AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

PART GRANT FOR DURHAM STEEL

18th March 1966, Page 44
18th March 1966
Page 44
Page 44, 18th March 1966 — PART GRANT FOR DURHAM STEEL
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?

WEN the application of three haulage filITIls for 30 artics was reopened in Newcastle on Monday, the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. John Hanlon, was told that the present situation at the South Durham Iron and Steel Works was "hopelessly congested" and consignments were in "an appalling situation".

Mr. Ronald Smailes, transport manager for the company, said that the four artics granted on a short-term licence to each of the three applicants when the hearing was opened on February 25 had made only a slight impression on the back-log of consignments. He added that the application for the 30 vehicles might not be sufficient to meet their transport requirements. "It should have been for many more", he said. Some 1,175 tons of consignments were waiting to be moved.

The application was made by Cawthorn and Sinclair Ltd., of Birtley; William Brunskill and Sons, of West Hartlepool; and R. Durham and Sons, of Haverton Hill, Billingham. Each asked for 10 vehicles on Contract A licence. Mr. Hanlon granted eight to each and adjourned the question of the other two until after Easter.

Giving his decision, Mr. Hanlon said: "On the face of it I am satisfied that a suitable increase of vehicles is necessary. The difficult question is, of course, how many. If the grant of eight each is sufficient to get South Durham down to the target figure of 30 consignments left on the floor each day, then they will say we do not want the other two."


comments powered by Disqus