Passengers Lost to Competitor's Route
Page 72
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN operator refused an application by the Northern Traffic Commissioners, at Spennymoor, last week, said that since a competitor had bzen granted a route variation he had lost passengers. He• produced witnesses who said that in the winter they would probably leave his service to catch his competitor's bus.
Mr: J. L: R. Croft, for Messrs. J. Harrison and .Sons, Wingate,. County Durham, told the Commissioners that his clients Sought to vary an express licence operating between Trimdon Colliery and Spennymoor Trading Estate. They wanted a small diversion which would give four extra stops. '
In July. the objectors, Gillett Brothers (Motor Services), Ltd., Quarrington Hill, County Durham, had been granted a similar extension. At the time they said that they wished to serve only their own' passengers and had no desire to abstract passengers from Harrison.
Fears expressed by Harrison then had materialized, and in consequence of the grant some passengers formerly carried by Harrison had "transferred their affections " to Gillett Bros., whose route was now nearer to their homes.
After three members of the public stated that they would use Gillett's service if Harrison were not given permission to deviate, Mr. R. Harrison, a partner in the applicant company, 'told the Commissioners that he distinctly remembered Gillett Bros. saying, in June, that they wanted to carry only their own passengers. As soon as Gillett's modified service commenced, however, he lost three passengers.
Mr. R. E. Gargett, traffic manager for Gillett Bros., said that his company served one side of the estate while the applicants served the other. They were happy for this situation to continue. If the application was granted, it would certainly abstract traffic from Gillett Bros.
Mr. Harrison was recalled to answer further questions by Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, chairman, after Mr. Gargett alleged that he had followed a bus on hire to Harrison which had set down passengers at their homes and not at the authorized stop. Mr. Harrison denied this at first, but later said that he had questioned the drivers, who had denied the accusation.
For Gillett Bros., Mr. R. Hunter said that the question of how far an operator should go to pick up passengers was at issue.
Giving decision, Mr. Hanlon said that the Commissioners had to consider the extent, if any, to which the needs of the proposed routes were already adequately served. They found that there was an adequate service operating, and could not make a grant solely on the ground of limited abstraction from one service to the other and therefore the application would be refused. They would, however, allow an extra stop on the existing route, because this would be more convenient to some people.