AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tanker Application with a Difference

11th September 1964
Page 56
Page 59
Page 56, 11th September 1964 — Tanker Application with a Difference
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?

HOW DOES BULWARK FEEL ABOUT THE RESULT?

I THINK it would be fair to say that I both sides in the "specialized tanker" application—Tyburn Road Tank Services Ltd., and Liquid Pressure Gases Ancillary Services (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Calor Gas Holding Co. Ltd.)—were surprised at the reserved decision of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir. As exclusively reported in "The Commercial Motor" on August 21, Mr. Muir, in his decision, granted the two-vehicle addition to Tybum's A licence, notwithstanding the fact that, to quote his words: "it looks as if Calm Gas have more vehicles on B licence for the present than they can economically employ" and produced a formidable list of vehicle availability.

But this was a case with a difference, and there can be no doubt that Mr. Muir took into account the special merits of the case and did not rigidly follow previous "case law" as so many of his colleagues have done in the past.

Tyburn—according to the evidence of Mr. K. J. Loosely, the company's general manager—has 23 tankers on A licence and 35 on Contract A, but no specialized tankers of the kind sought, which, because of the special construction and heavier material used, cost about £130110.

British Hydrocarbon Chemicals, for whom Tyburn act as main contractor along with another haulier, James Hamphill Ltd. (who operates three of these liquid gas carrying tankers), gave Full support. "We expect Tyburn to do the dirty work, but We also expect them to share in the growing traffic ", the customer witness told Mr. Muir. Speaking later about the 8-licensed Specialized tankers operated by Calor Gas, the witness complained that they carried too much equipment, such as metering gear and pumps, which, he said, added up to half a ton of the vehicle's unladen weight, with a consequent deduction of that weight from the carrying capacity.

At the close of the applicant's case. they had established that they were experienced tanker operators; they were capable of operating these tankers, which must conform to rigorous Wane Office regulations and British Standards, and must be operated according to the code of practice laid down by the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Industry Technical Committee, etc.; and most important they had strong customer support.

A. Strong Case by Calor

To meet this. Calor Gas put up a strong case. They operated. they said, 104 vehicles licensed for this sort of work in seven traffic areas and operating from 17 depots. Moreover, they had lost a considerable amount of traffic, since the coming into operation at Fawley of a pipeline carrying. Esso Petroleum traffic for the North Thames Gas Board. Figures produced showed that the phenomenal growth of business in 1962/63 had not been maintained between 1963 and 1964.

It was also brought out during the case that a similar kind of application by Bulwark Transport Ltd. made in the Western traffic area had been withdrawn only the previous week when the amount of vehicle availability of Calor Gas became known to them.

As Mr. A. C. G. Rothera, appearing For Calor Gas, said during his closing ;ubmission: " Here you have an application from somebody with no experience in this specialized field." He went on to ;ay that Calor Gas had a better nationwide organization than anybody else.

For Tyburn, Mr. A. W. &tine said .hat it was only natural that Calor Gas thould not wish his clients to extend .heir operations in this particular field, 'nut the time had come, he suggested,. when his clients should be admitted into this specialized carrying.

In his decision. Mr. Muir mentioned the considerable vehicle availability of

Calor Gas, have of course to take that into account, but on balance I believa a grant should be made ", he said. The applicant company are well established and reputable operators of tankers and 1 think it right that they should be allowed to compete in a limited way in this specialized field."

As I said in opening, both sides were surprised at the result—Calor Gas, obviously, because they appeared. to have such a strong case; and Tyburn pleasure

ably so because they went into this with the right attitude-Our customer wants us to have this; we are prepared to supply and operate the vehicles: but if we are refused, then so be it."

What would be interesting to discover is what Bulwark Transport are going to do. If it is correct that they withdrew an application because of Calor Gas' alleged vehicle availability, before the (are was heard, they may well be feeling sorry for themselves; and if they re-apply it could be held against them that they could not have had such an urgent need for the vehicles, or they would have pressed on with their application.


comments powered by Disqus