AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tractor Substitution Appeal Fails

30th January 1959
Page 36
Page 36, 30th January 1959 — Tractor Substitution Appeal Fails
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?

A DECISION by the Northern Licensfling Authority to allow Sunter Bros., Northallertort, to operate an 18-ton tractor on A licence instead of a 12-tonner, was upheld by the Transport Tribunal in London on Tuesday. The grant had been challenged by the British Transport Commission and Robert Wynn and Sons, Ltd., Newport, Mon, but Mr. Hubert Hull, president, said it was a reasonable substitution.

Mr. J. L. R. Croft, for the B.T.C., submitted that to grant the heavier tractor increased Sunter's carrying capacity, which meant a complete change in the nature of their business. The application was granted though no customer evidence was called in support of it.

Few Loads Over 50 Tons He recalled that last January Sunter's were granted a licence for an additional tractor of an unladen weight of 12 tons to help them in the haulage of abnormal loads. The number of loads they carried which were over 50 tons was comparatively small. The real object of the application for the 12-ton tractor was to increase their carrying capacity.

Sunter's had stated that in carrying loads of 60 tons and over it was essential for the trailer to be drawn by two tractors in the interests of public safety, particularly in hilly districts. But the extra tractor was, in fact, required for "double heading" and maintenance purposes. Subsequently, they decided it would be better to have a tractor of 18 tons, and their application for this was granted in July.

Mr. N. R. Wynn, for Robert Wynn and Sons, maintained that no evidence of need for the heavier tractor was put forward.

For Sunter's, Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw said the evidence showed a categorical denial that the heavier tractor would increase their haulage capacity. They had heavy trailers and they should be entitled to haul them with the best type of tractor available.

Dismissing the appeal, Mr Hull said the case was similar to that of a person seeking to substitute an oil-engined lorry for a petrol-driven vehicle with the same working capacity, but with a necessarily larger unladen weight. The Tribunal accepted Mr. Sunter's statement that he was not asking for any increased capacity.