AGRICULTURE AND WASTED TRANSPORT [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—In warning your readers of the erroneous impressions they might gather from the article entitled as above, Mr. Philip Gee refers to a correspondence that recently passed in a couple of technical journals on the railway wagon question. He, however, conveniently omitted to add that so overwhelmed was he by the weight of evidence brought against him that he was obliged to retire from the debate in both journals ! He now raises some of the same points again in your columns, knowing full well that you cannot spare the space for an unnecessary repetition of unavoidably lengthy explanations on a technical subject.
A typical instance of the misleading nature of his state-' meats is his assertion that no large quantity of coal is dis- patched to the thousands of country towns and villages that exist between the mining areas and the extremes of the eastern, southern, and western coasts. He also ignores the fact that the restoration of prosperity to agriculture would result in a big increase in the demand for coal.
The abolition of private ownership in wagons would not only enable a drastic reduction to be made in rates on agri- cultural produce, but also in the rates on coal. In broad illustration, a truck now conveying ten tons of coal to a country station at a rate of, say, 10s. a ton earns 15 —and returns empty. But if the wagon were loaded back, the agricultural traffic would pay 50s. and the coal would then only pay the remaining £2 10s.
I may remind you that at the Railway Wages Board in December, 1928, the practical traffic staff of the railways (which includes the district goods managers, stationmasters, &c.) expressed their collective and considered opinion that very heavy economies would result from abolishing private ownership in wagons which, naturally, would enable a sub-
stantial reduction to be made in railway rates. These rates now average 150 to 200 per cent. higher than abroad, and, therefore, if those on coal alone were reduced by only 20 per cent., complete prosperity would be restored to the coal trade by a saving of £8,000,000 a year in its transport bill. To this must be added the further heavy economies—probably totalling over £10,000,000 a year—that would result from avoiding ccIliery stoppages through so-called " shortage " of trucks, hieh do not occur in countries where all the wagons are railway owned. These savings would also enable a reduction of three or four shillings a ton to be made in the prices of export coal.
During the last three years, however, Mr. Philip Gee— without possessing the slightest practical knowledge of railway operation—has baulked the coal trade of these savings by persistently disputing the accuracy of the views of myself and the other railwaymen in question, and still insists on doing so, notwithstanding the fact that at the recent meeting of the Welsh Associated Collieries, Sir David R. Lkwellyn (the chairman) tacitly acknowledged the soundness of our views by frankly admitting the "enormous benefits" they had derived from pooling twenty thousand of their trucks.
In these circumstances, you will undoubtedly be as astonished as myself that Mr. Gee regardless of the damage that is being done to his own as well as every other basic industry by high transport charges—should be so lost to all sense of responsibility as to continue to mislead your readers, colliery shareholders, and the general public on this railway wagon question.—I am, Sir, &c., E. R. B. ROBERTS
(formerly of the Traffic Department Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway). 43 St. James's Road, Brixton, S.W. 9.
Previous page
