Railways Reverse Trunk-service Policy
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
No Desire to Cause Unnecessary Harm to Road Transport or to Wipe Out Long-distance Motor Haulage. Bouts-Tillotson Appeal Case Continues This
Week
THE railways do not wish to wipe out Bouts-Tillotson Trans
port, Ltd. This remarkable reversal of declared railway policy was revealed, last week, before the Appeal Tribunal, by Mr. Maxwell Fyffe, K.C. Apparently even the Tribunal was surprised by the statement, for it drew forth a comment from the chairman.
The Tribunal was hearing the appeal of the four main-line railways against the Metropolitan Licensing Authority's action in granting the renewal of A licences to the Bouts-Tillotson concern. The company applied for licences in respect of 139 vehicles and' 59 trailers, and was allowed 128 vehicles and 42 trailers.
Mr. Harker's Comment.
The hearing on Monday and Tuesday of last week was reported in last week's issue of The Commercial Motor. This v eek we deal with the remainder of the case, commencing with the proceedings on Wednesday of last week.
When Mr. Maxwell Fyffe, for the railway companies, was reviewing the evidence given to the Licensing Authority, Mr. Rowand Harker, K.C., chairman, said he understood that the railways did not ask the Tribunal to say that their facilities were suitable in every case, but asked that there should be some adjustment of the number of vehicles authorized by Mr. Gleeson Robinson, or that the case should be sent back to him with the instruction to make adjustment, Mr. E. S. Herbert, for Bouts-Tillotson Transport, Ltd., said that when the case was before the Licensing Authority, there was some dispute about the number of vehicles that the concern found necessary in carrying on its business.
" That dispute has now been resolved, 'he added. "The railway companies are asking, to-day, either that we should be prohibited from carrying on any part of our business, or, alternatively, that there should be an adjustment of the amount of business that we should be allowed to do!'
A Change of Front.
Mr. Maxwell Fyffe : " I should like to make it quite clear that we are not asking now—and I never intended to ask—that they should not be allowed to carry on any business at all. That is quite out of the question, and it is unfortunate if that attitude is represented as being that of the railway companies."
The chairman " That is not the way in which you opened the case before us."
Mr. Maxwell Fyffe said that they were asking for a reduction of the award insofar as they were able to prove that the railways provided suitable services.
A34 For nearly five hours on Thursday Mr. Maxwell Fyffe, assisted by Mr. Alfred Tylor, read evidence given at the hearing before the Licensing Authority, A further five hours were occupied on Friday by Mr. Tylor's reading of evidence. This was then concluded.
When the hearing was continued on Monday, Mr. Maxwell Fyffe said that there was, naturally, a human-error factor in rail transport. In general, however, and when the human error was compared with the bulk of traffic carried, it was very small indeed, The service given in -the vast majority of cases was also adequate.
Danger of Unemployment.
Mr, Fyffe dealt with the question of unemployment that would, it had been said, be brought about if licences were not allowed. He suggested that the amount of unemployment would be considerably less than had been mentionc.d. The applicant had argued -that there were to be changes in the industry, because of a greater observance of the law,' The effect of that must be that men were going to be employed only for the regular hours. That very fact would 'necessitate the employment of more men, Counsel went .on to say that at the first bearing, Mr. Robinson had agreed that rates were an important factor inattracting traffic to the road. He stated that it had been admitted that before October, 1933, the company was seem-big traffic by charging rates that were uneconomic and, in the long run, caused a loss. " Mr. Robinson's answer to that," continued Mr, Fyffe, " was that since that date the rates had been revised and yet the company was carrying about the same amount of traffic."
He said that traders were often reluctant to alter their transport arrangements, even in some cases where rates had been increased.
Parliamentary Influence.
The railway companies were providing suitable transport and at rates decreed by -Parliament. Mr. Fyffe submitted that, until the position was changed, the Tribunal should take that point into acconnt.
In conclusion, counsel said : " great deal has been said about the .unreasonable attitude of the railway companies. We have certainly sought to avoid an unreasonable attitude. We do not want to eliminate an industry which we recognize and the value of which we have often admitted. We say that railways, with their characteriste.s, are necessary for the traders and public up and down the country. We desire to co-operate wholeheartedly, not only to assist the trader, but to do the least harm we can, consistent with our own preservation, to the transport industry."
Mr. Tylor said that it was for the applicants to make out a case to show that the facilities which they were seeking to provide were facilities which, -for one reason or another, were. not already open to the trader. " Jf. trader has shown that, for some reason or another, he is unable to pay the rates demanded by the railway companies, then he would have' made out an extremely strong case," he deeta red.
The Real Issue.
The interests of the railways, he went on, were defined by statute, Under -the Act of 1921 they had lost certain rights and were given certain powers. He contended that it would he wrong to cut across the policy of Parliament.
Mr. E. S. Herbert said: "One cannot get away from the fact that the real issue which is being tried here is whether our business shall be destroyed in order that the traffic we have been carrying may be handed over to the railway companies. What is in jeopardy in this case is the major part of the business of all the people engaged in haulage on trunk services," The hearing was continued on Wednesday.