Independent Operators Fight for Seaside Traffic
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE new plan of campaign being organized by non-combine operators in their struggle for the seasonal passenger traffic was inaugurated last meek in the Metropolitan Area, when Southdown .Motor Services, Ltd., applied to take over the licences on the Portsmouth route hitherto held by the Alexandra, Underwood, Imperial Saloon concerns, . and the Timpson company in respect of the ex-Solent service.
The Southdown proposals comprised a general reduction in and rearrangement of services, but the main bone of contention was the company's application to. continue operating the Underwood and Imperial Saloon services three times daily throughout the year from King's Cross Coach Station, London. As Southdown Motor Services, Ltd., has no 'Portsmouth service from North London, the application was strongly opposed by George Ewer and Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. V. Cloutman, and Keith and Boyle (London), Ltd., by Mr. E. Monkman, on the ground that the " extension " from Victoria would create unfair competition.
Figures were given to prove the winter service to be 'Unwarranted, but the main argument put forward by Mr. Cloutrnan was the suggestion that, if the " extension " were granted, the licence should be endorsed with a condition preventing the Southdown company from interfering, directly or in, directly, with the facilities already offered by independent operators.
Mr. Cloutman alleged that it was the policy of London Coastal Coaches, Ltd., for which the •Southdown and associated companies were responsible, to approach his client's agents and wean them away. They were then given a restrictive agreement which forbade them to book on his client's coaches, except in the case of minor services.
Documents were handed in to support this suggestion, and it was further alleged that, although London Coastal Coaches, Ltd., had undertaken not to approach his client's agents, this had not been carried out. The Ewer concern calculated its losses through this diversion of traffic at quite £3,000 per annum For Southdowu Motor Services, Ltd., it was contended that both the Underwood and Imperial Saloon services were valueless unless they could continue to use King's Crass as a terminal. The company denied responsibility for the London Coastal policy, and maintained that there was nothing in the documents submitted to show that London Coastal Coaches, Ltd., had approached George Ewer's agents, On the contrary, it was a fact that the agents approached the Coastal organization for the latter's ticket book, as many as 20 applications a day being received.
The Metropolitan Commissioner, in commenting on Mr. Cloutrnan's suggestion to endorse the licence, admitted that it was the duty of Commissioners to interfere in matters affecting operators, but that it was not in the interests of the industry that they should interfere too much, especially if the operators had the remedy in their own hands. The George Ewer concern, he thought, had that remedy by appointing, for instance, its own agents, and tying them for a number of years. He, however, reserved his decision with a view to investigating more carefully the whole case and the figures.