AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Northern Roadrailer Grant Subject to Metropolitan " Backing "

19th February 1965
Page 51
Page 51, 19th February 1965 — Northern Roadrailer Grant Subject to Metropolitan " Backing "
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?

T.HE first step towards the award of a 1 substantive licence for a Roadrailer was taken in Newcastle upon Tyne last week when the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. .1. A. T. :Hanlon, granted —subject to conditions—a 13 licence to Crows Transport Ltd., of Gateshead. The grant—for a 4i-ton tractive unit and 51.-ton van-type Roadrailer trailer— was made subject to the surrender of a Contract A and a C licence covering carriage of products of Mono Containers Ltd. between Tyneside and London. In addition, it was subject to a corresponding grant being made in the Metropolitan Area, where a similar application by Crows is listed for February 24.

The application as published was for two artics with 44-ton units and 54-ton trailers described as vans, Roadrailers, overall length not exceeding 13 metres. The conditions: collection and delivery of goods carried or to be carried by rail on road/rail trailers between London, Pelaw and Edinburgh within 35 miles radius of Pelaw Goods Depot.

Mr. Hanlon decided there were two parts to the application. It was, he said. partly to replace two vehicles which would be taken off the road-a Contract A vehicle carrying the goods of Mono Containers Ltd., and a C-licensed vehicle operated by that concern. (It was explained that Mono Containers had taken the C vehicle off the road in December in anticipation of the Roadrailers starting soon: if a grant were not made the vehicle would have to be brought back into use.) And, said Mr. Hanlon, it was partly to add to the trunk service of three vehicles each way, seven nights a week, operated between Newcastle and London.

It was on the first part that he made the grant. He felt that with one artic at 2iach end of the road/rail link, the requirements of Mono Containers would be met.

But, said Mr. Hanlon, whether a second vehicle should be added to the trunk service had to he proved by need. And this part was adjourned to be coniidered in conjunction with an applicalion by Crows for two additional A licences which had closed for objections and was to come before him .shortly.

Mr. A. W. Knight, sales manager of British Roadrailer Services Ltd., ques:ioned by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw For the applicants, said his company's plans were very advanced. The vehicles were ready. The terminal facilities were ready. They were waiting, only for the iolution of staff difficulties "on the railway side" before starting operation_ Their plan was to run a train of 20. vehicles in each direction, six nights a week. The only stop would be at Pelaw, where certain of the Roadrailers would be disconnected. No other stopping oiaces were contemplated at the moment.

Vehicles would be rented by British Roadrailer Services in direct negotiation with the haulier. The service would also De available to traders, said Mr. Knight, nit hauliers had shown the most immediate interest although the trailers could be operated with a C licence.

Mr. 3. E. B. Crow, managing director of Crows Transport Ltd., said he was interested in the road/rail operation from the point of view of the saving in vehicle wear and maintenance •and because of the security offered by a vehicle sealed on loading and unsealed on delivery. They had their own depots and traffic managers at London and Glasgow, and had their main base at Gateshead.

If it was the intention to run three vehicles each way between.Tyneside and London it did not matter to the objectors whether they went by road or rail, suggested Mr. Flanlon. But it did matter to the public who would benefit if the goods went by rail. And this could be done by stepping up the trailer weights only. But if the operator's intention was to increase his trunk traffic by road or rail anyway, then it was quite a different matter.

Mr. Pattison, speaking for British Road Services (whose parent company, the Transport Holding Co., is a 50 per cent shareholder with British Railways Board in British Roadrailer Services) emphasized that they did not wish to be obstructive at all but there was no case for the additional tractive units. The increased traffic that had been mentioned would be absorbed by the increased availability of vehicles no longer reqUired on the Newcastle to London trunk.

Mr. Hanlon described the Roadrailer scheme as "a very sensible arrangement . which may result in 40 vehicles being taken off the road between Newcastle and London ". He also commented that, any operator who was operating a trunk service should be able to apply for an uplift in trailer, weight, if his existing licences did not cover the weight of a Roadrailer, without needing any increase in his tractors to operate Roadrailers.

If the Roadrailer came into operation and .an operator in the Northern area wished to use it for his established trunk traffic before his A licence came up for renewal, said the L.A., he would grant short-term licences to uplift trailer weights.


comments powered by Disqus