AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

GLOUCESTER REJECTS BRISTOL CO.'S OFFER

31st March 1933, Page 53
31st March 1933
Page 53
Page 53, 31st March 1933 — GLOUCESTER REJECTS BRISTOL CO.'S OFFER
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?

Bids of Bristol and Red and White Concerns Fail

MHE offer of the Bristol Tramways 1 and Carriage Co., Ltd., to take over Gloucester Corporation's transport undertaking was refused last week by the city council.

Negotiations commenced early in December last, when both the Bristol concern and Red and White Services; Ltd., were bidding for the undertaking.

One of the suggestions made by the Bristol company at the first conference was that the corporation should be paid a minimum of 11,000 a year. Later in the month, Red and White Services, Ltd., offered to guarantee a minimum annual payment of £2,000. At subsequent conferences, the original proposals of each party were considerably modified and, finally, the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Co. offered to guarantee a minimum annual payment of £3,500.

Red and White Services, Ltd., later signified itself prepared to guarantee a minimum annual payment of £4,000. An interesting provision was that all orders for new vehicles (chassis and bodies) required to operate the services taken over from the corporation should be placed with the Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Co., Ltd. Red and White Services, Ltd., offered also to purchase all vehicles required for its own use and for the use of subsidiary companies from the Gloucester Railway Carriage concern, subject to the prices not exceeding 10 per cent, above the lowest tenders.

Subsequently, Red and White intimated that the offer made was the utmost limit to which it could go, and, as it had not been accepted, it was withdrawn.

The Bristol concern also withdrew its offer, but submitted an entirely new one. This included provision for the formation of a new company to run the services, on the lines of the arrangement at Keighley. This, however, was also rejected. Subsequent developments will be duly announced.

Tags

Locations: Bristol

comments powered by Disqus