Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1955

Vol. 45 No. 7

Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1955—Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that this Bill be read a Second Time. The purpose of the Bill is to embody in permanent legislation certain matters relating to transport which were provided for by Orders made under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946. The measure is introduced in pursuance of the policy of providing in permanent legislation where necessary for matters which have been dealt with under the Supplies and Services Act.

The first question dealt with by the Bill is the carriage of milk to creameries and cream separating stations and the carriage of empty containers and separated milk back to the milk producers. The collection of milk for delivery to creameries and the return of empty containers to the farmers present special difficulties and the public transport concerns have not found that the work is an economic proposition for them. The bulk of the milk has to be collected in small quantities, often from farms in isolated areas served by bad roads. Generally, collection areas are far removed from central transport depots and the collection of milk and return of the empty cans by the public transport companies would require the traversing of very extensive areas with unladen or partially laden vehicles. Milk collection furnishes only spasmodic part-time employment for vehicles and is not of a nature suitable for integration with other local public transport particularly as collection may have to be arranged outside normal working hours.

Up to recent years the horse and cart was principally used by farmers or others for the transport of their own and their neighbours' milk to the creameries and no difficulty arose under the Road Transport Acts. With the growing use of tractors and trailers and the reduction in the number of horses it became necessary to exempt this work from the provisions of the Road Transport Acts. An Order to this effect has been made annually since 1949 under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946. It is proposed to continue this exemption and to embody it in permanent legislation.

The carriage of wheat by licensed agents for licensed mills presents a special problem. Prior to 1942 wheat was purchased on their own account by licensed wheat dealers who transported it in their own lorries and then sold it to the millers. The dealers did not require licences under the Road Transport Acts for the transport of the wheat as it was their own property. New arrangements for the purchase of wheat were introduced in 1942 and under these arrangements the wheat dealers purchased the wheat in the capacity of agents for the millers. The wheat did not become their property and the transport of the wheat by them constituted carriage for reward. Since 1942 an Emergency Powers Order was made annually to allow the wheat dealers to continue to carry the wheat in their own lorries without a licence under the Road Transport Acts. It is proposed to provide power to exempt the carriage of wheat by licensed agents in the same way as has been done over a number of years by Emergency Powers Order.

When the Road Transport Acts were enacted in the early thirties the need for a safety valve in the legislation was not foreseen. Experience during the war and succeeding years has shown that circumstances may arise when it would be necessary in the public interest to relax the control of carriage for reward embodied in the Road Transport Acts so as to avoid a serious crisis in the supply or transport of some important commodity. At present the only means of doing so would be by an Order made under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946. Provision is accordingly made in this Bill to enable the Government to make an Order exempting for a specified period the carriage of any particular commodity should this appear to them to be necessary in the interests of public safety or the preservation of the State or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.

The final provision of the Bill relates to some branch line train services which have been discontinued. Under the authority of an Emergency Powers Order made in December, 1944, C.I.E. reduced or discontinued services on 20 branch lines. Section 55 of the Transport Act, 1950, provides that the services temporarily reduced or discontinued under this Emergency Powers Order shall not be permanently discontinued save in accordance with an Order made by the Transport Tribunal.

The legal position is, therefore, that unless an Order has been made by the Transport Tribunal authorising the permanent discontinuance or reduction of a service, the relaxation of the obligation to provide transport services which existed prior to the 1944 Emergency Powers Order is dependent on the provision in the Supplies and Services Act. Applications in respect of ten of the 20 branch lines concerned have already been dealt with by the tribunal. C.I.E. have now decided, however, to defer any further applications to the tribunal for the time being. They propose to carry out experiments in the working of branch lines with light-weight diesel trains aimed at the more economic operation of branch line services. Their future policy regarding the operation of branch lines will be determined in the light of the outcome of these experiments which will take some years to complete. In the meantime it is proposed by means of this Bill that C.I.E. should not be obliged to restore services reduced or discontinued under the authority of the Emergency Powers Order on branch lines in respect of which applications have not been dealt with by the tribunal. The obligation would revive three years after the coming into operation of the Bill except in the case of any line in respect of which C.I.E. had in the meantime made application to the Transport Tribunal. The obligation of C.I.E. would then be determined by the findings of the tribunal. There is also provision to allow by special Order an additional period not exceeding two years in case the period of three years should prove too short.

