AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Railway Takes Traffic—Then Objects

21st January 1938
Page 6
Page 6, 21st January 1938 — Railway Takes Traffic—Then Objects
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?

A YORKSHIRE haulier against

whose licence application the L.N.E. Railway Company's counsel advanced the change-of-business argument, said that he had lost what was formerly an important past of his haulage work, the carriage of cattle food. He was informed by the cow signor of the cattle foods that they were now being carried by the objecting railway company, because the latter offered to handle this traffic at a price of Ss. 6c1. per ton, as against the applicant's charge, which was at the rate of 10s. per ton.

The application, the hearing of which was concluded at Leeds last week, was by Mr. R. jefferies, of Bolling Road, Ben Rhydding, Ilkley, who sought the regrant of an A licence for three vehicles.

Mr. Jefferies stated that about the time he lost the cattle-food traffic, in 1936, he began carrying rough timber. He admitted that, whereas in his original licence apPlication he had indicated that the West and East Ridings formed his normal sphere of operations, since 1936 he had on a number of occasions carried timber as far as Liverpool.

A considerable amount of his haula.ge work, however, Was still' done in Yorkshire.

Mr. Boothroycl, counsel for the L.N.E.R., submitted that the application should not be granted, contending that Mr. jefferies had changed entirely the nature of his work.

In reply, Mr. F. G. Bibbings, A.R.O. Yorkshire Area secretary, who appeared for the applicant, said it was an extraordinary position for the railway company to adopt, particularly in view of the unchallenged allegation by the applicant that a considerable part of his traffic had been taken from him through undercutting by the objector.

If railway counsel's submission were valid and logical, it followed that, if a road operator had been deprived, through no fault of his own, of a substantial portion of his haulage work, the only course he could take was to keep his vehiclea standing idle until the traffic was restored.

Decision was reserved.


comments powered by Disqus