Railways Oppose Railhead Service
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A HAULAGE firm's application for tik permission to replace a trailer by a motor for the transport of rail-borne goods was opposed by the railways, at Liverpool, last week. Messrs. T. E. and J. Bramharn,, Waterloo, applied to the North-Western Licensing Authority to vary their A licence by deleting a 2-ton trailer and acquiring a 2.i-ton vehicle. It was stated that the applicants carried road-making materials mainly for one firm from railhead to site.
For the railways, Mr. G. H. P. Eieames submitted that one trailer should be removed from the licence, because it had not been used since January this year, apparently owing . to some difficulty. 4gain, there had been no evidence from the firm for whom Messrs. Bramham mainly carried, that they had suffered any inconvenience.
"Mr. Ian Macaulay replied that the railways were not calling any evidence, for the good and sufficient reason that they did not carry this traffic, other than to railhead. They had not produced any evidence of "excess of facilities."
If the goods were not carried from the railhead, there would be a " mountain " of material lying there, simply because the railways had objected and succeeded in preventing the firm from removing their goods. They had not brought any evidence to show that they could remove the traffic if it were not carried by the applicants. Decision was reserved.