SOUTH EASTERN LA REPRIMANDS RAILWAYS AT SECTION 178 INQUIRY
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"NEVER before have British Railways been involved in proceedings under Section 178", said Mr. A. J. IT, Wrottesley. at Eastbourne last week. We feel we can properly plead good character, and any suggestion that any fault of ours could put us in a bad category in the vital matter of maintenance causes us the greatest possible anxiety."
Mr. Wrottesley was appearing for BR at the first special Public Inquiry held by the South Eastern Licensing Authority, Maj. Gen. A. F. J. Elmslie, at which 11 licence holders were asked to explain why their vehicles had received immediate prohibition notices.
Mr. James Johnson, Road Motor Engineer of BR Southern Region, said that BR's collection and delivery fleet vehicles averaged from 7,000 to 10,000 miles a year. Vehicles were checked daily in goods yards, and given a workshop inspection every eight weeks, and a thorough overhaul every 12 months. The Ford vehicle which had received an immediate 0V9 was nine years old; It was the only one of its kind in the fleet and spares for it were not easily obtained.
BR. said Mr. Johnson, did -not feel that the condition of the vehicle warranted an immediate prohibition and they made representations to the Ministry's area mechanical engineer for the vehicle to be re-examined. They were told that there was no machinery to do this. They did not feel the vehicle was a danger on the road, he continued.
Mr. Wrottesley: "You understand that we must accept that it was?" Mr. Johnson concurred, and added that the vehicle would have been checked in workshops shortly. "Our system is sound '', said Mr. Johnson, "there is no question of that." There was a chronic staff shortage, and they hoped to get over that by introducing a bonus scheme for fitters on the lines of a successful plan operated in the West country.
The LA reminded Mr. Johnson that under Section 185 of the Act a person aggrieved could make representations in the prescribed manner. Mr. Johnson said he reeretted that BR had not done so. It was a tactical error on their part. The vehicle had been withdrawn from service and not operated further. "If we had known this inquiry would ensue ". said Mr. Johnson, "the vehicle could have been put right in three or four hour." He invited the LA or his staff to see their inspection system at any time.
Mr. I. M. Crammer, cartage manager of BR (Southern Region), said C. and D. vehicles were a vital part of BR's operations and the loss* of even one vehicle would embarrass them and worsen their service to the public. Road operations were an increasing feature of the rail rationalization programme. There was a standard procedure for dealing with defects reported by drivers. This incident should not have happened, he said. The Board were most concerned and very active steps had been taken to prevent a recurrence.
The LA intimated that he intended to take into account another vehicle, an Austin unit and trailer, complained of by•his examiners.
Giving his decision, Maj. Gen. Elmslie said he was quite certain BR's maintenance arrangements were normally satisfactory in every respect. He hoped such things would never happen again, for BR was "a national concern in which we all have an interest". He felt that the BR fleet was so large that any penalty involving suspension would have to be of such a size. to make any impact, that he would confine his penalty to a public reprimand. The publicity given to the matter would, he felt, have "the most telling effect ".
At the same hearing the LA reprimanded G. H. Gough and Sons, Morestead, Winchester; Hampton (Earth Moving) Ltd.. Alton: F. C. Eldridge. Billinghurst; Nicholas Kingsman Ltd., Canterbury; Door to Door Carriers (Brighton) Ltd.; W. Thwaites and Son, Brighton.
Arnold Transport Co. (Rochester) Ltd., and G. Haskins and Sons. Emsworth, had two vehicles suspended for one month, and G. Curtis (Hauliers) Ltd., Parkstone, and Pain Rogers and Co. Ltd., Hastings, each had one vehicle suspended for one month.
Six Tribunal Decisions
TN one of six written decisions issued I on Monday, the Transport Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by Parkinsons Removals (Accrington) Ltd. against the refusal of a four-vehicle B-to-A switch by the North Western deputy LA (The Commercial Motor, October 15). The Tribunal conclude there was no evidence of need for further removal facilities because of expansion of industry or population and any grant made "could only result in the transfet to the appellant of work which other hauliers are perfectly capable of doing ".
Strictures Fully Justified
THE appeal of W. Keith and Son Ltd., of Flookburgh. Grange-over-Sands (The commercial Motor, October 15). against the refusal of a three-vehicle A-licence application by the Northern LA has been dismissed, the Tribunal holding that the LA "was right to give effect in his decision to his disapproval of the
previous conduct of the Keiths ". They point out "that the rewards of misconduct on the part of a haulier can be great and the chances of detection small . . . adversely affecting the interests of other hauliers . . entitled to protection from the misdoings of the less scrupulous ".
Two Appeals Fail
DISMISSING the two appeals lodged by Grounds Transport Services Ltd. against the refusal of the Eastern deputy LA to add two artics to an A licence and two collection and delivery vehicles to a B licence (The Commercial Motor, October 8 and 15), the Tribunal reject the argument that the lengthened flower season, due to growing under glass, justified full-term B licences, and consider the traffic should be carried as previously, on short-term licences. As regards the A-licence application, the Tribunal do not feel that the evidence supporting general goods originated in the North Western area is strong enough to reverse the decision, and they are critical of outof-date evidence adduced.
BRS and BR Win
THE Metropolitan deputy LA "gave a decision more favourable to the respondent (A. H. Dowden and Son (Transport) Ltd.) than that which he had stated was the best that he could give ". And he took into consideration "further material which went beyond the topics to which it was supposed to be confined". (The Commercial Motor, October 22.)
Allowing the appeal of BRS and BR, the Tribunal have varied the grant made by limiting it to two vehicles, allowing the other four vehicles to carry goods for Mole Richardson (G.B.) Ltd., any distance.
H. and A. Trotter Appeal Dismissed AN appeal by H. and A. Trotter of Calthwaite, near Penrith, against a decision of the Northern LA refusing a B-licence authorizing carriage of farm effluent, sewage, contents of septic tanks and liquid waste of all descriptions within 30 miles of Penrith has been dismissed by the Tribunal. The respondents were Sludge Disposals Ltd., and others.
The Tribunal noted that Sludge Disposals charged 50s. per hour "on site" for two-wheel-drive vehicles against a proposed charge of 30s. per hour suggested by appellants with a four-wheeldrive vehicle, but they concluded the appellant would he unable to give, with one vehicle, the service provided by respondents; moreover, the rate proposed by appellants was unrealistic.
Bid Refused : The West Midland Licensing Authority has refused an application by W. T. Allen (Garages) Ltd.. Hednesford, for two additional A-licensed vehicles to carry concrete products for Tarmac Ltd. within' 160 miles. BR and BRS objected, but did not call evidence. The LA says Ile is not satisfied that the traffic cannotre carried by existing transport.