In recommending this Bill to the House I have every confidence that no Senator will object to the continuance of provisions which although originally embodied in emergency regulations are still of value to the public.

I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no objection from this side of the House to the continuance of these powers. These powers, as the Parliamentary Secretary has informed the Seanad, have been adopted under the Supplies and Services Temporary Acts passed by the Oireachtas annually, but one thing strikes one's mind and that is that it is a pity the comprehensive supplies and services measure that we had been promised throughout the years has not yet seen the light of day. The measure before us deals with two problems.

In the first place, it deals with the haulage and transport of milk to and from creameries and also with the transport of wheat. It is only right that a certain amount of flexibility in the transport of these commodities would be given to the farmers, but I would like to see all these things embodied in a comprehensive measure of the nature of which we have been promised.

The other problem that arises here is the problem of branch railway lines. This is a much debated problem at the present time and one which gives rise to great anxiety on the part of people who live in certain remote parts of the country. Branch lines are being closed down and proposals are being made to close down branch lines. I do not know to what extent that policy will be pursued because it appears to me that if that policy is pursued to its logical conclusion all the railway lines in the country would be closed down since the railway system of this country is not a paying proposition.

In that regard there is one point I should like to bring before the Seanad. I wonder has the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department of Industry and Commerce considered the possibility of using turf as a fuel on some of those remote branch lines? That suggestion may sound fantastic to the members of this House but I should like to remind them that there was once in existence a certain branch railway line in my native county which was run on native fuel, turf, and it lasted for a number of years.

I would refer to the railway known as the Lartigue Railway which was a monorail system. Unfortunately, some years ago that was discontinued but at the same time I would point out that while that railway was in existence it gave satisfaction and people travelled by it and goods were transported over it. Its length was about ten miles but if it was possible to run a train along that line at that time on native fuel, turf, could it not be possible to have some such system now? Of course, I do not advocate a system on the lines of the Lartigue but an ordinary narrow gauge system. That is the point I would like to put before the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department.

There are three provisions really in this Bill and I should like to touch on two of them. The first is the legislation that is now before us putting in permanent form Orders which were formerly made under the Supplies and Services Act. These are related to the Road Transport Act of 1933 which was, I think, the first attempt by the Oireachtas to legislate and control road transport in this country. The main provision of that Act, as the Seanad will know was, first of all, to license the existing road operators and also to empower the railway companies, the statutory undertakings at the time, to acquire these licences.

The effect of the latter was rather unfortunate and costly eventually for the community because the private operators who were bought out were compensated not only for the physical assets, the lorries, etc., but also for the goodwill of the business. It was found that more often than not the people who were bought out reopened the following week with new and better lorries but this time under the guise of general traders carrying the traffic which they formerly carried as freight operators.

They are still functioning as such.

That was a rather costly error for the community because the transport concerns lost on that. They had eventually to be taken over by the Government when they had become semi-bankrupt and the community as such had to pay for the errors made in 1933.

Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

When the Seanad adjourned I was pointing to the fact that this Bill was in one section proposing to amend a section of the 1933 Road Transport Act and pointing to certain shortcomings in that particular Act.

Another shortcoming which has become apparent in recent months as the result of a Supreme Court decision was to the effect that whatever the intention of the Oireachtas in passing the 1933 Act a lorry owner can now carry goods not his own for somebody else and plead that he was actually hiring out his lorry and his driver to the owner of the goods. That certainly of course, was not the intention of the Act. It is a fault which has now been discovered in the wording of the 1933 Act. The only thing I can see in favour of this particular fault is that it will provide at least a variation in the two threadbare excuses which are now made before the court in prosecutions under this particular Act. One of these excuses usually is that the goods in question were not in fact being carried for reward but as an obligement to a neighbour, and the second is that in fact the goods were the property of the lorry owner between the points of collection and delivery. I am suggesting very seriously to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a weakness in the Act which needs to be remedied very quickly. If it is not done, the position of the public transport undertakings and the position of the branch lines will become even more perilous than they are at the present time. Surprisingly as it may seem, there is, I think, some connection between the Road Transport Act of 1933, which is being amended here, and the branch lines of the public transport undertaking.

