1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148 
Taking up the Slack
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
E, VEN if most people are aware that the railways earn
more than twice as much money from freight as from passengers, the fact is not allowed to influence the attitude of the public or of the Press in general. Increases in railway rates must in the end affect the purchasing public far more than increases in fares; but they are not immediately reflected in a specific range of prices, and they are therefore more easily overlooked. This can never happen with fares. As soon as it is announced that they are going up, the protests begin to come in and every traveller has something to say on the subject. The general impression is that however small or reasonable the increase, it is a deliberate attempt to swell the cost of living and is a plot to cut the commuter off from his source of income.
The same principle, one imagines, comes into play whenever the railways give notice that they intend to close down one of their services. Traders who have made use of the service for the carriage of their goods generally •seem to accept that there is a satisfactory alternative. The travelling public have much more to say, and the chief crities•may often he motorists who in any cak make use of the threatened service only in an emergency or as an occasiona.
convenience. , It is scarcely surprising that the mouthpiece of the public, the Central Transport Consultative Committee, should find themselves concerned mainly with the grievances of passengers. Their report for 1961 that has just been published contains a detailed examination of several proposals to close stretches of line. In only one case, that of the Barnard Castle-Penrith line, did the objections turn in any way on goods traffic, and the report contrives to give the impression that the issue was pressed most strongly by the passenger interests to add weight to their own case.
Passenger services, the report says, were never at any time run at a profit on the route, which was originally built to carry mainly limestone from Westmorland in one direction and coke from Tyneside in the other. An alternative and easier route is available via Newcastle and Carlisle. The objectors contended that this "would not be in the interests of the customers," and managed to keep the Controversy going for two years; in spite of which the decision to close the disputed line was, according to the report, "endorsed by all the major steel undertakings on Tyneside and Tees-side who are primarily affected."
IN view of the profound changes' that will be brought about if the new Transport Bill is approved by Parliament, it may, seem odd that the central committee and the 11 area committees are still industriously pursuing their inquiries along the old lines. They are not deterred from expressing their opinions about what the railways ought to do. Too much stress, they believe, is being laid on the results expected from streamlining the railways by closing down uneconomic fines. . The real answer to the problem must be more positive. It would include the improvement of both passenger and freight services, the regular,.reliable, door-to-door collection and delivery of freight on time, and the complete elimination of freights unsuitable for rail carriage. .
When the Bill is passed, there will still be consultative committees, but it is likely that they will be concerned only with the protection of passengers. Previously their scope has been somewhat wider. They have had the power to operate a • kind of licensing system in reverse. They have heard objections against the removal rather than the addition of services. In spite of objections, a considerable number of routes have been closed. In 1961, services were withdrawn for passengers from 269 miles of route, for freight from 67 miles, and for passengers and freight combined from 230 miles—a total of 566 miles.
The report states that the cases tend to become more contentious and difficult, and that,. some of the closures involve the loss of much goodwill to the railways. Whatever th Consultative Committee may say, however, the pruning process must now continue and may even accelerate. Dr. Richard Beeching, chairman, British Transport Commission, has made it clear that this is the policy he is pursuing
PERHAPS what is needed, therefore, is not so much a body like the Consultative Committee, designed to apply a brake to the process but an organization with more positive terms of reference, charged with searching out and encouraging alternative services so that they will be ready to take over as soon as the railways relinquish a service. The road passenger and road haulage industries are already well aware that here they will find substantial opportunities. The task must be to make sure that none of the opportunities is missed.
The haulier in particular should keep his eye on developments and where appropriate press strongly for changes in the licensing system and procedure. Not all the traffic made available as a result of railway rationalization will be in convenient blocks; the railways naturally have in mind keeping that kind of traffic for themselves. It is more likely that a wide variety of small consignments, offered by a large number of traders, will no longer be able to travel by rail. Each customer will have to" make his own choice between discontinuing the traffic, putting his own vehicles on the road, or using a haulier. Obviously, he would prefer the latter course; otherwise, he would not have left his traffic with the railway iti the first place.
A haulier wishing to take over the work may have difficulty in finding enough customers to justify an application for a licence. He would appreciate machinery that would provide him with the necessary information, There seems no reason why the railways should not support his application if it is intended solely to take over traffic that they have abandoned. Logically, their support on such an occasion ought to have the same force as that of a customer:
Even to make this possible there would have to be changes in the licensing law. A growing disadvantage that many licensing authorities must feel is that they have to make their decision mainly on the evidence before them of the needs of specific customers. They are not in a position sufficiently to take into account traffic trends of which their experience makes them aware. A widening of their discretion seems almost inevitable in view of the freedom that the railways will shortly have from their ancient Obligation as common carriers and their deliberate policy of picking and choosing in future the traffic they wish to carry.