AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

" Express " Appeal Rejected

5th September 1952
Page 28
Page 28, 5th September 1952 — " Express " Appeal Rejected
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?

'THE Minister of Transport has I rejected an appeal by Eatonways, Ltd., Small Heath, Birmingham, against the refusal of the West Midland Licensing Authority to grant a licence for an express service to Bridlington and Scarborough.

The appeal was heard by Mr. W. Tudor Davies. For the company, Mr. J. R. C.' Samuel-Gibbon submitted that a demand existed for the company's proposed facility. The West Yorkshire Road Car Co., Ltd., ran a service from -Coventry with a picking-up point ill Birmingham, but this was always fully booked. The railways did not offer a service comparable to that intended by his client.

Mr. J. Granville Dixon, for the Railway Executive, contended that there had been no instance of any passenger being unable to reach the two places concerned. Demand did not imply need. Mr. J. Foley Egginton, for G. H. Austin and Sons, Ltd., concurred With Mr. Dixon's comments and asserted that insufficient evidence to support a grant had been produced.

Mr. Davies recommended the rejection of the appeal.

HIGH REPAIR BILL: TRAMS TO GO

BECAUSE there would have been an expenditure of £17,100 on track repairs and maintenance on the Grangetown route during the next 12 months. Sunderland Transport Committee has decided to abandon the trams. There will then be only 39 trams still running in the town, compared with 122 buses.

The general manager of the transport department, Mr. Norman Morton, has pointed out to the committee that it should consider whether the undertaking could economically afford to

continue operate the separate elaborate organization for trams with such a small number of vehicles.


comments powered by Disqus