1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220 
Railways and Coach Firm Lose Appeals
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Minister of Transport has dismissed two appeals relating to express-service licences. In the first, the Railway Executive appealed against the decision of the West Midland Licensing Authority granting Mr. ,E. Newton, of Perry Barr, a variation of a licence for an express service from Birmingham to Margate. The variation authorized three additional picking-up points near Margate and one at Snow Hill, Birmingham.
The R.E. case rested on the fact that the licence had originally been refused by the Licensing Authority and granted • on appeal. It was not in the public interest, the railways submitted, to add extensive grants to relatively new licences. The operator declared that the picking-up points had been shown to be necessary, especially at Snow Hill, for passengers disembarking there could continue homeward journeys on the corporation all-night buses. Costs were awarded against the Railway Executive.
In his decision on the appeal of Messrs. Gardiner Bros., Low Spennymoor, Co. Durham, against the refusal of the Northern Licensing Authority to grant a licence for an epsress service between Sacriston and London, the Minister of Transport stated that direct services of this type were not necessary or desirable. In his observations, the Ministry inspector declared that small towns such as those in which the appellant proposed to set down passengers, were best served by feeder routes. The terminal is five miles from Durham.
The appellant was supported by the urban district councils of Stanley, Tow Law and Consett, the case being that the Licensing Authority had decided that the service was needed, but should be operated by United Automobile %Services, Ltd. U.A.S. evidence showed that the service was not needed. Out of 17 vehicles authorized for the trunk road route, a maximum of four had been used.