A-licence Battle Opens in the North
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Trail battle for a monopoly of trunk services was resumed in Manchester on Thursday and Friday of last week, and will be -continued on November 19-20. That the BoutsTillotson setback is not accepted as -final is made clear by this fresh onslaught.
The attack had reached a most interesting point at the adjournment of the second day. Mr. H. Backhouse, for the applicant (Northern Motor Utilities, Ltd.), will, on the resumption, cross-examine Mr. Ashton Davies, chief commercial manager of the L.M.S. Railway Co., on the bewildering mass of statistical evidence. At the close, Mr. A. Taylor, -leading counsel for the railways, will submit pleas which may go even farther than those urged in the Bouts-Tillotson case.
N.M.U. applied for the renewal of licences for 31 vehicles at Manchester and six at Liverpool. Mr. Leslie Walsh held a brief for the C.M.U.A., and Mr. H. Ashcroft watched the interests of the trade unions. Most of the two days was occupied by the applicant's case, and representatives of half a dozen customers, who preferred the transport of the applicant to that of the railways, gave evidence. They supported the arguments of Mr. F. E. Rayson, northern traffic manager of the company, that the N.M.U. services were more attractive on account of the later collection and quicker delivery provided, and the safer transit and lower rates afforded, due, in the main, to collection by trunk vehicles and the elimination of double handling, Chief Operations.
The more important N.M.U. routes were stated to be from Liverpool and Manchester to Rochdale, York, Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Birmingham and London. In addition to general goods
on all routes, much raw cotton was carried to Rochdale for one concern, textiles were hauled from Manchester and Liverpool to Hull for shipment, and products of British Vinegars, Ltd., were hauled as required. There hadbeen no substantial change in customers, rates or commodities carried during the currency of the existing licences.
Mr. Ashton Davies gave evidence for all three railways concerned-0.e L.M.S., L.N.E. and G.W. companies. At the close of the proceedings he was asked by Mr. Backhonse to complete his evidence at the next sitting by figures revealing the growth of rail road operations, so that the gain in this department might be set against the loss of rail freights.
Mr. Ashton Davies's evidence was largely a repetition of that given in the Bouts-Tillotson case. Ile argued that the railways could equally well deal with much of the trunk road tonnage, and that price was usually the determining factor when traffic went by road.