AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Rail Evidence "Dirty, Say Fish Hauliers

10th March 1939, Page 49
10th March 1939
Page 49
Page 49, 10th March 1939 — Rail Evidence "Dirty, Say Fish Hauliers
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?

COMPLAINTS against the London and North-Eastern Railway Co. of "spying on road hauliers" and "using dirty evidence " were made at Newcastle-on-Tyne, last week, when 22 concerns engaged in the carrying of fish from North Shields to London, and other centres, applied for the renewal of their licences, before the Northern Licensing Authority. Brief details were given in our issue for last week. After four days sitting the Authority adjourned the hearing until March 13. It was decided that the applications of the four main hauliers be taken first, as follow:—J. 11, Turnbull' and Sons (North Shields), Ltd., Acme Transporters, Ltd., S. Snowdon, Ltd., and Messrs. J. N. Atkinson.

Opening the case for the hauliers, Mr. E. G. Woodward stressed that the concerns were merely asking for the renewal of their licences. They did not want extra vehicles. They did not want to do anything in the future that they had not done in the past. They wished to carry on their businesses without interruption.

Mr. Woodward added that they were concerned With two quays on the Tyne —the Corporation Quay and the' Norwegian Quay. The latter was connected with the railway, but there were no rail facilities at the .Corporation Quay, and the nearest station was at Tynemouth. Whilst . the L.N.E.R. might have something to put forWard, regarding the Norwegian Quay,' there was no question of alternative fakilities, so far as the Corporation Quay, was concerned. Mr. Woodward said the railways could object on two grounds—first that facilities were in excess of requirements' and, secondly,

that the operators had not adhered to the conditions of their licences. He understood the applicants would be opposed on the former grounds.

A letter, signed by 15 prominent fish merchants of Billingsgate. Market, was then read by Mr. Woodward, stating that they deemed it essential that roadtransport facilities for bringing fish to Billingsgate should be maintained. They regarded with alarm, any suggestion of railway, monopoly.

" Road transport is so simple," said Mr. James Miller, a North Shields fish merchant, giving evidence for the hauliers. "The lorry comes to your door, collects the fish and takes it to

its destination." For transport by rail, the fish had to be taken a mile from the Corporation Quay to the station. It was common knowledge that even one extra handling of fish affected its condition.

When the application by Messrs. J. N. Atkinson was heard, Mr. Atkinson was questioned regarding the speeds of his lorries, and he commented, " 1 think you will admit that it is dirty evidence.Y The L.N.E.R. called witnesses from Norway who thought it was better to carry fish in covered vans. Two Norwegian fish exporters said they considered rail transport satisfactory.


comments powered by Disqus