I would like to compliment the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on their success in having C.I.E. make a second try at running the branch lines affected by this particular amending Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary in the course of his speech made a reference to 20 branch lines of C.I.E., ten of which had already been closed and ten of which would have been closed except for this agreement to conduct an experiment with modern traction. I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would detail to us the branch lines, the ten remaining branch lines, which it is now proposed to hold over for the purpose of this experiment. I think that the decision to run these branch lines with diesel traction is to be welcomed very much.

In regard to Senator Kissane's suggestion that turf could be used as a fuel, I am sure he will be glad to know that at the present time the major transport undertaking here, C.I.E., is in fact carrying out experiments with a view to substituting turf for imported coal in a certain number of locomotives. I do not know whether that experiment will prove a success. I do hope it will. I read recently in a transport journal of a somewhat similar experiment being made in the United States where soft coal, not very much different from our own turf, is being used on much the same principle as jet engines, I suppose. It is not being burnt to heat water to produce steam; it is being milled in the first instance and then fed in and the hot air is being used to provide the motive power. I am not too well up in the technical ways of doing it but it does seem that here is an experiment in the United States which might be followed, if it is successful, here. The journal certainly thought it was an outstanding success both in regard to the power provided and the cost of the fuel.

I want to suggest very seriously to the Senator that the decision to provide modern diesel light locomotives for these branch lines will not in itself be sufficient to save the remaining branch lines in this country. Something else is needed and this something else has been pointed out on numerous occasions. It is that they require more traffic, diversion of more of the heavy traffic from the roads in the Republic to the remaining railway lines. This has been drawn to the Minister's and our own attention on quite a few occasions. For example, the second annual report of C.I.E. for the year ending 31st March, 1952, refers in paragraphs 108, 109 and 110 to illegal haulage. It pointed out that the Board of C.I.E., which was appointed by the Minister, was satisfied that illegal haulage of merchandise and live stock by privately owned vehicles was widespread in the country and that that practice was developing and constituted a grave threat to public transport. It also drew attention to the fact that the number of prosecutions was small in relation to the number of offences and the penalties, when the court convicted, were relatively light.

The board in that report suggested that serious consideration should be given to the steps which might be taken to discourage these unlawful practices before they became a real menace to the public transport industry. We know that certain proposals were made by the public transport undertaking appointed by the Minister in regard to the possible diversion of heavy road traffic to the railways. In the most recent report of C.I.E., that for the year ending 31st March, 1954—they are not very quick, as you will notice, with their reports— the concluding paragraph says very firmly: "The board is still firmly of the opinion that whatever steps may be necessary should be taken to transfer to the board's rail services the heavy long distance loads at present being carried by road." This is not alone the opinion of the committee of management but the Department has in this regard the recommendation and findings of the committee of trade unions with employees in C.I.E. That committee in its report to the Minister made certain recommendations. There was also, I think, an addendum to that particular report, but the most recent and, I suggest, rather alarming incidence of this disquiet in public transport from the effect of illegal haulage is in the recently published report of the G.N.R. Board, which is even slower than C.I.E. to publish its accounts. That report is for the year ended 31st September, 1954. The board of that undertaking points to illegal haulage and the difficulty of dealing with it. It refers to the loss of traffic, the cream of the traffic being taken away, and it said: "There is little prospect of any substantial improvement in the situation unless the law is amended so that the public transport undertakings are given adequate powers for dealing with it."

I do suggest in all seriousness to the Seanad that the success in persuading or in directing C.I.E. to keep open some ten branch lines for this further experiment carries with it an obligation to see that this experiment should be a success. The other thing necessary to make it a success is more traffic. If that is not done, the diverting of more and more road traffic to the railways, I am firmly of the opinion that all this postponement means is simply a postponement for a couple of years of the inevitable fate of the branch lines, that they definitely will be closed. Modern equipment, new diesel traction, alone cannot keep the branch lines open. There must be also extra traffic.

