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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
'ore coaches Mowed for 816 London routes
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
kLTHOUGH an aplication by the Scottish Bus iroup for unlimited dupliItion of its London to lasgow and Edinburgh )utes was refused by the cottish Traffic Corniissioners last week, the roup did achieve increases . duplication allowances. he Commissioners, meetg in Edinburgh, allowed x additional vehicles on the Jinburgh service and eight the Glasgow service, both specified periods of the .ar. There was no increase the duplication allowLee at periods outside these aks.
The applications for unnited duplication — by estern SMT for the Glasw service and by Scottish Omnibuses for Edinburgh — were opposed by British Rail. Mr W. Brown for BR, claimed that a blank cheque was being sought by Scottish Omnibuses. British Rail had spare capacity except at peaks and would suffer abstraction if the application was granted.
Mr A. B. Birnie. for the Traffic Commissioners, said that they had used their discretion to maintain a balance between the interests. The Commissioners could not accept that it was necessary to grant the application in full but it was desirable that the public should not be forced to use another form of transport agains': their wishes,