The New Zealand Railways Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 5 (September 1, 1928)
Determining the Economic Basis
Determining the Economic Basis.
However, there is no question but that the motor has come to stay.
From the point of view of the community, the form of transportation that is required is the one that has the lowest economic cost for services given. It is such a service that will eventually be evolved. An investigation into the advantages of motor transport as compared with transport by rail was recently made. In order to put the matter clearly, I shall quote some of the reasons as stated by a number of the leading motor transport specialists. (I have in mind a goods and passenger service as opposed to private cars.)
The claims of the lorry have been stated as follows:—
(1) A goods lorry can collect and deliver from door to door.
(2) It is more mobile in its radius of action.
(3) It saves handling in loading.
(4) It presents many advantages to wholesale firms distributing to branches.
(5) It can go right into shopping areas in town and pick up passengers.
(6) Being a smaller unit it can run a frequent service.
As far as I can ascertain, these appear to be the most important claims for the motor vehicle.
Taking these arguments one by one, what can the railways offer to offset them?
(1) At first sight a railway is certainly handicapped in regard to door to door delivery—unless it maintains its own delivery vans, or co-operates with a local firm to do the work. But economically this disadvantage is not so great as would appear. For short distances it holds good without any question, but it is agreed that a motor finds its true field with short hauls, and immediately you increase these distances the advantages of the motor disappear. May I quote one or two opinions in support of this statement.
In “Modern Transport,” Mr. J. L. Cleeves, (who is the Transport Manager of Messrs. Lipton, Ltd.), shows by figures of actual costs, (for his service of feeding branches from the London depot, using his own vehicles), that, after road haulage of 77 miles, it is cheaper to send goods by rail—the saving increasing with the distance. (The load outwards was four tons, and inwards, one ton.)
Then, again (quoting from the “World Motor Transport Congress,” p. 107), a Mr. Bacon, of U.S.A., states that “a survey covering one year in the State of Connecticut, shows that trucks have the following average radius of economic action. (The figures have been compiled from actual statistics on the road):—
1 ton truck | 15 miles. |
2 ton truck | 25 miles. |
3 ton truck | 30 miles. |
4 ton truck | 35 miles. |
5 ton truck | 45 miles. |
6 ton truck | 50 miles. |
There are many similar conclusions based upon actual running costs. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the first motor claim of economic superiority for short hauls may be admitted. Beyond that the claim is economically unsound.
(2) The claim that the motor truck is more mobile in its sphere of action must also be admitted. With the growth of traffic, however, motors will have to run specified routes to a timetable. No other method will be possible.
.jpg)
(Photo. A. P. Godber.)
Reboring the Cylinders of a New Zealand Railways Motor Bus without removal from the Chassis, at Petone Workshops.
Now, immediately a timetable and route is required, it seems to me the advantage disappears. To bring out another point: We have heard a good deal about suburban buses picking up a passenger from his door. In actual practice this does occur, but only in the street along which the bus runs. People from other streets must walk to the bus route. The argument, of course, does not apply to buses plying in cities in all directions. The contention in regard to buses in suburban areas is often met by the statement that the bus can traverse a number of streets, which statement and claim can also be agreed to provided the time in which the journey is made is considered.
(3) For short hauls, there again is no question that the motor vehicle scores by saving double handling. But immediately the cost of actual haulage becomes sufficiently great to offset the saving in handling, the advantage under this head disappears. (See observations above on what constitutes an economic haul for a motor vehicle.)
It would appear, however, that there are considerable possibilities in regard to cheapening cost of loading and handling on railways. Among others have been suggested the use of containers, handling appliances and machinery. These matters are now receiving attention on all railways with a view to reducing costs of handling.
(5) The argument in regard to buses going into shopping areas is more a matter of city than of railway transport, and concerns trams rather than trains. However, one remark may not be out of place in this connection: The congestion arising from the concentration in city streets of a large number of cars would eventually so reduce the speed of transport that the public would have to be provided with other means of transport, such as underground railways. I have yet to find an unqualified statement that buses can deal with the peak traffic of a large city.
(To be continued.)