If the experiment fails, the community will have to meet the cost. Eventually the community will have to meet the cost of the losses on these experiments. They will have to meet it by way of taxation as taxpayers or they will have to meet it as ordinary fare-paying passengers in higher fares which otherwise would not be necessary. Therefore, I suggest the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have a duty to amend this fault which has become apparent in the Road Transport Act and seriously to consider what steps can be taken to help these experiments towards keeping open the branch lines. I hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will give us details of the branch lines on which it is proposed to carry out these experiments.

I was very glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary the Government view of the experiment of reopening some of our branch lines by diesel trains. There are one or two in my county to which I would like to see attention paid and about which a very strong protest was made when they were closed down. There is one in particular, the Fermoy-Mitchelstown line which also serves the villages of Glanworth and Ballindangan. On numerous occasions on which I have been in Mitchelstown during election times and at other times, I realised what a huge fair means to a town. I think the Mitchelstown fair must be one of the biggest in the County Cork. Linked as it is —or was then—with Fermoy, the closing down of that branch line was a very retrograde step for all who worked for farmers or cattle dealers or who make a living attending fairs. I would like to see the experiment tried out there. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government has decided to give that line a trial.

All of us who are living in towns realise that if the railways do not pay, they eventually must go. That would be a very serious matter for the economic life of the country and for the people living in the towns and cities. It must be quite apparent to all of us that since the inception of the diesel trains—and I can only speak for C.I.E.—a vast number of people who frequently came to Dublin by car and by other means are again patronising the railways. C.I.E. at one time incurred the displeasure of many people by not being a paying concern, but nowadays I am glad, as one with some slight monetary interest in it, to see this change-over to the railways. We must realise that the railway is part and parcel of our very life. It is one of the life strings of every section of the community and the prospect would be too horrible to contemplate if the railways were not the paying concern they are now—they are about to pay their way, I am informed—and if they had to close down with only the main lines kept open.

I realise that in the world in which we live nowadays, with one out of every three or four people running a motor car, it is very hard for those who wish to make short journeys of 20 or 30 miles to refrain from using their cars. Every one of us should set an example. This applies particularly to members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, if I may say so, coming from our towns throughout the country. Instead of motoring up to Dublin, we who are the legislators should come by train and set a headline ourselves.

I want to pay my little tribute to the dieselisation of trains. We are living in a world of speed but no one wants to travel much more quickly than I did this morning, coming from Cork to Dublin in three hours. I believe there is a great future in dieselisation. We are living in a world of speed and everyone wants to get from one place to another in the shortest possible time. As Senator Murphy said a few moments ago, unless you have a jet plane it would be very hard to travel the 167 miles from Cork to Dublin in less than that three hours.

Deputy Kissane said earlier to-night that the railways are not a paying concern. Unfortunately too many people have unhappy recollections of the G.S.R. Some 30 or 40 years ago, many of those who went before us invested part of their life savings in the G.S.W.R., as it was then. I remember as a young fellow enjoying a free ticket and thought I was owner of a railway myself on that account. If the railways are to pay, the people must patronise them; if they do not, the railways must go. I would like to pay a little tribute to the chairman and directors of C.I.E., that there is some hope now for the future, that they will not have to lean any longer on the already overburdened taxpayer. One does not want to go into this too deeply, but we all to our bitter regret realise what the railways have cost over the past few years.

I understand the dieselisation of trains on all lines would mean a fourth or a fifth of the cost of running by coal, so I visualise the day when every line in the country will be run by diesel oil instead of steam coal. I sincerely hope that the proposals mentioned this afternoon will prove a success. That is up to the people themselves—if they want the railways to pay, they must use them. It is up to the people coming to Dublin —and it is up to members of the Oireachtas in particular, to use the trains and set a headline for the people to follow. If we set the example, the people will follow it. I repeat my appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider, in experimenting with branch lines, the towns with big fairs and markets and to remember Mitchelstown, with one of the biggest fairs in County Cork, and the town of Fermoy.

In my own home town of Youghal we have diesel trains in the summer months, bringing about 8,000 people every day. I think the Government is on the right lines and I wish them every success.

