AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Cure for Delay in Grain Haulage

5th March 1954, Page 57
5th March 1954
Page 57
Page 57, 5th March 1954 — Cure for Delay in Grain Haulage
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?

THE Transport [Appeal] Tribunal, in Edinburgh, ,last week, rejected an appeal by an agricultural contractor against a decision of the Scottish Licensing Authority.

The appellant, Mr. G. Pringle. Torwoodlee. Galashiels, was refused a B Licence last August because the Authority considered there was no evidence of need.

The licence was required for a 21-ton platform lorry, on which it was desired to carry agricultural implements, livestock, tractors, grain from mills and combines within a 70-mile radius, and tractors from makers. Objections were made by the Road 1-Faulage Executive and the railways.

Announcing the Tribunal's decision, the president Mr. Hubert Hull, suggested that it would be to the advantage of

both the farmer and merchant in cases where grain from a combine harvester passed to the merchant at the combine. if the facilities were sufficient to avoid delay and consequent deterioration. The remedy was a short-term licence.

Mr. Hull expressed surprise that evidence was not given by farmers in the area on the question of carrying livestock. In other parts of the country, he said, cases had been made of farmers in outlying districts with bad road surfaces, in which British Road Services had been unwilling or reluctant to collect or deliver small lots of animals.

The Tribunal did not consider that the evidence of one agricultural machinery merchant, who had promised to give a portion of his business to Mr. Pringle, was sufficient to alter their decision.

Tags

Locations: Edinburgh

comments powered by Disqus