AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

L.M.S. Seeks Extra Lorry Refused to Haulier

25th December 1936
Page 24
Page 24, 25th December 1936 — L.M.S. Seeks Extra Lorry Refused to Haulier
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?

Keywords : Business / Finance

Catering for Traffic Abstracted from Road Transport

OBJECTION to taking its own medicine was evidenced by the L.M.S. Railway Co. when, last Friday, it applied to the North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority for an A licence for a 3-ton vehicle at a new base at Willaston.

Mr. H. F. Sturge appeared for the railway company ; Mr. Henry Backhouse. Junr., for 11 road hauliers, and Mr. V. R. Shepherd for three. .

Mr. Sturge said that the application was based on the extremely large increase of traffic at this station, which could not be dealt with by existing arrangements. Mr. H. Leach gave evidence of the company's traffic at Willaston.

No Monthly Figures.

Mr. Backhouse commented on the fact that the L.M.S. had not brought monthly figures of traffic and said that the railways constantly asked hauliers in other cases to produce these figures. Witness agreed to send for the figures, but doubted whether it would he possible quickly to separate a Mr. Gibson's traffic. The increase was, for the most part, for Mr. Gibson.

Mr. Backhouse said that a Mr. J. C. B18

Stanley, for whom he appeared in July, had been retuSed an additional 2-ton vehicle at Willaston for this traffic, the railway objecting on the ground that • facilities would be in excess of requirements. Since then, the company hart put on a vehicle from Nantwich and his client's carryings had dropped by 345 tons. " And we say," he continued. " that this is definite and deliberate abstraction, following our case • in July."

Mr. Leach did not agree that the vehicle could be placed on contract. When the L.1VI.S. objected to Mr. Stanley's application, it was in negotiation with Mr. Gibson for the return of his traffic to the railway.

When Mr. Leach gave evidence regarding rates and said that a new condition was introduced in January, -whereby the L.M.S. gave free delivery within three miles, Mr. •Backhouse pointed out that the local hauliers were still charging the former rate. When Mr. Backhouse mentioned other hauliers, Mr. Sturge protested against people being brought into the case who had not been called as witnesses.

Mr. Backhouse: "Is that not an amazing submission to make? Time and time again the railways say, during the hearing of applications: There are so many hauliers here and so many there,' or Is there not so-and-so in such-and-such a place? ' " Mr. Leach agreed that the company was not calling Mr. Gibson, nor had it brought any letter in support of its application.

In answer to Mr. Shepherd, witness agreed that in most cases the railway country lorry services overlapped. These services were such that the railways had a complete line of road-borne facilities throughout the country, The L.M.S. Knew, Mr. Backhouse pointed out that the company, in July, said that there were already sufficient facilities at Willaston, although it knew at that time that it had advised is own head offce to apply for an additional vehicle. The L.M.S. knew that there was sufficient work for another vehicle at the time when it was saying that there was no need for another machine.

Decision was reserved.


comments powered by Disqus