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
165
166
167
168 
Nine Trunk Hauliers Fight for Rights
Page 105
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Rail Offensive on A-licence Renewals Opens in Yorkshire with Four-day Hearing
ALLEGATIONS that the railways were attempting to obtain a controlled monopoly of goods transport and that their policy was contrary to the intentions of the 1933 Act were made in Leeds, on Monday, when the four-days' hearing of applications for the renewal of A [icon'--s for trunk road services was opened before the Yorkshire Licensing Authority. The allegations were made by Mr. N. R. Fox Andrews, who appeared for seven of the nine transport companies concerned.
Mr. D. P. Maxwell Fyfe, K.C. represented the railways and it was indicated that evidence would be given by Mr. Ashton Davies, chief commercial manager for the L.M.S. Railway.
Increases and Renewals.
Mr. Fox Andrews pointed out that these cases resembled test cases which had been heard in the Metropolitan and West Midland Areas, with the exception that in certain instances operators were asking not only for renewals, but for increases. The railways objected to the whole applications. Substantially speaking, it was argued on behalf of the railway companies that licences for long-distance trunk services should be refused, thus creating a rail monopoly. The Licensing Authority ought to grant or refuse licences in such a manner as to provide the best services..
Referring to the application of the first of the concerns which he represented, J. Hanson and Son, Ltd., Huddersfield, Mr. Fox Andrews stated that Mr. Hanson was in a position to pro--e that the carrying capacity of his company was insufficient to meet the requirements of his customers and that, on a number of occasions, he had been forced to refuse transport orders.'
Delicate Loads.
The business included the handling of delicate textiles, which were unsuitable for carriage in railway trucks. In support of Hanson's application, representatives of textile and wool manufacturers stated that in sending textiles by road, labour was saved in packing. One witness, Mr. W. II. Sellers, a director of E. H. Sellers, Ltd., Thongsbridge, near Huddersfield, said that 99 per cent. of the goods transported for his company were taken by road.
Mr. Robert Hanson, managing director of J. Hanson and Sons, Ltd., said that in March this year his company was granted an additional 10 tons. He now asked for an additional tonnage of 2.5. He added that if ever his company had a vehicle off the road, it was either because it was under repL''r,.or that day was a Sunday.
Mr. Hanson's evidence concluded Monday s proceedings. When the hearing was resumed on Tuesday, emphasis was laid on the diffi.culties which were experienced by Yorkshire operators in hiring suitable vehicles.
The Authority expressed the opinion that the evidence which had been gil.zn regarding these difficulties was rather too general and should be of a more specific nature.
Mr. Hanson continued his evidence and Said that, although his company had endeavoured to hire vehicles every day for the past six months, it had been successful in acquiring suitable oncs on only a few occasions. Quite often it meant hiring vehicles from • 10 miles away.
Dealing with the second application in the list, that of I. J. Holdsworth, Ltd., Halifax, Mr. Fox Andrews said he would produce evidence which would prove the difficulties which this company experienced in hiring. The applicant sought the renewal of existing licensed tonnage, as Well as four additional vehicles. The company was granted extra tonnage last February and the railway company lodged an appeal against it, but withdrewafter the Authority's observations had been made a public document. Now the railways said that the company should not be licensed for that tonnage.
A Remarkable" Policy."
" If that is .a policy," Mr. Fox Andrews went On, " it is the most remarkable policy I have heard of."
Mr. J. Standring, works manager of Messrs. Wright Hamer, woollen mann. facturers, Halifax, said that they gave a great deal of their traffic to Holdsworth's, because they obtained quick and satisfactory transport. Frequently that company had done work for them with hired vehicles, which were not as satisfactory as Holdsworth's own machines.
Mr. George Wadsworth, managing director of Messrs. Wadsworth, paint manufacturers, of Halifax, said it was essential that raw materials should be loaded and brought to -their works as quickly as possible. By using the Holdsworth service they could secure haulage without transhipping, which was undesirable,
Mr. H. Bell, haulage contractor, of Halifax, declared that there was insufficient road transport in Halifax and district. He did not think it was possible to obtain a vehicle in Halifax without giving notification a day or two • beforehand.
Mr. A. Batty, haulier, of Bradford, said that the Holdsworth company asked him for vehicles almost every day, but he had been able to supply them only twice in 12 months, and even on these occasions it was after 6 p.m. Witness added that his own firm were short of vehicles. The position regarding hired vehicles had been becoming steadily worse over the past 12 months.
Representing Patons and Baldwins, Ltd., the famous concern of worsted spinners, Mr. W. J. Lee said that his company had factories throughout England and the world, and the railways did most of the transport. " But we use road transport because of bad delivery on the part of the railway companies," he added.
Mr. A. Pickles, a Halifax architect, referred to the increase of building in the Halifax district during the past 12 months and declared that road transport was necessary.
In a reference to the desirability of sending consignments of confectionery by road, one witness said that if a load of Easter eggs were late it was simply returned as being useless.
A numberof other witnesses was called in support of the Holdswo: application and the inquiry was adjourned until Wednesday.
Wednesday's Hearing.
In opening the proceedings on Wednesday, Mr. Maxwell Fyfe outlined the case for the railways. He declared that an excess of suitable transport facilities, would bring about wasteful competition, which was not in the public interest. He contended that it would be abusing a Licensing Authority's discretion to grant applications which would cause such an excess.
Mr. Maxwell Fyfe heartily concurred, however, with the suggestion which had been made that it was not the intention of the Act that road haulage under A licences should be greatly diminished. There were between 500,000 and 600,000 goods vehicles in the country, 100,000 being operated under A licences. Only by guesswork could the number engaged on trunk haulage be ascertained, because of the enormous quantity of vehicles employed on local transport and collection and delivery work.
Railways Must be Preserved.
Referring to Mr. Fox Andrews's submission that it was the duty of a Licensing Authority to have consideration for current conditions of trade and industry, Mr. Maxwell Fyfe held that, in the interests of the country, as a whole, the railways should be preserved.
Counsel produced tables to prove that the railways were at present under-utilized. From 1927, he said, the originating tonnage for Great Britain had fallen from 60,000,000 to 45,000,000. Since 1927, the average loading per wagon had fallen by some 7 per cent. • Mr. T. Clifton, of the finances and services department of the L.M.S. Railway Co., confirmed the accuracy of the tables.