THE L.M.S. RAILWAY OPPOSES A CROSSVILLE APPLICATION
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Gil ti Situation Arises
i
er an r ses at a West Midlands Sitting at Birmingham A T the recent Birmingham sitting of _tithe West Midlands Traffic Commissioners, the extraordinary situation arose of applications by Crossville Motor Services, Ltd., being opposed by the railway companies, particularly, by the L.M.S. Railway Co., which, as is well known, is the most important shareholder in the Crossville concern.
The application by the Crossville undertaking for a service between Birkenhead and Birmingham was opposed by the L.M.S. Railway Co., as well as by the G.W. Railway Co. In cross-examination, Mr. R. Turner, for the L.M.S. concern, asked the Crossville representative whether he was aware that the principal shareholder in the company was opposing the application, to which the reply was that it was the railway company which actually started this service, the whole of the joint committee having approved of the route.
Mr. Turner then said : "Can you understand why the railway company has instructed me to oppose the application?" to which the reply was that no explanation was available. Mr. Turner continued by asking how it was that the Crossville Co. delayed until last year before inaugurating this service between Birkenhead and Birmingham, and received the reply that the company waited until the railway concerned took it over before opening up this route. The suggestion that it was because of the advent of the present Act was strongly denied.
The curious circumstances above referred to were mentioned by the chairman, who said that the relationship between the railway and the Crossville concern could not be argued about at
this sitting, since it was not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners.
Of the many other applications made by Crossville Motor Services, Ltd., those relating to routes connecting Birmingham with _Aberystwyth and Barmouth were strongly' opposed by the Great Western Railway Cct, Mr. C. C. Taylor, managing director of the Crossville company, said that the fleet numbered 634 vehicles, of which 77 were motor coaches. Traffic figures relating to these two routes were given, it being admitted that the bulk of the traffic was at week-ends.
The case of the G.W.R. Co. was that these road services were in the nature of cut-throat competition and were entirely unnecessary. Asked whether a demand by the public for such a service should be met or not, the assistant divisional, superintendent replied that they should, but in this case the service was of an unremunerative character. It was submitted that the applicant had failed entirely to show that people required the service, also that the service was instituted in order to attract the public, whereas such an object was not contemplated in the framing of the Road Traffic Act,