AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

"Protect Railway Branch Lines"

27th April 1951, Page 27
27th April 1951
Page 27
Page 27, 27th April 1951 — "Protect Railway Branch Lines"
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?

Keywords :

'WE have to guard against encourag VV ing any competition with the ailways, otherwise we might be conrooted by the decision of the Railway Necutive to close down branch lines."

The Scottish Licensing Authority nade this statement last week, when vlessrs. William Porteous and Son, 3eattock, applied for a licence to run service between Moffat and Crawford. t was stated that the only service mtween Beattock and Crawford was on he S.M.T. Glasgow-London route.

"En view of the fact that this line arries goods as well as passengers, we ave to tread very warily," the Authority ontinued. He intimated that if the icence were granted, protection would .e given to S.M.T. on that part of the cute by which it would be affected, and to Messrs J. Gibson and Sons, • Moffat, on the Moffat-Beattock section.

Decision was reserved until the Railway Executive gave details of passengers carried by rail during any typical month between Crawford and Moffat.

"WHITEHALL" DISCRIMINATES?

WHILE Nottingham Transport DeVV partment was losing £2,000 a week, "Whitehall officials" were "sitting on" the undertaking's application for fares increases, said Aid. J. Littlefair, leader of Nottingham City Council, last week. Nationalized undertakings, however, were favoured by almost immediate sanctioning of increases.

• COACHBUILDERS WARNED

BECAUSE of shortages of raw materials, increasingly difficult times face the coaehbuilding industry. This warning was given last week by Mr. J. H. Beal, president of the National Employers' Association of Vehicle Builders, at the annual dinner of the Sheffield branch.


comments powered by Disqus