AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Railways Dispute 268 yd. of Bus Route A DISPUTE over

25th April 1958, Page 45
25th April 1958
Page 45
Page 45, 25th April 1958 — Railways Dispute 268 yd. of Bus Route A DISPUTE over
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

268 yd. of a proposed route • was heard by the Yorkshire. Traffic Commissioners at Leeds last week. Booth and Fisher, Halfway, near Sheffield, applied for a new stage service between Killamarsh and Sheffield.

Mr. J. Evans, appearing for the applicants, stated that they were already operating a service from Sheffield to Killimarsh. At the request of Dronfield Urban District Council they now sought_ to run a diversion down Green Lane, terminating at Marsh Avenue, on certain journeys. The two objectors, British Railways and the Sheffield Joint Omnibus Committee, admitted the need for a diversion, but wished the applicants to terminate 268 yd. farther back.

Mr. Fisher, in evidence, said the application was made at Dronfield's request. Marsh Avenue was the entrance to a housing estate run by that local authority. The terminus would be approximately 580 yd. from the route operated by the Sheffield Joint Omnibus Committee, and from Dronfield station.

Cross-examined by Mr. Datson, for the S.J.O.C., Mr. Fisher admitted that he was willing to accept the objectors' suggestions, but pressure had been put on him by Dronfield Council to continue ,to their estate. Witnesses called to support the application stated that they were having to walk long distances at present to use the facilities of both applicants and objectors.

After evidence had been given by the Objectors, who feared abstraction, Mr, T. B. Atkinson, for British Railways, asked the Commissioners not to be influenced by the strong support put forward for the extra 268 yd. The motive was, he claimed, local jealousy.

Mr. Evans said the objection was the most illogical he had ever heard. There was no sensible reason why the public should not enjoy the full facility. Without it the public would not think in terms of public transport and the industry would suffer.

The application was granted in full, but for only a year.


comments powered by Disqus