TRIBUNAL ALLOWS BRUNSKILL APPEAL
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A SUCCESSFUL appeal to the Transi--1 port Tribunal was made on Tuesday by W. Brunskill and Son (Transport) Ltd.. of Bishop Auckland. Giving the Tribunal's decision, the president, Mr. G. D. Squibb. said the reasons would be put in writing.
Brunskill and Son, who were represented by Mr. R. M. Yorke, appealed against the decision of the Northern Licensing Authority refusing an A variation to add IS vehicles and a modified B licence permitting the carriage of goods for South Durham Iron and 'Steel Co. The respondents, British Railways, were represented by Mr. G. Mercer.
Mr. Yorke said there had been a dramatic increase in production by South Durham, following a massive expansion scheme in 1960. By 1964 a million tons of additional traffic was required to be moved, probably needing from 700 to 1,000 vehicles. The application was not primarily concerned with steel haulage. as 75 per cent of the inward traffic employed bulk tippers. The 25 per cent outward traffic, however, was steel or steel fabrication, suitable for movement by tippers with detachable sides. "The amount or steel carried ", said Mr. Yorke, "could have been moved without declaring it."
Continuing, he said there was evidence of wasteful multiple handling of steel in the works, whilst road transport was awaited. Brunskill and Son, who put in 100 vehicles a day to the steel company and did a lot of sub-contracting, objected to sending their own vehicles out empty when it was difficult to find suitably licensed vehicles to clear their customer's traffic.
The Railways objected to the grant of an A licence, said Mr. Mercer, and to the inclusion of "steel and other goods" in the normal user. If these terms were excluded, Brunskill and Son could still carry the products, but to a limited extent.
Mr. Mercer contended that much cf the work of the 15 extra vehicles on a virtually new licence could have been done by the existing 21. Contract A vehicles operated by Brunskill and Son. The appellants wanted a "blank cheque". The Railways, Mr. Mercer added. regarded themselves as general carriers of all and every type of merchandise, some profitable and some unprofitable. " All could, perhaps, be regarded as unprofitable in actual terms, having regard to the rail deficits, but some traffic
was relatively uneconomic ", he concluded.