AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

L.N.E.R. Replacement Policy Questioned D URING the hearing, at Leeds, last

31st July 1936, Page 25
31st July 1936
Page 25
Page 25, 31st July 1936 — L.N.E.R. Replacement Policy Questioned D URING the hearing, at Leeds, last
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?

L./Friday, of a contested application by the L.N.E. Railway Co. for the addition of five motor vehicles under an A licence, at the company's Leeds base, it was stated that one of the vehicles was a mechanical horse which. it was desired to transfer from Bradford, in exchange for a rigid fourwheeler from the Leeds base. The applicant's explanation ef this proposed substitution was that the mechanical horse was not suitable for the work at Bradford.

For the objectors—seven Leeds members of A.R.O.—Mr, Ernest Ould submitted that this exchange would enable the company to increase its tonnage t Leeds and contended that the carrying capacity of the r-,echar ical l'orse was 2 tons greater than that of the fourwheeler.

With regard to the other four vehicles which it was sought to add to the Leeds licence, the railway company stated that, although two of them were licensed at Bradford and two at London, they had been operated in Leeds for the past two years.

Mr. ,Ould maintained that the applicant company had not produced any detailed evidence to prove that these Four vehicles had been operated in Leeds, .as .stated, anddid ridt repre, . .

sent new tonnage. It wzks argued that there was such a lack of evidence in respect of all five vehicles that -the

application should be refused in Into.

Complaining that the railway companies were taking traffic from hauliers through their agreed-rates scheme, Mr. Keeling, chairman of A.R.O. Leeds Sub-area, in evidence, declared that the effect on one road-transport concern with which he was associated had been that, during the past three months, this company had lost £300 in revenue.

He also stated that there would be more opposition to railway applications but for the fact that some operators would not go into the witness box and declare that existing facilities were adequate, because they were afraid that, if they applied for additional tonnage later, the railway com 'antes would use this against them. He asked the Licensing Authority to bear this fact in mind when considering the opposition to railway applications.

Mr. Ould emphasized that the Appeal Tribunal had laid it down that a railway company most prove need when applying for increased road tonnage. With regard to the mechanical horse, he said that, although pressed to do so, the railway company had been unable to supply comparative figures showing the tonnage carried by the mechanical horse and the vehicle which it would replace.

The 41'i.E.R. "stated that it would crideavOur to supply these figures, ard the Licensing Authority 'received his decisien.'

Tags

People: Keeling, Ernest Ould
Locations: Bradford, Leeds, London

comments powered by Disqus