Railway Objects Despite Trader's Appeal
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AT Liverpool, before the NorthWestern Deputy Licensing Authority (Sir William Hart), last week, it was revealed that the L.M.S. Railway Co. had persisted in an objection to a haulier's application for variation of his A licence, despite an appeal by one of its trader customers.
Messrs. R. Heaton and Sons, Denton Green Garage, St. Helens, made application to add a 4-ton vehicle, two 2-ton trailers, and one 4-ton trailer to their A licence. A trader witness said they started their engineering works in St. Helens in 1933 and, since that date, their turnover had more than trebled. This new work had, naturally, been of some benefit to the railway company and they had, on certain occasions, taxed its facilities at St. Helens. The machinery they had to deliver was heavy and difficult to handle and, wherever possible, they wanted it taken direct to the point at which it had to be erected. There were occasions when it suited them to send by rail, but their difficulty, in that respect was that they were not rail-connected. His company, he said, would like an increase in apalicant's facilities, not only in regard To their special tra.ffic. but also the ordinary traffic. It was a matter of considerable convenience if they could have the vehicles and load
them after ordinary working hours. He added that in a, letter to the railway company appealing to it not to object, he had mentioned that if the haulier had an extra vehicle it would not affect the company in any way. In putting in a price for their work, the cost of transport played a vital part, and by reason of the rates charged by applicant they had been able to expand. If this application were granted, the railway company would benefit by the increase in his firm's business, because it would have the advantage of carrying more raw materials for them.
In his submission, Mr. Hodgson, for the railways, said that what the trader witness's evidence amounted to was that the applicant charged a lower rate and that allowed him to expand his business and he sought an extension of applicant's service because the rates were so low.
Mr. Backhouse, for the applicant, said the witness bad made it abundantly clear that the railway company was not only not able to carry those goods, but that they were inefficient. On the Beasley formula, he said, the applicant was entitled to 13.5 tons extra, but was applying for only 12 tons. Decision was reserved by the Licensing ,Authority.