AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No Justification for Service, Says Ministry Inspector

16th October 1953
Page 36
Page 36, 16th October 1953 — No Justification for Service, Says Ministry Inspector
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?

EXPRESS1NG the view that there was no justification for a daily service to the West of England and Wales, a Ministry of Transport inspector, Mr. R. L. H. Hiscott, recommended that an appeal by Associated Motorways, Ltd., against the Metropolitan Licensing Authority's refusal to grant them a backing for an express service between Cheltenham and Stevenage should be dismissed, The Minister of Transport has dismissed the appeal with costs.

Objections were entered by the Railway Executive, Travel House (Luton), Ltd., and Premier Travel, Ltd.

Mr. M. Holmes, for the appellants, said that part of the route, from Cheltenham to Wheatley—a distance of 47 miles—was already served by his clients, but the remaining 54 miles were not. The existing operators on the Hitehin-Aylesbury portion were the United Counties Omnibus Co., Ltd., a constituent member of Associated Motorways. He stated that this was important, as the Licensing Authority had obviously not borne it in mind at

the original hearing. Therefore his clients and United Counties already -covered the greater part of the route. None of the other operators on the

route had objected to the applicatior Travel House and Premier Travel botl had restricted periods of operation an operated only along or near the pro posed route.

The railways' case. said Mr. Ho1me5. was that the only convenient meth& of travel to Stevenage and the Wes Country was via London.

Mr, F. C. Coningsby, for the rail ways, said it was not right that becaus. one of the appellants' associated corn panies had a service on the route, th, Authority should be influenced by it It was unfortunate that that fact sheath have been put forward as having t bearing on the subject.

The proposed service originated it the Metropolitan Area, and ill( abstraction of traffic from the railway was of importance. He submitted tha the need for a daily road service hac not been shown.

Replying, Mr. Holmes said that du respondents wished to establish that tht purpose of the service was to servt points in the Metropolitan Area, bin that was not so. They wished to superimpose on existing stage services, t through express service to and from tit( south-west and west of England anu South Wales.


comments powered by Disqus