1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
BR wins 150-ton grant in five-day Freightliner hearing
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AT the close of a five-day hearing last week at Edinburgh, British Railways was granted 16 arties of 152 tons, in substitution for 20 vehicles of 991 tons, by the Scottish :.ieensing Authority, Mr. A. B. Birnie.
And these were points of BR evidence luring the hearing: Freightliner customers Irefer BR drivers to private hauliers' Evers. Private hauliers' drivers are unkilled at sheeting open containers. Private lauliers can supply only one trailer for each ractive unit—thus the flexibility of articulaion cannot be achieved. BR road rates are wo-thirds of private hauliers' rates. The BR loard would welcome the entry of private iauliers into Freightliner terminals.
Four customer witnesses told the court their aarkets had expanded since they began using "reightliners. Previously the bulk of their traffic ad travelled by BR Condor service or C.censed road vehicles.
Objectors who gave evidence defended their [rivers' skills regarding sheeting and each stated hat he was in a position to supply more than one railer if required.
McKeivie and Co. (Transport) Ltd., Paisley; Ulisons Transport (Contracts) Ltd., Dundee; nd Wm. Russell, of Bathgate, all said they had 'tiered BR suitable tractive and trailer units.
Mr. S. Buchanan, for objectors, suggested to he LA that BR literature regarding its terminals vas misleading. A pamphlet stated that the erminals were open to all hauliers. Mr. Buchanan lenied this was so. Because of a trade union .mbargo, the only vehicles allowed into Freight[tier terminals were those under the control of the THC or those who acted as railway agents. He submitted that the whole reason for the application was the trade union embargo which was causing an artificial shortage. Private hauliers would be happy to use Freightliner terminals if they were allowed to.
Mr. Buchanan asked the LA, "Would you grant an ordinary commercial haulier an extra 100 tons carrying capacity on this evidence?" He contended the evidence was weak and had failed to prove need.
Mr. D. Brown, for BR, said that the case was a simple one where the operator had by his enterprise created more business. He submitted that BR should not have to rely on road haulage operators to carry its goods in and out of Freightliner terminals.
The objections he submitted were weak and sparse and in any event he thought that BR should not be thrown on the market to try to hire vehicles.
The LA said that by the introduction of the trade union issue he was almost being asked to decide a political question which was outside his authority. He considered that there was sufficient evidence of need to warrant a grant as applied for.
FOOTNOTE: The Scottish secretary of the RHA, Mr. Leslie Stokoe, said after the bearing that members of the Association would be meeting in Glasgow on December 5 to consider the possibility of an appeal to the Tribunal.