Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120


31st January 1936
Page 47
Page 47, 31st January 1936 — OPPOSITION TO COMBINED TICKETS
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?

rTHE hearing of the Mersey Railway Company's objection to the combined ticket (for bus and boat) propOsed to be issued on a few of the Birkenhead bus routes, was continued, last week, before the North-Western Traffic Commissioners. The Louden, Midland and Sccttish RailWay Co. was represented at a previous hearing, but at last week's sitting, the chairman announced that the company did not desire to. pursue its objection on the question of the age for the free carriage of children on the local routes, Mr. Cyril Clarke, transport manager foe Birkenhead Corporation, agreed that the Mersey Railway must be given a chance of Competing fairly for traffic. He added that if the railway had charged equitable fares, there would have been no need for Birkenhead Corporation's combined tickets.

" Mr. W. Chamberlain, chairman, remarked that the whole trouble commenced when the railway company introduced the cheap day ticket. Up to that time, the relations between the two bodies appeared to have been excellent. The Commissioners hoped that the feeder services would be pooled. Mr. Clarke said the principle raised was that the railway company required a 2d. difference adjusted, and it was on that principl, he had fought the case front the commencement.

The inquiry was adjourned.


THE proposal of R. Barr (Leeds), Ltd. (incorporating Wallace Arnold Tours, Ltd.), Leeds, to provide all-in luxury tours from Manchester has been rejected by the North-Western Traffic Commissioners. It was pleaded that Manchester was without tours of this description and that there were substantial bookings from the Manchester area, despite the inconvenience of having to travel to Leeds for an earlymorning start.


THE substitution of buses for trams on still another route is recommended by Leeds Transport Committee. It is estimated that the corporation will require 20 additional buses.

Another bus-for-tram substitution scheme is to be' carried out at Shipley, near Bradford. Bradford Corporation is to withdraw the tram service, and the West Yorkshire Road Car Co.. Ltd., is to run extra buses in place of it. ..


HOW miners missed working for a day, because a bus did not run as usual, was related at Pontefract, last week, when one of the men successfully sued the operator for the amount of a day's wages. Other men, numbering 14, were stated to have similar claims that would .be affected by the decision.

Evidence was given that, for a period of years, the operator had provided the plaintiff with a service to and from the colliery at a fiat rate of 3s weekly for any number of journeys. 'One Saturday,. the day before the service was to have been transferred to another operator, the bus did not appear. The fare was stated to have been paid in advance.

For the defence it was stated that the failufe to operate the service was due to a breakdown. Fares were 'Collected each Friday, not in advance, and the oPerator had not been paid for the Saturday on which the service

failed. . • Giving judgment for the plaintiff, Judge Gamon said that he was satisfied there was an implied contract to operate a service and that contract had been broken.


Organisations: Leeds Transport Committee
Locations: MANCHESTER, Leeds

comments powered by Disqus