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 
"Agreed Charges" Discussed
Page 109
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A MEETING of the Industrial Trans1-1 port Association, last Tuesday, at which "agreed charges," as defined by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, were discussed, showed that traders generally differ widely in their attitude towards this concession and that the precise meaning of the term is not yet known. The chair was taken by Mr. William Oldham, and the discussion was opened by Mr. Christopher Smith, transport manager of Spillers, Ltd.
The avowed object of the Act, he said, was to enable the railways better to compete with road hauliers and to develop new traffic. From the point of view of traders—and on this the meeting, generally agreed—the measure is regarded favourably so long as the strict principle of the Act as defined above is not departed, from.
The most attractive feature of the concession is evidently not so much economy of rates as the saving in time and trouble in making and checking accounts with the railways and other haulage contractors. The trader and the railway company have merely to take a total figure forthe weight or number of packages conveyed and assess the charge on the fiat rate.
This economy of labour and time might, however, not be permanent. It might be lost if the trader wished to question the relative value of the flat rate for his goods, and a new exceptional rate which is being quoted to a competitor who is not utilizing the &trate scheme. A most complicated series of calculations would be necessary before useful comparison could be made.
In the event of the conditions under which the trader operates being modified, so that the bulk of his deliveries commence in what might be termed the outer zone of the railway companies' operations, he is compelled to advise the railway, and, possibly, submit to a variation of the agreed charge.
There is obviously considerable uneasiness as to the possibility of the railway companies again achieving the monopolSi of transport as the result of continued and extensive application of the. Act.
The onus of putting forward an application falls upon the railway companies. The Tribunal will hear it. and, subject to safeguards embodied in Section 37, will grant it. There may, however, be objections which the Tribunal, in its wisdom, may overlook. All interested parties should carefully follow the proceedings and oppose applicacations to ensure that the fullest con sideration is given. S.T.R.