Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The New Zealand Railways Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 6 (October 1, 1928)

Unprofitable Competition

Unprofitable Competition.

There is no doubt that rail and motor are necessary to provide transport for modern requirements, and it is obvious that it is not economical, from the point of view of the country as opposed to that of the individual for unrestricted rate cutting to be allowed. This is particularly true of the countries in which the railways are State-owned.

In regard to competitive running of lorries against the railways, the latter come under the category of “common carriers, and are subject to the law under that heading. On the other hand, motor companies are not in the same category, and, as a result, can pick and choose their freight, a fact which makes the competition unfair. It is also uneconomical because the railways have the facilities which they must provide in any case for the carriage of any class of traffic offering.

With respect to cost of operation in ton mile figures, it seems impossible to obtain the figures for motor haulage with any degree of uniformity. The railway figures are, of course, published for the majority of the railway companies, but until we can get similar figures bearing upon the operating cost of motor haulage (including the important item of road depreciation) it seems impossible to ascertain what the cost of motor haulage really amounts to. And this is the point that is of interest to any country.

The following are some figures that have been quoted per ton mile:—In the tropics, 1/- per ton mile under best conditions; in America, 7 1/2d to 9d for wheat haulage; in the colonies, 1/- to 1/6 (statement by representative of the Empire Marketing Board). There is no doubt that if the bulk produce had to be handled the figures would not be much lower than 1/- per ton mile. The railway costs per ton mile naturally vary in different countries, and are given in decimal fractions from 1d to 3d, and it may be taken that, where the ton mile cost on a railway is high, the motor haulage costs will not be at their lowest. These figures are average ones, but are particularly interesting in that there appears to be no very accurate statistics as to what motors really do cost.

One last aspect of the question is that anyone who can pay down a sufficient deposit on a motor vehicle can compete with the railway system without any obligations, and can cut rates without consideration of depreciation or other charges. A series of such optimists may damage the railway returns considerably and go comfortably bankrupt in the process—throwing the lorry back on the suppliers hands. The claim, in event of an accident or damage to goods, would, in such circumstances, stand little chance of redemption.

It must be conceded that the railways created the traffic. They developed the countries in which they have been laid down, enabled them to become prosperous and increased the value page 46 of the land-without being credited with any of that increased value. In countries where the railways are State-owned many of the lines were built merely to develop the country with little or no expectiation that they could ever pay a direct return on the capital expended. It seems to me, therefore, that now there is an alternative method of transport it must logically become part of the main system of transport and subject to regulation by a central authority. Where the railways are companyowned the same general remarks apply, and the companies should be given power to extend their transport activities to the roads.

The evidence justifies the conculusion that there is a very definite economic field for railway transport for long journeys, say 60 miles and over, for passengers, and 40 miles (some authorities say 30 miles) and over for goods. Below these limits the motor vehicle, on good roads, can economically compete. It is suggested, therefore, that in the future we shall see feeder collecting buses and vans working over these latter areas and bringing goods and passengers to main stations for rapid transit by rail for long journeys. This would increase bulk transport for the railways and would eliminate the necessity for providing trucks at wayside stations, at some of which there are not enough goods to partially fill a wagon.

A Study In Transport Contrasts. Otira Sation one year before, and one year after, the opening of the big (electrified) tunnel through the Alps.

A Study In Transport Contrasts.
Otira Sation one year before, and one year after, the opening of the big (electrified) tunnel through the Alps.

When this comes about unnecessary stops on the railways could be eliminated, enabling services to be speeded up. (Only people connected with the railways can realise the serious delays that result in having to shunt trucks at wayside stations, and the loss involved by keeping wagons out of service in railway sidings.)

It is worth noting in passing, that the handling of small lots in trucks for individual traders is not an economical proposition. The position might be improved considerably by the establishment of central depots from which delivery could be made by light motor lorries. Something on these lines has already been done, and it is probable that the system will extend in the future.