Operating Aspects of
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
THE LATEST NEWS OF IMPORTANT EVENTS
DOES PRIOR CLAIM JUSTIFY A MONOPOLY?
THEquestion of whether prior operation on a route entitled an operator to a virtual monopoly was raised during an appeal in Sheffield, last week. A. F. Hancock, Ltd., appealed against the Yorkshire Commissioners' action in granting a licence to the Abbey Lane Motor Transport Service for extended tours to the South of England and the Highlands of Scotland.
It was stated that, since 1927, the Hancock concern had run services similar to those now licensed to the Abbey Lane Company. Apart from other considerations, it was contended that the evidence given at the original hearing was misleading.
In reply, it was pointed out that the suggestion was that, because the Hancock concern had operated to Scotland since 1927, all other companies' tours should be excluded, unless it could be proved that the appellant was incapable of meeting the demand. A. F. Hancock, Ltd., would thereby be afforded a monopoly, and if the appeal interpretation succeeded there would be sonic surprising results.
INCREASED PROTECTION FOR SOUTHAMPTON 'REFUSED.
A FEW days ago, the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners reheard part of an application by the Hants and Dorset Motor Services, Ltd., which, as a result of an appeal by Southampton Corporation, had been referred back to the Commissioners. The application concerned fares, the Corporation claiming additional protection for a new service.
The corporation alleged that the service was unremunerative and that it should receive protection from the Hants and Dorset concern. Under an B40 agreement of 1931, the local authority was pledged not to take business from the Hants and Dorset undertaking and this had been fulfilled. The corporation contended that, unless it obtained the increased protection claimed under the agreement, the whole undertaking might become unremunerative.
Evidence was led to show that on the route in question, the traffic receipts per bus-mile amounted to 8.988d. and expenses to 8.674d., the latter figure being increased to 10.466d. by the addition of sinking-fund charges. It was said that three of the municipal bus services were showing a profit, whilst five were unremunerative.
The company claimed that the municipal service under consideration was remunerative and that it was wrong to add sinking-fund charges. Despite its diminishing profits, the corporation had, for several years, subscribed an average of £7,000 per annum to the relief of rates.
Sir Henry Piggott, chairman of the Commissioners, intimated that the municipal undertaking appeared to be in a thoroughly sound financial position and they could not see their way to afford increased protection.
FUTURE OF DOVER'S TRANSPORT.
DOVER Town Council is holding a special meeting to consider its transport problems. A comprehensive report has been received from Mr. A. C. Baker, Birmingham Corporation's transport manager, who had
been called in to advise. A further communication has been received from the East Kent Road Car Co., Ltd., in connection with the company's offer to run buses in Dover in place of the municipal trams. It is understood that some amendment has been made to the East Kent concern's original offer. SHOULD MINERS RUN THEIR OWN BUSES?
TONNARDS the end of last week and the beginning of this week, the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners heard applications by the Betteshanger Miners Mutual Self-help Club for licences for bus services from Dover and Deal to Betteshanger Colliery. The applications were strongly contested by a number of local operators, backed by the Folkestone and District Passenger Transport Association mid the Motor Hirers and Coach Services Association.
For the scheduled operators it Neat,' submitted that they had served thc miners well for six or screen years and that their receipts would be seriously affected by ti o club's transport activities.
The club, however, maintained that it could provide better and cheaper travel facilities for its members than did the local operators. Evidence was given by Mr. Torn Smith, M.P., concerning the bus-operation scheme of the Maltby miners, which he believed to be licensed. Strong allegations were made concerning the conditions of the local operators' buses, which were said to have been used for carrying coal, as well as passengers.
There was much controversy concerning the financial status of the club and ,dpf the value of seven buses which it -had purchased. The question of fares also aroused some comment. During the proceedings, The Commercial Motor small-advertisement pages were quoted to show the market value of the seven buses in question.
The Commissioners reserved their decision and said that a public service vehicle examiner would inspect the buses before a decision was annOunced later this week, It was stated -that the club would appeal if the application was refused.