A blow on the head for road-rail co-operation?
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN NOT help feeling that anyone outside the haulage industry who has lowed the recently refused application by Rail Road Distribution Ltd., of
W on, for eight B-licensed vehicles, will be wondering just what sort of ace is needed by way of support to succeed before a Licensing Authority:
e commencement of the case it that despite the fact that Rail as a newcomer (albeit an opera:ontract A licences), the applicauld not fail. Everyone in the appears to be clamouring for -operation between road and rail,
e was an application, encouraged ish Railways and supported by , very rare happening, to say the nd backed by a very large mann, Boots Pure Drug Co. Ltd.
there was opposition from Road Services and East Anglian Ltd., but it .seemed not much
from the kind of opposition presented before the courts.
bution to 95 shops ase concerned the distribution of e goods to some 95 retail shops _.ondon area from Boots' factory ton and warehouses at Notting3ntil recently the goods had been
• ed by British Railways from St. and other railheads, and it was >y all that the method of distributhe railways' road vehicles was /dory in meeting Boots' requirer a 24-hour delivery service. It : disputed that the best method )e to bring all the goods to a Ilhead in London in special trains ribute them from there.
Railways were unable to prodelivery service using their own
until 1964—a date that was table to Boots for the termina
f the unsatisfactory delivery nents.
ading cy arrangement
happened that the applicant, Rail had an off-loading tenancy nent at East Smithfield, and East Id could well be adapted to cope arrival of Boots' special trains. nore, the managing director of ad was known to Boots in conwith other haulage work and, they would have preferred to alt only with the Railways, it was agreed between the parties to implement the new delivery plan and from July 1, special trains made the overnight run from Nottingham to East Smithfield, where, next morning, the goods were sorted and distributed by vehicles hired by Rail Road.
What went wrong with the application? Why was it refused by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir? According to his decision, Mr. Muir did not think that Boots' support for the application was "whole hearted ", although Mr. F. G. Bell, Boots' general transport manager, evidently thought it sufficiently important to come to London to give evidence. Mr. Muir, furthermore, did not care for the fact that Mr. Bell did not want to put "too many Boots' eggs into the basket of Biritish Road Services", who do a lot of Boots' distribution by road from Nottingham.
Not, apparently, thinking too much of Mr. Bell's evidence, Mr. Muir turned to the evidence of British Railways for substantial reasons for the grant.
Witnesses faulted
Well, Mr. Muir did not think a great deal of the evidence given by the Railways' witness because he (the witness) did not know who had first suggested Rail Road as a suitable subcontractor (hardly surprising, one would think, considering how many hundreds of whitecollar employees there must be working for the Railways in Nottingham and London). The Railways' witness was faulted, too, for not knowing what arrangements were in force at London termini for B.R.S. to collect and deliver railborne traffic, "The impression Mr, Thompson's (the Railways' witness) evidence left on me is that British Railways had never even considered the licensing position when they fixed on Rail Road as their distribution agent," Mr. Muir continued in his decision. "Their tenant at East Smithfield was well placed to do the job. . . . They (the railways) did not seriously consider the claims of existing licensed hauliers, not even those of B.R.S., their stable companion for many years."
Mr. Muir said he could find no support for the application as far as the interests of those requiring transport were concerned. If thc application was to be granted, it had to be in the interests of those providing facilities for transport, among which, Mr. Muir said, stretching a point, might be included the interests of the applicant.
Ruling out the objection of East Anglian Carriers, who called no evidence and made no attempt to show that they would be prejudiced if a grant was made, Mr_ Muir said that the evidence produced by B.R.S.,_was satisfactory. They had had vehicles standing idle on July 1, when the scheme was implemented, and the only question was whether their services were suitable.
"They (B.R.S.) say that they do similar sorting work at Paddington. They say that if St. Pancras were the railhead they see no reason why they could not do the sorting there. They have long experience of delivery from railheads to shops in the London area," Mr. Muir added. "B.R.S. have an honourable history of co-operation with British Railways and I see no reason why this particular job should be beyond their capacity."
Is it right?
Well, with due respect to the Authority, he seems to have found tittle weight in the fact that (a) the custemer supported the application and came all the way from Nottingham to London to say so; (b) the Railways had gone to a lot of trouble, and no doubt expense, to route trains to East Smithfield; (e) an experienced handler and distributor was already on hand at East Smithfield who, after July 1—the operative date—was experiencing difficulty in coping, using vehicles not fully under his control.
Mr. Muir, in quoting B.R.S. evidence, says: " If St. Pancras were the railhead . . ." At the hearing date of the application St. Pancras was not the railhead. Is it right that the Railways should, at more expense presumably, work out plans for re-routeing the traffic to St. Pancras so that an ex-B.T.C. stablemate can take over the off-loading docks and do the work, even though there is an honourable history of co-operation?
I wonder what the Transport Tribunal would think?