Railway Plea for Parity in Fares on MI Route C OACH
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
fares on the Coventry-London route via M1 should be the same as by rail because road express operators could now compete equally against train speeds. Mr'. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for British Railways, made this proposal for fares parity before the West Midland Traffic Commissioners at Birmingham, last week, when the hearing of the application by the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co., Ltd., to provide the service was continued (The Commercial Mawr, March 4). "Special measures should be taken to meet a unique situation," he accusing the company of "greedy and cynical opportunism."
The applicants, stated counsel, were taking advantage of the pruning of rail services between Coventry and London brought about by the modernization programme, recent increases in fares, and the opening of the motorway. B.M.M.O. were able to offer a 2+-hour road service to London which was comparable with the present rail timing.
When electrification was completed, the railways would be able to offer a 11hour service, but if the present application were granted, there would be abstraction "on a grand scale." It would be a crippling blow at the heart of rail economy, he said.
The main attraction offered to the public was the low fare-19s. 3d. return —compared with £1 15s. 6d. by rail. This would produce wasteful competition in its most extravagant form.
The company had refused to consider fares parity, but the Commissioners had statutory powers to fix fares to prevent wasteful competition, The railways had not urged this in the past, but now for the first time they had no speed protection. Something nearer parity in fares should be the guiding principle. Although there had been a reduction of rail services, they were still adequate for Coventry's requirements.
Entitled to Benefits
Mr. E. S. Fay, Q.C., for the applicants, said that a large amount of public money had been spent on MI, and Coventry people were entitled to enjoy its benefits. The company were seeking a three-year licence. Benefits of rail modernization would not he felt for at least five years.
By wishing almost to double the coach fare for their protection, the railways were urging the creation of a price ring. On the present fares basis, the company were making a substantial profit with costs at Is. 8d. per car-mile and receipts at 2s. 6d.
The proposed increase would give an extortionate profit deserving the attention of the Monopolies Commission, declared Mr. Fay.
Although B.M.M.O. were an assOciated company, the railways had not .bothered to seek assistance when their services had to be curtailed. They had, as a consequence, lost optional or pleasure traffic amounting to 1,100 passengers a week.
Mr. W. P. James, chairman, said that the Commissioners regarded fares parity as an important principle. He observed that B.M.M.O. had recently made representations to raise the fares of another
road operator to bring them into line with their own fares on a particular route.
The Commissioners had always accepted the principle that it was their duty to bring other operators into line, but, he asked, was it to hold good only in one sphere and not another?
The wide spread of fares between road and rail and two entirely different forms of transport must be considered a different proposition, replied Mr. Fay. The Minister of Transport had said that, in some cases, it was not contrary to the public interest to permit some abstraction from competitors.
If' the application were refused, the railways would retain some revenue from unwilling passengers instead of borrowing the same amount from the Exchequer. A grant would give the public freedom of choice, convenience and save them money.
The applicants' net revenue would be improved, which would help unremunerative services, and there would also be a benefit to the railways because the British Transport Commission owned a half-interest in B.M.M.O.
Fewer passengers on the railways at this stage would also ease the task of reconstruction, he observed.
Decision was reserved until the Commissioners had heard the evidence in the company's application to add vehicles to their existing Birmingham-London motorway service. This followed. B.M.M.O. wished to raise the maximum number of vehicles per timing to six, with eight on Saturdays from June-September.
Mr. Fay said that the extra coaches were primarily needed to meet an unexpectedly heavy demand. Restrictions on the overall vehicle allowance embracing the intermediate London services had resulted in many intending passengers being turned away.
Mr. R. K. Cope, deputy traffic manager of the concern, said that nearly 25,000 passengers had been carried since the service began on November 2. Known refusals were 1,891, but the actual number was probably four times that figure, he stated.
B.M.M.O. were limited by the original grant to four vehicles on each timing, except two at 6.30 p.m. Because the overall winter allowance, which covered London services via Coventry and Stratford, was four, one vehicle had to be used daily for the Stratford route. This left two for the motorway serVice and one spare Monday to Friday. The spare was required for the Coventry service at week-ends.
Railways Help Coach Service By a coincidence, the railways had closed New Street Station, Birmingham. to London passengers on the same day as the service started. This, coupled with the increase in fares, gave a fillip to the motorway service.
Questioned by Mr. Samuel-Gibbon about a further application for three additional vehicles on Saturdays and Sundays for intermediate traffic only, Mr. Cope said that these were required in addition to the combined vehicle allowance.
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon submitted that this was further evidence of the greed of the applicants. The company not only wanted the advantage of a combined vehicle allowance, by which they could favour one service at the expense of others, but something else over and above it.
After hearing 13 supporting witnesses. Mr. James adjourned the case until March 31.