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 
"Squeeze" on Rivals, Says Objector
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Decision Reserved on Wallace Arnold Bids
IN an attempt to offer a greater variety of destinations to their passengers. Wallace Arnold Tours, Ltd., applied at Leeds last week for 12 new excursions starting from Castleford, Leeds and Bradford. These included Beaumaris, Berwick-on-Tweed, Alnwick Castle, Silloth, a half-day to Lake Windermere. a Mersey and West Coast tour, Lancashire coast tour, Liverpool, Bamburgh and Seahouses, and Landon and Manchester airports.
The application, which was initially heard in January, was concluded on this occasion, evidence being given by British Railways, Rogers Motor Coaches, Samuel Ledgard (Bradford), Ltd., and West Yorkshire Road Car Co., Ltd., who all objected.
Mr. J, T. Rogers, proprietor of Rogers Motor Coaches, pointed out that if Wallace Arnold were allowed to run to all these additional destinations, there would be a flood of applications from operators in the West Riding, who were thinking of their own self-defence. Some of the proposed fares were too low and
the public were being given too much for their money. He suggested that there should be uniformity of fares between all the operators in the district. There was also the danger of passenger abstraction to be considered.
Col. Valiance, for British Railways, submitted that it was wrong for the existing services to Windermere to be superimposed, and the proposed fare of 10s. was improper. Wallace Arnold were taking advantage of their size and were trying to squeeze out their competitors, stated Mr. J. Mellor, for the other objectors. The public would usually travel with the operator who had the greatest variety of destinations and thus abstraction would result.
Mr. J. Marshall, for Wallace Arnold, concluded that unless there had been a real demand by the public for these additional destinations it would be economic suicide to introduce them.
The chairman of the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners, Maj. F. S. Eastwood, refused the excursion in respect of Windermere and reserved his decision on the remainder.