Companies Reject Corporation as Joint Operator
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A SUGGESTION that Chesterfield 1---1 Corporation should participate with East Midland Motor Services, Ltd., Midland General Omnibus Co., Ltd., and Trent Motor Traction Co., Ltd., in a through service between Chesterfield and Derby was rejected by Mr. W. R. Hargraves, for the companies, at an appeal inquiry held by a Ministry, of Transport inspector, Sir Maurice Holmes, at Chesterfield, last week.
"We cannot contemplate Chesterfield Corporation Transport Department becoming a 'pool operator' and joining the service," Mr. Hargrave said.
The corporation appealed against the grant of permission by the Yorkshire and East Midland Licensing Authorities to the companies to run the service.
Mr. G. Lawrence, Q.C., said that the corporation at present operated two services to Clay Cross which, together, gave a maximum of eight journeys an hour.
The 'other operators between Chesterfield and Clay Cross were East Midland, whose service was generally hourly. "Comparatively speaking, that single seivice by the East Midland company is a very minoi. service -indeed," said Mr.
Lawrence; • For the. past 40 years, the Chesterfield-Clay Cross section had been Chesterfield's territory. The corporation now provided 594 licensed journeys a week between the two points, whereas East Midland ran only 129. Following the institution of the new service, the corporation had suffered.
Not only did they carry the bulk of the traffic, but a substantial portion of it was "transfer traffic," which meant that people used the corporation service to Clay Cross and then caught another bus to take them on to Derby, Alfreton Cr Ripley.
The running of the through Derby service meant that the corporation would lose their transfer traffic both to and from Clay Cross, reducing receipts by up to £4,000 a year..
The most equitable and, desirable solution, submitted Mr. Lawrence, was the operation of a joint service.
If this suggestion were set aside, the corporation asked for protective conditions. Mr. Lawrence submitted that the companies should pay the corporation fares received on the ChesterfieldClay Cross section which would hitherto have been received by the corporation.