the gentleman he used to be. . ." Railways were now a force to be reckoned with in the struggle to obtain a fair share of investment.
To the question: how to market transport in total? Mr Marsh said there was a huge amount of public interest in the subject. It had to be stressed that transport improved the quality of life as much as any single product did. Proportionately, this country spent less on transport as a whole than most other countries. The issue was not basically between road and rail, but between transport as a whole versus other industries and services calling for public investment.
Long-distance traffic
The railways, said Mr Marsh, were not a sensible alternative to road haulage in general. The competition lay only in longdistance traffic. He revealed that some producers of road aggregates were patronizing rail increasingly because they feared restrictions on the use of road vehicles in the future.
Mr Marsh gave a number of examples of seemingly wasteful expenditure on transport projects where there had been no overall view of investment priorities and no commercial case for development. He had been horrified by the furore over the closing down of the tracked hovercraft project, bearing in mind that this complex, novel and experimental design concept had no identifiable market — those responsible just hoped it would be used somewhere. "Any maker of a new deodorant who behaved this way would be fired," said Mr Marsh.
A major task of the new marketing group, Mr Marsh suggested, could be to identify new projects in transport worthy of development in the light of commercial and social needs. In many cases it would not be possible to restrict investment projects to the relatively short term. Major road projects or things like railway electrification could take 10 years to plan and execute and they could have a life of 70 or more years. The advanced passenger train project could not be looked at in terms of a single decade. He thought the Rail Policy Statement recently submitted to Mr John Peyton was a major first step in the preparation of a complete national transport policy. "Mr Peyton is in the market for informed advice. I hope the transport industries and groups like yours will respond to the Minister's challenge."
There was an animated discussion period. Mr Marsh told a questioner that he was against any concept of a massive transport "overlord" such as the old British Transport Commission. Transport could not be planned centrally any more than "Great Britain Ltd" could be run from 10 Downing. Street. It was reasonable to put constraints on various aspects of transport, but to give sectors freedom to manage their own affairs within the constraints.
Severe distortion On the effect of price and wage controls', Mr Marsh said the situation was unique; the degree of control now was never matched even in wartime. It was causing severe distortion in the market place: the British Steel Corporation, for example, was selling rail lines to the Continent at prices 60 per cent greater than here. BR would soon have to think about buying rail lines in Germany.
On the problems of reconciling British transport policy with that of the EEC, Mr Marsh said the EEC had no transport policy. Though he could talk for British Rail in European negotiations he could not speak about a non-existent agreed British policy.