"Clearance Sale"
Page 66
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 I
"denationalization." I think the term clearance sale" would be more appropriate.'
I was interested in two Pickfords' articulated lowloaders, described as 25and I5-ton units respectively. On inspection, I found 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 tow-loaders will' for some time be spending money to make his units efficient, in addition to paying for legal battles to increase his A licence tonnage. •
I think denationalization is an,, 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 rnattei of Opinion,, but, in any ease, 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
1953.Transport Act may make it'clear to your legal adviser that rio substitution may take place unless the new traileris 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, but 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 English as can possibly. be used, that the only variation of trailers in a special Alicence is their deletion. How come?
Cambridge. G. W. lawm.
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 used— presumably 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.,1A(S,P) and G.V.6(SP) clearly reflect the same view as I 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 I hadnot seen them.—ED.]
No Value, No Bids
NAY work as the representative of a large commercial "I 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 Mardi 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 were—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 replaCenient 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.
1Mr. Cleaver has pointedly amplified Ralph Cropper' statement: "Many of the units offered are almost 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."—Eol