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
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
"Clearance Sale"
Page 157
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE disposal of .British Road Services' assets is hardly " denationalization." I think the term "clearance sale "would be more appropriate.
was interested in two Pickfords' articulated low
loaders, described as 25and 15-ton units respectively. On inspection, I fouad that the tractor that went with the 25-ton trailer was capable of hauling only the 15-ton trailer. Furthermore, both trailers had well lengths of only 16 ft. A length of 18 ft. is the minimum desirable.
Another semi-low-loading trailer was an obvious outcast as it had a bastard hitch and would have limited • use unless it were part of a large fleet.
I can quite understand Pickfords taking the opportunity of weeding out all their unsuitable vehicles, but I think that this state of affairs should be made generally known. The haulier who operates low-loaders will for some time be spending money to make his units efficient, in addition to paying for legal battles to increase his Alicence tonnage. I think denationalization it att, astute move by the Government. Competition is going to be very keen during the next few years and the .nationalized haulage concerns will have their house :in order plus the pick of the traffic:Whether this is considered-fair play is a matter of °Pinion,. but, in any case, I think the public should have a true picture of what is happening. Exeter. F, ,W, SMITH.
Semi-trailers in Transport 'Units \
PARAGRAPHS 3 and 6 of the First Schedule to the A 1953 Transport Act may make it clear to your legal adviser that no substitution may take place unless the new trailer is of the same or less unladen weight, but I regret that it is far from clearto me and I should imagine to many others who are interested in the same problem.
Para. 3 appears to relate only to motor vehicles and not to trailers, and para. 6 contains no reference whatever to the unladen weight of .trailers, hut merely to thtir number.
Would your legal adviser.., be.. good enough to try to make it as clear to us as it appears to him? So far as can be seen by a casual observer, there is nothing to prevent the purchaser of a transport unit which includes trailers, from trebling the weight of those trailers should he so desire. All he is forbidden from doing is to increase their number.
Incidentally, it will be noted that form G.V.1A(SP) asks for the insertion of the unladen weight of the trailers and form G.V.6(SP) apparently provides for the variation of trailers and, in connection with this, asks for unladen weights, although the First Schedule of the Act specifically states in as clear F.riglish as can possibly he used, that the only variation of trailers in a special A licence is their deletion. How come?
Cambridge. G. W. IRWIN.
Secretary, Eastern Area, Road Haulage Association.
[Regarding the letter from Mr. Irwin, our legal adviser replies as follows:—It is agreed that para. 3 of the First Schedule relates only to motor vehicles, which of course cannot include trailers. On the other hand, the word " vehicle " undoubtedly includes a trailer (see the 1933
Act), and "vehicle" and not "motor vehicle" is usedpresumably deliberately—in para. 6. It' is also agreed that in para. 2 the stress is on the number of trailers to be specified, but I do not think this means—standing by itself—that in a special A licence only, the number can be specified. Bearing in mind also that in the 1933 Act. specification of trailers by an authority is possible and that obviously the 1953 Act and the 1933 Act are to be considered together, I think it probable that no substitution of trailers except of the 'same or less unladen weight can take place. I do not say it is beyond argument, and it may be that the decision of a higher court may be necessary to put the matter beyond doubt. I said in my last article that an operator would not be " safe " in exchanging trailers of a different type and/or weight, and that observation still stands. Moreover forms G.V.,IA(SP) and G.V.6(SP) clearly reflect the same view as 1 take, and whilst naturally the views of the Minister are not themselves law, it is interesting that his experts evidently take this view. I may add that my view was formed on the interpretation of the Act and that until my attention was drawn to these forms by the correspondence 1 had not seen them,—En.]
No Value, No Bids
NAY work as the representative of a large commercial 1" vehicle distributor brings me closely into touch with the complexities of the road haulage industry, and I would like to comment on the article by Ralph Cropper, " Why Are Tenders Failing?" in The Commercial Motor dated March 5.
As Mr. Cropper says, "The right price is merely what the article will fetch on the market," In many instances, however, the price is not forthcoming simply because the value is not there. Prices tendered are too low because most of the vehicles for sale are of little use.
If the restrictions on the variation of special A licences %A/ere—removed and an operator permitted to build up his tonnage, I am sure that higher bids would' be Made. The greater part of the vehicles for disposal seems to consist of those with an unladen weight of less than 3 tons—totally unsuitable for longor even mediumdistance operation.
Imagine a small haulier who has the chance of doing extra work but lacks the licences. If he Could bid for small vehicles with a view to replacing them with large modern types, his tender would be the higher because the value of the machines to him would be greater. This view is one which has been .put to me by many operators in my territory, and I have met many. who have not tendered because licences cannot be varied by the replacerrient of light by heavier vehicles. Therefore, most of the vehicles for sale are of little or no value to them.
Birstalli Leicester. W. D. CLEAVER.
[Mr. Cleaver has pointedly amplified Ralph Cropper's statement: " Many of the units offered are althost useless in relation to the special A licence, because the unladen weight does not permit the substitution of the kind of vehicle that is required for long-distance work."---ED.1