1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
Remarks by Commissioners "Utter Nonsense," Railways Contend
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
nBSERVATIONS made by the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners when they granted a coach operator additional excursions were described as "utter nonsense" by Mr. T. B. Atkinson, for British Railways, when an appeal against the decision was heard at Sheffield last week. The grant to Sansom Bros. (Shbffield), Ltd., was also contested by Sheffield United Tours, Ltd.; Hirst and Sweening, Ltd.; Park Garage (Swallownest), Ltd.; Sheffield Corporation; and Sheffield Joint Omnibus Committee.
Sansom's had been allowed to add five destinations to their excursion licence from Handworth, Sheffield. These were Scarborough, Bridlington, Cleethorpes, Skegness and the Yorkshire Coast (circular).
Mr. Atkinson conceded that the Handworth area of Sheffield had grown, but he pointed out that it was within the city boundary and there were already adequate facilities for the destinations concerned. The Commissioners' observations that railway evidence was "not reasonable" and "sparse" did not make sense, because the railways had carried more people from Handworth to Cleethorpes than Sansom's.
Connection Difficulties The Commissioners had also stated that railway excursions arrived back in Sheffield too late to connect with stage carriage services, which was utter nonsense. The only evidence the Commissioners had heard about late returns concerned Blackpool and Southport— destinations which Sansom's were refused.
For Sheffield Corporation and the joint committee, Mr. C. 0. Adams claimed that adequate stage services were operated between Handworth and the city. Any abstraction would be serious, as 90 per cent, of the undertaking's revenue• came from small fares.
Mr. F. Marshall, for Park Garage, submitted that the Commissioners had completely ignored the facilities of other operators and had accepted instead evidence of bogus private party work organized by " whippers-in." All Sansom's schedules were tainted with illegal private hire carryings---a method of running excursions and tours without licences.
"Figures Inflated"
Further complaints about private hire were made by Mr. W. R. Hargrave, for S.U.T., who pointed out that the Commissioners had admitted that Sansom's had undertaken unlawful operation. This work had inflated the company's private party figures. There had been no complaints about S.U.T.'s facilities.
Replying for Sansom's, Mr. J. Evans claimed that the appeals were misconceived as additional destinations had been granted—not a new licence. The Minister of Transport had laid down that it was not potential abstraction for more destinations to be sought without a corresponding increase in vehicle allowance. Answering Mr. Hargrave, he admitted that he could not remember when the Minister said this.
Mr. J. R. Willis, the Inspector, said a decision would be announced later.