RAIL FIGHT FOR LINER TRAIN ARTICS CONTINUES
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE hearing of an application by British Railways for additional collection-anddelivery vehicles to accommodate linertrain traffic at Manchester, adjourned from June 30, was resumed at Manchester last week before the North Western deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. G. Newman.
From a base at Longsight, Manchester, BR sought to add 16 artics of 148 tons to the 12 vehicles already authorized on A licence for collection and delivery of linertrain containers. Subject to grant, licences for 65 artics would be surrendered. There were 22 objectors.
The hearing last week was again adjourned, to a date to be fixed. Mr. H. Mann, for BR, asked for a short-term grant and the deputy LA allowed 12 vehicles for a threemonth period on the understanding that such grant was not to be used in any way at the resumed hearing.
Mr. T. W. Povey, transport manager of Mars Ltd„ Middleton. said that three or four containers a day were dispatched on the liner-train service to London with two in the reverse direction. The service met requirements and he had no complaints. Mars were interested in the proposed linertrain service between Manchester and Glasgow, which would require four large containers daily.
The commercial manager of H. and A. Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Manchester, Mr. C. G. Silcock, had found the service to London efficient during the two months it had been used by the company. It was possible that use would be made of the service from London.
Before using the liner-train service, London traffic had been carried on his own vehicles and outside haulage, said Mr. Silcock, and there was a saving of £12 to £15 per container load on a door-to-door. basis. A new depot in Glasgow would probably be ready later in the year. He was
interested in the proposed Glasgow service and anticipated using large containers.
Mr. J. C. Cornwall, BR divisional sales manager, said that assuming road hauliers were willing to provide vehicles for container collection-and-delivery work, they would be employed, but not on a contract basis. He disagreed with the objectors that the present 12 vehicles would meet requirements. And he refused to be drawn on the question of costs or that customers were being subsidized. But recalled later to quote a rate for an objector interested in sending a 10-ton container load to London he quoted a rate of 45s, per ton in a 15-ton container for collection and delivery within 10 miles, and 32s. for a 15-ton lot, subject to one container a day on a regular basis.