AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Rail Drive to Gain Fruit Traffic: Haulier Complains of Reader Bros.

11th April 1958, Page 47
11th April 1958
Page 47
Page 47, 11th April 1958 — Rail Drive to Gain Fruit Traffic: Haulier Complains of Reader Bros.
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?

BRITISH RAILWAYS had last month reduced all their rates for fruit and vegetables carried from Hull, to gain the traffic from Reader Bros., Ltd., Mr. R. E. Paterson suggested at the continued hearing at Bridlington, last week, of an application by the company for 10 extra vehicles. The railways had, he declared, taken an interest in fruit traffic only since the case began and had circulated nearly all the Hull fruit merchants with the new package rates.

Mr. T. B. Atkinson, for the British Transport Commission, told the Yorkshire Licensing Authority that new fruit and vegetable rates offered by British Railways this year had been favourably received even by .C-licensees. Up to the and of March they had carried 2,000 tons from Hull—as much as in the whole of 1957. New experimental package rates were introduced in March and perishable fruit could now be conveyed by early morning fish trains.

15 B.R.S. Vehicles Laid Up Mr. G. E. Papworth said British Road Services had 77 general-haulage vehicles based at Hull, all of which could be available for fruit. Fifteen had been off the road through lack of traffic since February. B.R.S. would be prepared to carry fruit to Sheffield. The regular Hull-Sheffield trunk was suspended in August because of lack, of traffic.

Fruit traffic from Holland could be accommodated on the 33 10-ton semitrailers in use on the Continental ferry service and could be delivered to any part of the country without transhipment. Fruit and vegetable package rates, made in agreement with the Hull merchants, had not been varied since 1952, but, even so, they were higher than free-enterprise charges, which probably accounted for the loss of traffic.

B.R.S. rates were now much higher than rail chargeS, but they were endeavouring to keep them at a fair level. Their conditions of carriage would not allow them to guarantee early morning delivery to markets, but they held themselves morally responsible to do so whenever possible.

"Increase Not Warranted"

Mr. Harold Hunter, managing director of Hunters of Hull (Transport), Ltd., said he operated 35 vehicles and 21 trailers on A licence, and 18 vehicles and six trailers on B licence. He was objecting to the application principally because hauliers in the area thought the number of vehicles available in the East Riding did not warrant any increase.

Mr. Reader had, he said, originally agreed to conform to the policy of objecting to all applications for additional vehicles, but later backed out on the ground that he was expecting a big increase in traffic for R. Silcock and Sons, Ltd., and must apply for extra vehicles. There was at that time no mention of fruit and Mr. Hunter thought the emphasis on it in the present application was because it could otherwise be suggested the new work could be doite on contract-A licence. His company had had many requests to carry for Readers between December 3 and January 9, although they had never done so previously. He regarded these as trial requests which could be used :is evidence in the traffic court if they were not met. All reasonable demands had been satisfied.

Nearly all the calls were for part-loads, many to out-of-the-way places, and he felt strongly on the subject. Hunters distributed foodstuffs—traffic not dissimilar to fruit—for a number of firms— and they always took responsibility for part-loads, giving them to hired hauliers only on rare occasions.

Mr. Hunter said he wrote to Reader Bros. complaining of excessive demands for vehicles at short notice, with too many drops, and offering a vehicle for weekly hire. He received no reply. He claimed that the applicants were telephoning him, asking for a vehicle, pausing and then cancelling the order.

28 Consignments in One Load He said that a load to Ripley, given to him by Reader Bros., consisted of 28 consignments for delivery to 16 points. He used a 25-ft. 11-ton trailer, which was loaded "sky-high." Nine bags of onions fell off, and Reader Bros. had claimed against him for damage to them. Mr. Bunter maintained that the damage had been caused because delivery had been delayed for a week by the applicants.

Maj. F. S. Eastwood, the Licensing Authority, warned Reader Bros. that he was not satisfied with the document they had handed in, giving examples of loads, with a large number of drops, which they had carried. He intended to raise the question of the 112-mile journey undertaken on January 9. The driver's records submitted to him did not tally with the information contained in the document.

Cross-examined by Mr. Paterson, Mr. Hunter admitted making a statement to The Commercial Motor (March 7) that he and Mr. John Hewson, of Hewson Bros. (Hull), Ltd., believed that a reduction of 10 per cent. in vehicles would benefit everyone. He said they meant the remark to apply nationally to all A, B and C licences, but he denied he ever said they would oppose every application for additional vehicles in the area.

He admitted that his own vehicles were fully employed, but said he had curtailed hiring by about 60 per cent.

[Earlier hearings were reported in The Commercial Motor on January 10, February 28, March 7 and April 4.]


comments powered by Disqus