(Continued.)

“…. I like to think that the motor vehicle will remain, above all, a valuable auxiliary to the railway, seeking and bringing traffic from the remote areas, and intensifying everywhere the economies of life…. I am convinced that herein lies its lasting role in the future.”

M. A. M. Pourcel, Chief Engineer of the Paris, Lyons and Mediterrancan Railway.

I Terminated my article in the September issue of the Magazine with an analysis of the advantages claimed for motor transport as opposed to transport by rail, and dealt, seriatim, with five of those advantages. There remains to consider advantage No. 6, viz.: “Being a smaller unit, the motor can run a more frequent service than can be run by a steam operated train.” The argument obviously applies to suburban and city traffic, and may be admitted. The answer, of course, from the railway point of view, is electrification.

Success of Electrification.

Electrification would give the railways not only a more frequent, but a quicker service than could be given by bus transport.

I should like here to quote from a speech made by General Baring at a recent meeting of the Southern Railway Company, in regard to the success of electrification. He says: “The number of passengers carried in the electrified areas was still going ahead by leaps and bounds, and, notwithstanding the opening of the City and South London Tube to Morden (which deprived us of about 4,000,000 passengers during the year) there was still an increase of 7,250,000 passengers carried in the electrified area as compared with 1925. By the electrification of the system, and by the large extension of cheap fares, the company can, in our view, not only meet motor competition, but also take advantage of it.

“The more frequent service which electrification permits enables the company to offer a service comparable in facility with that of the motor omnibus, and by cheap booking it can take advantage of the universal travelling habit which the motor has created. It is important to bear in mind that the motor conveyance is not merely a competitor of the railway, but is also an ally, inasmuch as it has popularised travel.

“In the present year capital expenditure will again be considerable, namely, about £2,750,-000, of which about £750,000 is required for Southampton dock extensions and considerably more than £1,000,000 for electrification work. The stockholders have every reason to welcome this type of expenditure, since the money spent on electrification has already returned a hansome profit.”

The Safety Factor.

There is one other point that perhaps may be emphasised, (it is too frequently overlooked by motor transport experts) and that is the safety of the public. This aspect is of great importance, and was touched upon by one eminent authority unconnected directly with either railway or motor transport. Enormous sums are spent by railways on safety appliances page 45 —appliances which they are required by law to provide. Now, the modern tendency in all these appliances is to eliminate the human factor and prevent mistakes. But a motor driver who has to control his engine, guide his car, and suddenly make up his mind “what the other fellow is going to do” is entrusted with the safety of passengers practically without any safety of passengers practically without any safety restrictions. Even the examinations in most countries do not include physical or psychological tests. From a safety point of view, therefore, the railway is superior to the motor.

Fuel Factors.

There is another aspect of the case, which is purely an economic one, and that is the fuel aspect. Now, so long as a country cannot provide its own fuel, it entails a constant outgoing to buy this commodity. This is, of course, not a total loss, as work done by the imported fuel represents revenue. Where, however, an alternative form of transport exists it seems to me that a close investigation to show whether the increase in return, if any, by the use of imported fuel, in any way compensates, for the reduction in the returns of the railways. I do not think there is any question about the matter as a great part of the fuel imported is used for non-reproductive purposes.

Australia, which in 1927 imported 145,700,000 gallons of petrol at a cost of £6,600,000 has already done something in regard to the local production of this fuel from molasses and shale oil. The production of petrol from arrowroot and prickly pear, and of oil from coal, is also under consideration in the Commonwealth. It has been pointed out that isolation due to war would be serious for a country relying on imported fuels for motor transport, and this question has, I think, a local aspect.

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.

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.

Railway Extension.

It has been stated by some enthusiast that no more railways should be built. It may be interesting to consider for a moment why a number of railway extensions were built. I have in mind in this connection, New Zealand. India, and Australia. The answer is, of course, that they were built to enable tracts of country to be developed which could not be done unless transport was provided. In many cases it was known that there would be no direct revenue for many years on the capital expended, but, indirectly, these railways paid owing to the enhanced value of the land and the resulting development. In India it was (and, I think, still is), the practice to build very light narrow gauge lines at small cost for development purposes. These lines are afterwards converted to standard lines if and when the capital expenditure is justified.

In many cases where the anticipated development has not taken place, it may be more economical for a railway system to discontinue the running of trains and substitute a road service for the railway. This has been suggested, but it is not quite as simple as it appears for the problem is, how can the capital value be disposed of?

The foregoing observations deal with some features of a big problem in its general aspects. The problem is world-wide, and whatever the solution is, it will no doubt be a gradual one. In the meantime the catch pharse is “coordination and co-operation,” but exactly where and how these two solutions begin and end I am not quite clear. Some countries have, however, taken steps to finalise matters. Among others may be cited the United States, Canada, Germany, Switzerland and South Australia. In my next article I shall outline the methods adopted in those countries.

(To be continued.)