There is much more we could say but time is passing on and I have intervened briefly to follow on the lines which Senator Murphy was able to put before the House.

This is a non-controversial Bill and naturally will, I presume, be accepted unanimously by the House. There are only three sections that matter in the Bill. In No. 2 there is provision for the exemption of vehicles carrying milk to creameries. I am wondering whether that exemption should not also apply to vehicles carrying liquid milk to Dublin or any of our cities. As I understand it many of the big wholesale companies in the milk trade have their own lorries which collect the milk, but in so far as hired lorries are required they are provided by C.I.E., who sublet the contract to private people, who actually collect the milk and do the work, but nevertheless, have to pay a certain rake-off to C.I.E. I do not think it is either necessary or desirable for those carrying on a business such as C.I.E. to undertake this work. It is not suitable to them and they should leave it to private enterprise.

There was a concession in the last Budget in regard to tractors conveying milk to the creameries. It was rather a mistake that this concession did not apply also to tractors owned by the co-operative societies. It was understood at first that it would be applied but it was afterwards ruled that the concession applied only to farmers using their tractors for the conveyance of milk.

In Section 3 the Government take power to provide transport of goods in case of emergency. I presume an emergency would be something which would hold up the public transport company, such as a strike or a lock-out, or perhaps something else of that nature. It might be a disaster of some kind which would involve an obstruction of the line or means of transport. I am surprised that this section does not provide for the conveyance of passengers. One would imagine that it would be equally important to provide for the movement of passengers.

In so far as the Bill offers some hope of reprieve to branch lines that have been more or less doomed, that particular section will be very much welcomed. Everyone would have liked to see some effort made to reopen lines that have been closed. I understand that this section does refer to lines which are not in operation at present, but have not been officially closed. I am referring, in particular, to the line from Sallins to Tullow. It is a very long and important line serving a number of towns, and while alternative transport has been provided on a fairly generous scale, at the same time it would be a pity to see such an important railway link scrapped. On that line there is no rail service except when catering for fairs and an occasional special train. The introduction of diesel services would be very much welcomed and I hope would be supported.

I am entirely in disagreement with Senator Murphy when he suggests more restrictive measures on the community in general in regard to the means by which they should travel or have their goods conveyed. We have nearly too much dictation on matters of this kind. Our aim should be, as is implied in this Bill, that C.I.E. by progressive measures and by exploiting every opportunity provided by science and invention should endeavour to lure additional traffic to their lines rather than to coerce citizens into using the service. Coercion is bad in any walk of life, particularly in business. If greater flexibility were provided in regard to the services on the railway, if more convenient methods were provided for the handling of goods and even live stock from road vehicles to rail vehicles, a good deal of long-distance traffic would be carried in that way. The advantage of road services is that they extend from door to door, or from the farm upon which cattle are raised to the farm of the buyer. If some convenient method were provided by which live stock could be transferred from road vehicles to a rail vehicle, and at the other end of the journey from the railway vehicle to a road vehicle, it would help to promote increased traffic. The same should apply, of course, in regard to passenger services. A greater effort should be made to ensure that buses would operate as feeders for the railways rather than in competition with them. I know that this has been suggested many times before and that there are difficulties in regard to the question. Nevertheless, as has happened in regard to the adoption of the diesel system, those ideas are worthy of being pursued further and considered in all aspects. They should be adopted in preference to an attempt to dragoon the citizens into utilising C.I.E. services.

I only just want to make an inquiry about the Kanturk-Newmarket line. An inquiry was held down there about a year and a half ago, or two years ago. Its findings appear to have been favourable to the opening of the line, but nothing has been heard about it lately and the people are anxious and are expecting an announcement. They are ready to give the line, when it is open, their support. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what the position is in regard to it.

I want to make one or two comments in support of the complimentary remarks that have been made about C.I.E. I would like to ask them now to give every consideration to the lines which feed the main line, because it will not be of much advantage to the company unless the arms which supply it are made to act as feeders to the railway. Doubtless those directing railway policy will see to that when the rolling stock becomes available, and ensure as much despatch as possible, because they have captured the imagination of the travelling public. The thousands of new motorcars going on the roads every day are, in my opinion, playing into the hands of an enterprising railway line because, as every Deputy or Senator who has to travel a distance to Dublin knows, it is much more convenient to-day to come by train from Cork or some other provincial centre. The traveller can leave his car in one of the provincial stations.

