Rail Monopoly of Extra Traffic ?
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
nECISI9N, was reserved, last week, .1-,-/by the Western Licensing Authority on the application of the Smart Transport Co., for an extra 2i-ton vehicle_ for trunk service and a 20onner for collection and delivery. The case has occupied several -days.
The railways gave evidence that their services were suitable and adequate between Bristol and Birmingham, and that they carried similar traffic to that hauled by the applicant, between the same points for other firms. Railway witnesses admitted that there had been a general expansion of trade, but contended that the railways alone should handle this additional traffic,
Mr. T. D. CM-pc, for the Smart Transport Co., declared that, to satisfy the onus of proof upon the objectors
that their facilities were suitable, the same—weight of "evidence should be required as that demanded of the applicant. In other Words, evidence should be adduced by the objectors from the applicant's customers to the effect that rail facilities were at all times suitable for all classes of goods required to be carried.
He further suggested that the proper way to look at the matter, in view of the admitted general 'expansion of trade, was that some classes of traffic were more suitable for carriage by road and other types by rail.
Mr. Corps reminded the Licensing Authority that the Transport Advisory Council was opposed to the fettering of the right of choice of transport by the trader.