• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238

LICENSING CASEBOOK

Zoom page

8th November 1963

Page 56

Page 57

Page 56, 8th November 1963 — LICENSING CASEBOOK

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?

Please select an option... Headline has errors Article text has errors Article is incomplete Submit

Northern Stee

at is this Confusion? BY NORMAN H. TILSLEY

XACTLY what, one may ask, is going on in the Northern traffic area with regard to steel carrying? What is all the commotion about and, if steel operations are causing official concern in the North, why are there no parallel cases or commotions in the South Wales or Yorkshire areas where steel is manufactured?

The Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, recently insisted on listing no fewer than 18 separate applications by nine different steel hauliers, which included Section 178 revocation or suspension inquiries in respect of three of the operators, and also added._ several other steel applications to the list just prior to the hearing. Three days were set aside last week for the hearings at Durham when applications in respect of five of the hauliers were heard, and another five days have been set aside at the end of November and in early December to hear the remaining cases. Steel carrying in the Northern area has been a sore subject for some years and, until fairly recently, three names were continually in the licensing news with respect to long-length traffic— Siddle C. Cook Ltd., of Consett, Sunter Bros. Ltd., of Northallerton, and A. Stevens and Co. (Haulage) Ltd., of Great Ayton. These three hauliers—after many licensing battles before Mr. Hanlon and his deputy where they had to meet stiff opposition from British Railways, and often from each other—established themselves as specialists in this form of transport. There then appeared on the scene, about two and a half years ago, another name—H. L. Walker Ltd., of Thornabyon-Tees—a compariy which belongs to the Smith of Maddiston group and, as such, could be classed as general A-licensed hauliers with a strong affinity to the steel industry on Tees-side. Walker, at that time, applied to operate a long-length trailer to carry steel for its customers, necessitated, the company continued, by the change taking place in the steel industry and the trend towards the manufacture of steel in larger sections. The specialists objected, as did British Railways, and eventually additional restricted facilities were granted to Walker, upon an undertaking being given that it would not operate trailers more than 15 ft. long overall—an undertaking which has been kept by the company, apparently to its detriment in that it was unable to jump on the long-length bandwagon at a later stage.

Throughout this period the names of various Northern steel-carrying hauliers have cropped up—Arthur Sanderson (Great Broughton) Ltd., R.A.H. Transporters Ltd. and General Haulage (Lcmington) Ltd., to mention but three— and then came the era of the extendible trailer with resultant upheavals in the area which ended in appeals both to the Transport Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. And all the time in the background there were allegations and counter allegations that " foreign " longlength trailers were being brought into the area from outside to cope with steel traffic, taking away work hitherto carried by the specialists. As a matter of policy, the larger steel companies would not appear before Mr. Hanlon in the traffic courts to support applicants; and one manufacturer—the Consett Iron Companyactually cut its haulage rates at a time when rate increases were being suggested and sanctioned by the Road Haulage Association.

What did Mr. Hanlon do about all this? Firstly, he adopted the attitude that if the steel manufacturers were short of haulage they would come before him and say so—a theory which has proved to be correct. In an endeavour to protect the specialists he devised his own methods of tying hauliers down in length as well as weight and intention, insisting that the minutest details about trailers he shown in applications. (Heeven devised a special form for this purpose which every articulated vehicle operator must complete and send in with his ordinary application forms.) The latest and newest development in the matter has been the Road Haulage Association-backed Dorman Long (Steel) Ltd.. Cleveland consortium scheme which, on the face of it, would seem to spell disaster to certain hauliers and prosperity to others. Cook and Sunter were not invited to join in. Designed to speed up the turn-round of vehicles collecting steel at the Cleveland works, the scheme, operated initially by certain hauliers. came into effect in July, and last week's hearing concerned some of these companies (Econofreight Transport Ltd., D. Tarren Ltd., H. L. Walker Ltd., and others) who have been invited to join the scheme, and took account of longlength traffic which was more than 35 ft. in length.

In certain cases the applications have taken the form of a regularizing of licenoes to include long-length trailers that are admitted to be already operating in the area.

The line taken by the applicants has been the one adopted by H. L. Walker Ltd. more than two years ago—that the length of steel being manufactured and requiring haulage has increased. The applicants also say that Cook, Sunter and Stevens are no longer specialists in this field.

It was suggested that Sunter and Cook, in particular, had moved out of the special zone into the general haulage zone—a suggestion which prompted Mr. Siddle C. Cook, managing director of the company bearing his name, to state openly in court that if this was so and the applications were granted because of this, his company would apply to have "general goods " added to its A licences.

And so the confusion goes on—a mammoth job for Mr. Hanlon and those taking part in the cases to unravel. Whatever happens here, it is certain that a crop of appeals will result for consideration before the Transport Tribunal. And until that happens, although Mr. Hanlon's proposals with regard to trailer operations (the way they should be published in As mid Ds and specified in licences; the method in which semitrailers should be dealt with from a road fund point of view) are interesting and will no doubt be watched by other Licensing Authorities, one thing is certain: until,,. and unless, specific directions are given by a higher court, steel hauliers in other areas will be allowed to carry on as usual.