L.M.S. Admits Barefaced Rate-cutting
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN the final day's hearing of the YV application by Stevenson Transport, Ltd., for A licences for four tractors and three trailers opened at Liverpool last week, before the NorthWestern Deputy Licensing Authority, some striking admissions of rate-cutting were made by a railway witness.
Detailed evidence wa.s-given by a railway witness, who spoke of " alarming drops in certain categories, due, he alleged, to road-transport competition. He agreed, when cross-examined by Mr. Ian Macaulay, for the applicant, that what might be an uneconomic rate to the railways might be economic in an efficient road-transport concern. He thought that if the applicant had cut the railway rates to secure traffic
frotn the Railway Co., the latter was entitled to retaliate by reducing its rates.
Counsel : "Then you will agree that you are reducing your rates in order to get the traffic back? "—" Yes," .
Witness agreed that the L.M.S. had reduced its rates on feeding stuffs and that it had put in Many new rates, but went on to say that that traffic was taken from the company between 1928 and 1934.
"Have these reductions not in fact been made as part of a general policy of your company to coincide with the expiration of the first A-licensing period?"--" That I cannot say."
Alleging that drops had been made in the rates for sugar traffic, counsel re marked : " I suggest that that is part of an effort on the part of your com pany to get traffic from the present applicant? "—" Surely it is to get a little more revenue?"
" I suggest that your policy is to capture the whole of this traffic and to capture it by lower rates, no matter how low they may go? "—" Certainly, we want all the traffic we can get."
Witness agreed that the L.M.S. had offered to carry the whole of Nestle's traffic (secured by the applicant) for a round rate of 10s. 6d. per ton.
For the railways. Mr. G. H. P. Beames submitted that the needs of this
application were adequately met by Section 15 (I ) of the new Regulations. In his submission, the Authority had to consider the case in the light of the Ridgewell and Smart decisions.
Rail rates, he added, were fixed by the Railway Rates Tribunal and could not be altered without its sanction. He contended the Authority should not license additional tonnage to cope with abstracted traffic.
. For six road objectors, Mr. V. R. Shepherd contended that this was false traffic, insofar as it was obtained through uneconomic rates. Mr. H. F.
Denning, for Garlick, Burrell and Edwards, Ltd., said his concern had vehicles running light to the East Midlands and the applicant had vehicles returning light.
Decision was reserved.