Railways Claim Privileged Position
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN attempt to penalize a haulier for wishing to provide similar facilities to those offered by the railways was made before Sir William Hart, Deputy Licensing Authority for the NorthWestern Area, at a Manchester inquiry, last week. Decision was reserved.
Mr. Joseph Hoyle, of Hyde. Manchester, was applying for authority to acquire an extra 2i-tonner, which he was willing should be on a B licence and be limited, so far as hire and reward work was concerned, to the collection and delivery of goods in connection with his trunk vehicles.
In this case, the figures tendered in justification of the extra tonnage were not much in dispute, but it was admitted that part of the need arose through the difficulty of hiring both for collection and delivery and for the coal and metal businesses of the applicant.
Mr. P. Kershaw, connsel for the railway companies, objected on the ground that the extra vehicle would facilitate trunk service and thus render it more competitive, also holding that it would disturb the pool of transport by eliminating hiring.
Moreover, he urged, one of the arguments in favour of the goods concerned going by road was that door-to-door delivery was essential to obviate second handling. Without consulting his customers, the applicant was going to introduce a collection and delivery service which entailed further handling.
Mr. H. Backhouse, solicitor for the C.M.U.A., said that it was astonishing that any railway representative should put up opposition of this kind, in view of the railway case for more motor vehicles heard within a fortnight in Manchester. All the reported appeal cases held that the development of others in the pool of transport was nota matter for consideration when the Licensing Authority was considering the provision of collection and delivery vehicles. .
The railway application to the North-Western •Licensing Authority was for vehicles to eliminate hiring. The reasons given were that the railway company could better co-ordinate its traffic if it were in its own vehicles, and that " direct " operation was cheaper.
Mr. Hoyle had proved increased business, difficulties in hiring and the impossibility of doing all the collection and delivery work . with the trunk vehicles. The discrepancy between what the railways asked for themselves and .what they Would allow others to have was obvious.