RAILWAYS V. ROAD TRANSPORT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 21 December 1937, Page 8

RAILWAYS V. ROAD TRANSPORT

CARTAGE OF STOCK

DEI’ARTMENT’S OBJECTIONS

OVERRULED

IHy l’elegra pli Press Association!

I ho case for (he railways against the encroachment of road transport in stock cartage was pleaded- before the No. ,'j Transport Licensing Authority, Mr T. 11. Langford, to-day. Mr Langford had before him several applications from road operators fee* permission to carry stock to freezing works. They were granted, althogh a list of objections was entered by the Railways Department. For the department, Mr W. Rodger entered a submission that if certain road licences were granted it would be to the detriment of the public’s investment in the railway system. These licences were not necessary nor desirable, he maintained. The department had provided every possible convenience in sheep-loading races and yards at the stations, reasonable rates and adequate train service and special trucks. The volume of rail traffic bore this out, but if these licences were granted there was no possible doubt that the traffic they secure would be diverted from the rail. Statements showed, Mr Rodger contended, that the freezing companies themselves preferred rail transit, and that the percentage of bruised stock

was lower when the animals were received by rail. • When companies bought “on the hooks” the farmer, not being in possession of the facts about bruising, was encouraged to send byroad.

The forwarding of grain, stock and other produce coincided, and if exten-

sions were given to road operators to cart stock they could not be carting grain and produce too, and this must

seriously interfere with grain cartage I to the detriment of farmers and the i Railways Department. The position j would be further aggravated with the i use of header harvesters. Any further j encroachment by road operators on the 1 rights of the department would no doubt have a tendency to cause the lay-by of its plant, Mr Rodger contended. Mr R. A. Young, who appeared for a transport operator, said that the opeiators had been working on temporary licences for some time, and with the granting of their applications now the position would be practically unchanged. It appeared that even with i the operation of road services there ’ was still full work for the department. Road services provided more direct . handling, particularly in districts I. whole there was not a frequent train i service. J; Mr Langford said the argument 11 over losses on one method of transport | as opposed to another did not have much substance. Much depended on the j care of the individual carrier. He con- ] sidered it desirable in the public in- j j teiest that road operators should have i

access to freezing works with milk lambs, because of the possible inadequacy of the rail service. Buyers used the rail when possible, but it was not always suitable, and road transport would provide the additional flexibility required.