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
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232 
Coronation Period Confirmed By Minister on Appeal
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BI/ dismissing an appeal of the Railway Executive against the North Western Licensing Authority's decision to increase vehicle allowances on express services from May 16 to July 31, for the Coronation period, the Minister of Transport has indicated his view that this period properly covers the Coronation celebrations. The railways are to pay costs.
The respondents were Yellowav Motor Services, Ltd., W. C. Standerwick. Ltd., Scout Motor Services, Ltd., North Western Road Car Co., Ltd., Majestic Express Motors, Ltd., Ribble Motor Services, Ltd., and Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co., Ltd.
The appeal was heai'd on March 10, four days after the decision on the railways' appeal against additional duplication between Keswick and 1.ondon (The Commercial Motor, March 20). One of the licences concerned in the present appeal was a hacking for the same service, and for the railways, Mr. G. H. P. Beames expressed surprise at the decision.
Grave Effect on Railways He said that if the Minister did not think again on these cases, the consequences would be grave for the railways this summer. He submitted that in the case of the services under discussion—those from Fleetwood, Blackpool, Colne, Keswick and Manchester t.) London—the additional vehicles allowed would enable the coach operators to carry between 32,340 and 83,160 extra passengers on each one. He declared that the respondents, under the cloak of the Coronation, were introducing a stratagem to acquire increased duplication formerly refused.
Mr. W. Blackhurst, for the respondents, held that if the Keswick decision was justified, the vastly greater population served by the Lancashire services equally justified the allowances and period of operation. He added that Mr. Beames' figures were a flight of fancy, for the full number of vehicles might not be operated, although it Was necessary to have the allowances to meet traffic demands.
Recommending dismissal, Mr. J. M. Glen, the inspector of the Ministry hearing the case, said that the Keswick decision—based on an appeal against a primary-licence grant—made it unlikely for the appeal in the backing case to succeed. The proper period covering the Coronation had been decided by that decision; as regards the vehicle allowance, the additional population served by the Lancashire services justified the grants.