Steel Scheme Disrupted ?
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LMOST coinciding with the affairs 1-1 in London, Mr. Hanlon, the day after the proceedings before the Tribunal, made known some of his decisions in the series of long steel inquiries that he held in Tees-side and which were referred to by Mr. Jackson-Lipkin before the Tribunal.
As reported briefly last week, Mr. Hanlon has refused applications by Econofreight Transport Ltd., T. Tarren Ltd., Arthur Sanderson (Great• Broughton) Ltd., H. L. Walker Ltd., and R.A.H. Transporters Ltd., to add or substitute larger and/or longer vehicles to their licences to enable them to carry longlength steel from Dorman Long (Steel) Ltd., under the Cleveland haulage consortium scheme. In the case of Econofreight, Tarren and Sanderson, Mr. Hanlon has suspended vehicles for vary
ing periods for unauthorized operations, and one haulier, R_A.H., Transporters has been served with a revocation notice under section 178 of the 1960 Act because of admissions made by the company that it had operated trailers in excess of the weights authorized on its licence.
From reports I have received from Tees-side it would seem that both the haulage industry and the steel industry are embarrassed by these decisions and, I understand on good authority, appeals are to be 'lodged in the case of each operator.
Five years or so ago steel hauliers in the Northern area (with, perhaps, the exception of Sunter Bros. of Northallerton) found it impossible to persuade witnesses from the great steel companies to attend traffic courts to support applications for additional facilities. As a matter of policy Dorman Long, the Consett Iron Company and South Durham Iron and Steel Co. would only send supporting letters which—quite rightly—were rejected by Mr. Hanlon. Most of the applications were refused and some Northern hauliers claimed that these refusals had attracted into the area " foreign " vehicles operating long-length trailers, which carried the steel out as return loads.
Not Again?
The consortium applications which Mr. Hanlon refused last week were in connection with Dorman Long's Cleveland scheme and officers from that company spent day after day in Mr. Hanlon's court giving supporting evidence; they also gave assurances that hauliers outside the scheme, and British Railways, would not suffer. In view of the application refusals it is, I hear, highly unlikely that witnesses from Dorman Long will ever be allowed to attend court again to support hauliers.
The suspensions, I gather, were half expected, although the attitude in the area is: "Why should we be penalized when hauliers licensed in other areas can operate (often from Tees-side) longlength trailers without let or hindrance?"
But whatever is thought in the area, one thing seems certain. The consortium, because of the refusals, is in an embarrassing position regarding the carriage of long-length traffic under the Cleveland scheme. To keep the steel moving, it will have to employ its rivals on the traffic.
It remains to be seen whether these hauliers, and Dorman Long, avail themselves of the only remaining way of operating long trailers—through the medium of Contract A licences.