The railway company are getting those facilities. I think the important terminal stations and branch lines ought to run quick trains to Dublin to give the facilities, and that they should widely publicise these facilities. I believe also that the railway company should consider closing redundant stations. There is nothing so exasperating as having to stop at railway stations where a passenger never gets on or gets off. It slows down the whole schedule. There must be dozens of stations on branch lines in this country that could well be closed to the advantage of the service and to the economy of the whole system. I know one or two stations and I doubt if I have ever seen a passenger either get on or get off at them. It takes two minutes to stop and two minutes to get going again and about five minutes are lost by reason of the stop, to the great annoyance of the travelling public.

Another matter that ought to be considered with regard to branch lines is the fact that there ought to be an arrangement whereby the guards would collect the tickets on the train. I know that on main line trains you must have a checker and, on busy trains, two checkers and, if it is exceptionally busy, as in Britain and on the Continent, three checkers. On a branch line, where there are only a small number of passengers on the train, you pull up at some station and the local station master holds up the train while he is checking tickets. Surely that is not enlightened railway operations? Surely that system ought to be changed and made to conform with modern conditions? There are always corridor carriages in these trains and it would not be difficult for the guard to check the tickets of the passengers over a few miles. I often feel that, in that way, probably ten minutes could be cut off a distance of 25 or 30 miles —and that would apply in both directions. That would mean a considerable saving of time and give the railways the advantage which they are now beginning to gain over the private motor-car.

The services offered by the railway company are becoming so apparent to everyone that I believe that, a few years hence, anyone who has occasion to travel further than 50 miles to Dublin will, certainly in the winter, always be inclined to use the railway.

I am glad the enterprise of our own staffs here that caused them to plan this new system is meeting with such success. I have travelled a lot by rail in most countries in Europe. With the possible exception of France, I think no country in Europe gives as good and clean a service as C.I.E. The French railway system is the pride of the world for speed and punctuality. Although our services are excellent, we have not reached anything like the booked speeds of French railways. The speed from Dublin to Cork, non-stop, is about 56 m.p.h., while 70 m.p.h. is quite common on the best French lines. However, it is well that we have something in hand and that, even with the improvement of our roads, we shall be able to demonstrate that we can still beat the motor-car. It is well to show that to business people and others.

I suppose it is also a cause of national gratification to us that we are able to run a service of this type in such an efficient manner. I would thank the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for incorporating in the Bill those sections which provide that our agricultural and other produce which cannot be carried economically by our efficient railway service may be carried by other means. It shows that no complete monopolistic tendency is developing in our Departments. It shows we are prepared to look at these matters in a realistic and business-like manner. It shows we have every reason to be proud of our service. We commend the efforts of those who have been responsible for giving us such a good service.

There seems to be a feeling that the diesel train will solve all the problems in this country so far as our railways are concerned. I agree that we can hope for advance because our passenger trains are being dieselised but in my opinion it will not solve all our problems.

Do not try to solve them all now.

I intend to be brief. I want to point out that, as far as I know, the first railway in this country to adopt diesel traction was the independent railway company known as the Sligo/Leitrim and Northern Counties' Railway. Despite the fact that that railway is in a very doubtful position at the moment, in my opinion they have a diesel train which is better than any diesel train C.I.E. have. People may not agree with me on that——

That is not an issue on this Bill.

I agree with the many people who suggest that branch lines should be kept in operation. I agree that if all our trains are dieselised it should go a long way towards making our branch lines economic. I know the Minister is very sympathetic but, as we are talking about railways and the desire to keep branch lines in operation, I hope the Minister will do whatever he can, under very difficult circumstances, to keep the Sligo/ Leitrim and Northern Counties' Railway working. I am craving the indulgence of the Chair when I say that. I am sure I will be forgiven by the Chair; it does come under the heading of branch lines.

