Beet Traffic: Railway Cornered
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN animated discussion developed at Dundee, when Mr. H. Riches, the Northern Scotland Licensing Authority, heard an application by the London and North Eastern Railway Co. for a licence for a mechani-al horse and a trailer, to be used in Dundee and district. The application was opposed by four hauliers.
For the L.N.E.R., Mr. T. Gibson said that the object of the application was to displace two horse-drawn vehicles by the mechanical unit. Mr. Riches said the company had proved that it had statutory obligation to collect and deliver merchandise within the city boundaries, and collected and delivered agricultural and other goods within a 10-mile radius.
Mr. Currie, for the objectors, remarked that they had heard a great deal about the iniquity of road hauliers collecting and delivering beet by road, when there were ample rail facilities. Mr. J. Ness, of the L.N.E.R. Dundee staff, said that he agreed, but most of the beet farms were from two to five
miles from Cupar and the traffic should obviously go by road.
Mr. Currie: "I am glad to hear you say that. It is directly in the teeth of what was said when I was asking for these facilities. The railway will carry by rail into the factory, so far as it can, and oppose any road haulier operating from a distance. The company is proposing to gather a fleet of motor vehicles to carry the local beet to the exclusion of the local hauliers. Why did you not hire local hauliers?"
Mr. Ness: " We could do the work more economically with our own vehicles."
Mr. Currie drew from Mr. Ness an admission that, at a public inquiry into the question of beet conveyance, the railway company gave evidence that there was a sufficient number of vehicles in the Cupar area to haul beet.
Mr. Riches said that, having regard to the obligation of the railwaycompany under Section 49 of the Railway Act, 1921, and the displacement of horses the application would be granted.