Liner trains and hauliers' savings
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. T. G. Gibb surveys road transport in talk to loT Humberside section
64 'THERE is a lot of misunderstanding • Iabout what a haulier's real savings will be" was the pertinent comment on liner trains made by Mr. T. G. Gibb, vicechairman and managing director, BRS Federation Ltd., when speaking to members of the Institute of Transport in Hull on Monday.
In retrospect, Mr. Gibb thought it was a pity that st) much had been made of liner trains as potential "railway savers". Hauliers would be glad to use this method of covering their trunk journeys so long as the charge raised against them by the railways was less than it would cost them to operate a road vehicle over the same journey. Misunderstanding had arisen as to likely savings: it had to be remembered that the haulier needed a vehicle at either end of the run if he were to perform the feeder service. Therefore any savings did not include vehicles, but would be limited to the pure running costs of a vehicle, namely fuel, oil, tyres and drivers' wages.
It was also important to have a proper conception of the catchment area for liner train traffic. There was no difficulty in a road haulier serving a radius of 30 miles from each terminal, so this limited the liner train potential to longer journeys. It had to be remembered that it had to be demonstrably advantageous to run to a railhead and take off a loaded container rather than run it to its ultimate destination on the road vehicle. Moreover, most of Britain was within the span of a driving shift and the great majority of freight journeys occupied only a few hours.
A higher standard of management education, Mr. Gibb suggested, was something still needed in the road transport industry, and the academic qualifications of the Institute could be used as greater encouragement to the younger generation.
Determined to denigrate
The public and Press, for sothe curious reason, seemed determined to denigrate the very communications system on which the country depended, he remarked. But one should not for ever take lying down the continual flow of adverse criticism.
Commenting on recent official statistics showing the large number of small operators in the UK, Mr. Gibb said there was an almost identical pattern to be found throughout Europe, though once behind the Iron Curtain the scene became rather different. Thus, in Poland the average number of vehicles per operator was 40.
He thought that the competition implied by this large number of small operators, coupled with the existence of the railways and ancillary users, made all the more laughable the recollection that road transport rates were the first subject referred to the Prices and Incomes Board.
Nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion that transfer of freight traffic to rail would ease all present-day road congestion. The main congestion arose in and around towns where all collection and delivery had to be by road. In any case a large proportion of freight was moved over the roads by night. But it was certain beyond doubt that movement of freight by road, as with everything else, would increase over the next 10 to 20 years and the real aim of the road makers, Mr. Gibb insisted, should be to keep ahead of demand.
There was little point in co-ordination, integration—"call it what you will"— unless improvements were to result. Mr. Gibb agreed that it was sensible to use to the full such railways as were needed to serve industry. But he did not advocate arbitrary transfers of traffic or the dictated use of one form of transport to the country's general disadvantage.