1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Rail Competition Forces Down Road Haulage Rates
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
APPLIAPPLICATIONS, to amend existing licences of Road Services CATIONS, Ltd,, Glasgow Road, Dumfries, heard in Scotland and Preston last week, met with only limited success.
At Dumfries it was stated that a decline in the revenue, of the Scottish depots in the year ending March, 1960, was due to reductions in rates on longdistance services, mainly because of competition from British Railways. The company's vehicles were carrying the same amount of traffic and hiring had increased substantially, but receipts were down, compared with 1959. A secondary reason was that revenue of vehicles based at Newcastle upon Tyne and Bristol was now credited to these new depots and
not to Dumfries. . . .
Mr. A. Callender, traffic manager of the company, told Mr. W. F. Quin, Scottish Licensing.. Authority, this when the company sought a common normal user: "All classes of merchandise, as required, by customers in Scotland, England and Wales." This was for A-licensed vehicles based at Dumfries, Strantaer, Lockerbie and Abington, a total of 73 rigids, of 2801 tons unladen, and 34 articulated outfits, of 236* tons unladen.
Before the case opened Mr. Quin referred to objections by 17 independent operators. He pointed out that the forms of objection did not come within the terms of the regulations because they had been signed on behalf of the objectors by their legal representative. They should have been signed personally, or as from a corporate body. This took away any right of appeal, he said, but he would exercise his discretion and grant a locus standi, Flexibility Required For Caledonian, Mr.. J. Law said that the applications were intended to put all their vehicles at each base under one licence, with a normal user consistent with the company's day-to-day requirements. This would give the flexibility required to operate a large fleet. The only changes were the substitution of an articulated unit for a rigid vehicle, and a 7-1-ton rigid for one of 61 tons unladen. If the application were granted existing special-A and A licences would be surrendered.
Mr. Callender said that the company were using articulation extensively, which had proved more economic than the use of rigid vehicles. Some 43 trunk services were operated in addition to tramping to all parts. Collection and delivery vehicles, which were used at many depots to feed the trunk services, had no additional earning capacity.With the exception of British Railways, they were not in competition with the objectors, whose work, apart from livestock, was local to Dumfries and Lockerbie.
Representing the independent objectors, Mr. B. Cato said it would be alleged that
the applicants had misused existing licences in the operation of semi-trailers of various types at unladen weights not strictly in accordance with those specified.
Asked by Mr. Quin, after a protest by Mr. Law, why no specific details had been furnished to the applicants, he replied that they were unable to be precise until the figures could be checked. Road Services (Caledonian) had been told of the intention in broad terms, he said.
Replying to questions, Mr. Callender said that the company had never been in any court for breaches of licence conditi ens.., The Licensing Authority had never asked for the type of trailers to be .described on application forms. With regard .to Ecise licences, arrangements had been made to license tractors en bloc to allow units of the highest weight speeified to be drawn. They. were also used for outfits of lower weights.
No Customer Witnesses There was a number of low-loaders amongst their licensed trailers, but he was not aware of their use behind two Blicensed 'tractors, licensed at Dumfries, which would have been irregular. He denied that the application sought a major reorganization of their fleet: There were no customer witnesses or figures for individual vehicles.
Mr. Quin interposed that it was unreasonable to expect figures of individual operations 'where there Was a large fleet. The objectors should address themselves to producing evidence that the applicants did not require the amount of tonnage sought, and that a general normal user was unnecessary.
Cross-examined by Mr. D. Brown, for British Railways, Mr. Callender said that the substantial reduction in revenue at Dumfries was due to lower rates forced upon the company by rail competition. The vehicles were fully occupied, but they had no figures of tonnages carried.
One of the objectors, Mr. A. Hayton, Dumfries, said that he was so incensed at the severe competition from the applicants that he had taken observations on their vehicles. He was convinced they were operating irregularly. On two dates, May 4 and June 15, he and an employee saw B-licensed tractors drawing a lowloader, going south from Dumfries.
When questioned by Mr. Law, he agreed that although he had gone to considerable trouble to get the information, he had never complained to the police or the Licensing Authority. Such evidence Would have been much more cogent, said Mr. Quin, if the .police and enforcement officers' had been invited to take observations.
Mr. Cato,said that more detailed information should be produced. Local busi• nesses, with vehicles on restricted normal user, which had been acquired, were to be turned ()tier to omnibus operations, he said. Evidence would be produced by the objectors of vehicle availability in the Dumfries and Lockerbie areas.
The inquiry was adjourned to a date to be fixecl„
• Bid to Divide Fleet
A proposition to divide their Langton fleet between two licences, one covering collection and delivery of smalls and the other long-distance journeys and trunk operations, was made by the company to Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, at Preston.
Two applications were made for the company by Mr. J. Backhouse. The first, which was unopposed, sought five vehicles of 131 tons on A licence, for collection and delivery within 90 miles of the Langton base. Four of these units were at present on special-A licences which were due to expire this year. The remaining vehicle was on A licence, and if the application were granted all these licences would be surrendered, it was stated.
The second application dealt with 14 articulated units of 40* tons, two of which were to be acquired. A normal user: "General goods, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire, northern counties, Scotland, Midlands and I.on don area," waS sought. Of these vehicles, 11 were at present on A licence and one on special-A, but if the request were granted these would be relinquished.
Owing to the large increase in work the company were experiencing difficulty in maintaining their vehicles properly. This resulted in breakdowns and delayed deliveries. The pressure meant that no units were available for substitution when vehicles were off the road.
Increased Sub-contracting
Schedules of past operation, presented by Mr. L. Meulenberg, district supervisor of the company, showed that sub-contracting had increased from £2,000 to 17,000 for comparable periods. Several letters of complaint were produced. If the new vehicles were granted, about 50 per cent, of their time would be devoted to rnaintehance relief, he said.
'Mr. Backhouse suggested, and Mr. Meulenberg agreed, that conditions covering one of the units should be amended to limit it to maintenance work only.
For the British Transport Commission, who objeCted, Mr. P. Kershaw stated that there had been precise evidence only of inconvenience. The policy of replacement seemed to be Unknown, he said, and he considered more information was needed to merit a grant.
Mr. Jollitle said that he could not grant the application without customer evidence, but he considered that a case had been made out for one extra maintenance vehicle. The application for the live units was iranted.