Unless our transport undertakings ensure that their services are good enough and complete enough and comprehensive enough—unless they ensure that they will give the service to attract business—then, no matter what traction they may have, they will not be successful. If their service is better than any other in this country then they will get the business. That should be the approach. Human nature being what it is, no amount of legislation will divert sufficient traffic to C.I.E. unless it is, of itself, efficient. Methods will be employed to divert some of the traffic. We know that such methods exist and that nothing can be done about the matter. We cannot have a policeman to protect that aspect at every crossing. A more realistic approach would be to ensure a better type of traction and complete and comprehensive services. That is the only way in which the railways can be made to pay.

I add my voice to the many others in expressing the hope that the branch lines can be kept going. I agree that we cannot have trains running like clockwork. We all like to see trains but it is a fact that we who give voice to that sentiment do not use trains, even for passenger purposes, as much as we might. We cannot afford to have clockwork trains running without passengers or goods. I have always held— and when I said it here on another occasion it caused a certain amount of merriment—that passenger transport was the most economic type of transport for a transport undertaking by reason of the fact that it loaded and unloaded itself. It is a fact that passenger transport should be the most economic because of the fact that the loads will unload themselves. With the development of diesel trains in the country there is the hope that more people will use the trains for travelling. If we are to have such an increase in traffic as will enable the railway undertaking to pay its way we can only do that, in my opinion, by giving the service necessary.

In conclusion, I again repeat my wish that the branch lines be kept open. We are at a cross-roads in our affairs and there may be a swing back towards railway transport.

It is already there.

I agree, but it is not moving fast enough. It would be a mistake to close down the branch lines. Perhaps after another ten or 15 years branch lines that may be regarded as uneconomic now may have proved economic. That is a reason why these branch lines should be kept going.

This is a very simple Bill and it has been very fully debated. It is a Bill to bring into permanent legislation measures which had been brought in under the Supplies and Services Act as regards the carriage of milk and as regards the carriage of wheat.

Senator Murphy referred to the reports of C.I.E. and of the G.N.R. Company and asked about the suppression of illegal haulage. The suppression of illegal haulage is a matter for the Gardaí and nobody else. We have given them the power and it is a matter for the Gardaí after that.

The suggestion that steps should be taken to transfer traffic to the railways is a matter that would require further legislation.

Senator Murphy mentioned the recent Supreme Court decision which enables private lorry owners to hire out their lorries and themselves or their driver to people to carry those people's goods. I can tell Senator Murphy that amending legislation is being formulated and it will be introduced shortly.

The section of the Bill dealing with branch railway lines is designed to give time to C.I.E. to experiment with light diesel railway units. C.I.E. hope by these experiments to prove the economics of renewing these branch lines and if that is a success they will go back on some of those branch lines which have already been closed and reopen them.

Senator Kissane asked about turf. C.I.E. are at present experimenting with an engine which can use either turf or oil.

I think those are the main purposes of the Bill and everybody has, I think, so far agreed that legislation is required.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Committee Stage now.
Sections 1 and 3 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary now have the information as to what branch lines will be affected by these experiments?

I can tell you which ones will be affected by the experiment. They went to the Railway Tribunal and got orders for the closing down of ten. There are ten still which they have not got orders for. They have made application in regard to two of these— Portlaoise-Mountmellick and Clara-Banagher but they have withdrawn these applications pending the outcome of these experiments and are not now looking for closing Orders.

Have you the other ten?

I can give them: Bagenalstown-Palace East; Clara-Streamstown; Sallins-Tullow; Portlaoise-Mountmellick; Gortalea-Castleisland; Clara-Banagher; Ballinascarthy-Courtmacsherry; Clonsilla-Kingscourt; Inny Junction-Cavan; and Tralee-Fenit.

Have they received abandonment orders for the Fermoy-Mitchelstown line?

Yes, they have. Senator O'Callaghan asked about the Kanturk-Newmarket line. That has been up before the Railway Tribunal and they gave an order with a proviso for the continuance of the line for the livestock trade. I am sure it will be one of the first branch lines, if this experiment proves satisfactory, that will be renewed.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share