AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Contaminated vehicles lost business

10th January 1969
Page 34
Page 34, 10th January 1969 — Contaminated vehicles lost business
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Having operated three vehicles under short-term licence granted on the first day's hearing in November, Gilbraith Tankers Ltd., Accrington, continued its application in Manchester on Monday to change the fleet's normal user and to add seven vehicles, before the North Western LA.

On the previous occasion it was stated that four licences containing 15 A and six B vehicles would be surrendered for a 28vehicle A licence with a "Bulk liquids and cement, as required" normal user (CM November 15 1968).

Negotiations were now taking place with Thames Matex of West Thurrock to provide Gilbraith with workshop and cleansing facilities for the vehicles under contract to Thames Matex, which his other vehicles would also be able to utilize, said Mr. Birchall. This would assist distribution as vehicles would not need to return North for tank-cleansing.

For TIIC, objecting, Mr. J. S. Lawton pointed out that Frodingham Cement Co. only gave the applicants one vehicle's worth of work and yet cement was sought for the whole fleet. Its present licence did not cover the whole field of tanker operation but the proposed normal user would permit this. The objectors wanted to inhibit Gilbraith having the opportunity to branch out into new fields. Mr. ft.. Yorke for the applicants

said that if more concise wording embracing all existing traffic could be formulated, this would be acceptable.

Gilbraith's managing director, Mr. W. K. Birchall, said his depot at Immingham was staffed by a manager and six fitters and even though vehicles were often there for a week, all traffic control was handled at Accrington.

Shipping and transport manager of M. Golodetz (Overseas) Ltd., Mr. K. B. Kruger, said in 1968 his company had required approximately 3,500 tons of chemicals to be distributed from Immingham Storage to Bradford, Manchester, North Wales and occasionally to London. The major proportion was Methanol and because there must be no contamination, all vehicles had to be inspected before loading. In October eight sub-contractors' vehicles had been rejected and resultant delays had caused one of the Golodetz customers to withdraw its business.

There would be an estimated increase of 20 per cent in its 1969 requirements and Gilbraith's rates had proved better than Immingham-based companies, said Mr. Kruger.

The hearing was adjourned until Febru'firy 13, and the short-term licences were extended.


comments powered by Disqus