AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

B.R.S. Ruled Out As Objectors

8th May 1959, Page 35
8th May 1959
Page 35
Page 35, 8th May 1959 — B.R.S. Ruled Out As Objectors
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?

OBJECTORS to an application for the kJ continuation of an A licenee by Mr. Gordon Armstrong Stamper, Culgaith, Penrith, Were ruled out Of order by Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing

Authority, at-Carlisle Iasi week. •

British Railways and British Road Services were opposing, but Mr. Hanlon ruled that B.R.S. were not statutory objectors because the objection dated February 26 was not in 'fact received until March 26. Mr. Stamper was granted continuation of his A licence for three vehicles of 131 tons unladen after stating, that his licence was for furniture, household effects, coal, firewood, agricultural produce and requisites, and agricultural machinery and spare parts mainly for Massey Harris Ferguson to southern Scotland, the north of England, Midlands and Merseyside. The only modification sought was to specify agricultural machinery, and spare parts mainly for Massey-Harris-Ferguson. Mr. Stamper had a total of seven licences and two B

vehicles on two A licences. He had another B for Massey

Harris-Ferguson 'work which he lost on appeal and, as a result, his turnover was reduced. The applicant said that one of his vehicles was mainly on work for MasseyHarris-Ferguson, and another was employed 90 per cent, on livestock work. One more was 60 per cent, on livestock and 20 per cent.on work connected with agricultural products. He added that, as far as his income from Massey-HarrisFerguson was concerned, he was back to the same position as in 1954-55, mainly because of abstraction of traffic by B.R.,who now ran special trains to the docks. Before announcirig his decision, the Authority mentioned two changes in vehicle weights which had been notified. The weight of one vehicle, originally 5 tons 19 cwt., had been increased by 15 cwt. because the body had been strengthened, and an inbuilt lubricating system and an additional braking system n added. A second had been vehicle was 7-8 cwt. heavier because of additional braking. but there was no extra carrying capacity on either vehicle.


comments powered by Disqus