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 
794 Ribble Appeals Heard
Page 124
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LASTLAST week, 794 appeals by Ribble Services, Ltd., and associated companies, against decisions of the North-Western, Yorkshire and Northern Traffic Commissioners, were heard at Preston, before Sir Henry Wynne. Mr. J. Lustgarten (for the appellants) had dealt with proposed modifications regarding extended availability of return tickets, the issue of eight-day tourist tickets and cheap day returns, and Mr. Harvey Robson (for 500 road objectors operating excursions and tours) had • presented his case, when the inquiry was adjourned on Friday. In addition to those named, objectors include the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and municipalities.
The appellants, said Mr. Lustgarten, proposed to extend the validity of their return tickets to a universal basis of three months, instead of having three classes of return ticket; together with this, they asked for certain variations in fares. The Commissioners approved the former, but not the latter. Appellants' grievance was that the proposals should have been approved or refused as they stood.
The all-the-week fare schedule, as proposed, showed in the lower denominations an increase on the week-day return rates, but this same fare was a decrease on the week-end rates, because previously returns had not been issued on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. It might he that the Commissioners were right in saying that they could not sanction increases in fares. They were not entitled to say that they would impose on the operator the return facilities, which were to the advantage of the passenger, and not allow the compensating fares factor.
Turning to the 15s. tourist ticket, the appeal was to allow the issue of these tickets, which would, with certain exceptions, be available for unlimited travel over the appellants' stage-carriage systems for a period :of eight days. It was intended that this ticket should prevent the railways from abstracting the public from coaches with the 10s. " holiday-area" and 155. wakes tickets. There was already in the North-Western Area a facility known as the " anywhere " ticket issued at 4s. daily, so that the principle w as established. As to competition, the Schedule operators did not warrt to be driven off the road by cheap rail facilities, but apparently the excursion and tour operators did not wish to protect themselves.
Asking that special cheap day fares should be granted, Mr. Lustgarten said that in no case was the fare requested lower than that of the excursion and tour operators, and the rates were not so low as those of the railway company. Because the scheduled operators provided the less-remunerative services, they were entitled to compensation in better times. He rested the appeal on the right to deal with the competition of the railways by the methods •the railways themselves were employing.
On behalf of 500 independentoperators, Mr. Harvey Robson said they were opposing the eight-day and cheap day tickets. Although described as modifications, the points cut at the very roots of road transport. The granting of such applications would render nugatory the position of the
excursion and tour operators. Both proposals were levelled at the veryreduced fares. That might be an argument for a measure of control of rail fares, but it certainly was not an argument for the establishment of a fares competition regardless of the effect on other operators.
The appellants asked to coalesce scheduled operation and excursions and tours, and to rid themselves from restrictions on the latter. They would have unlimited picking-up points, there would be much duplication and, in effect, the duplicates would become express services. Supposing that excursions and tour fares were halved the 15s. ticket would still he a cut rate.
For Morecambe and Heysham Corporation it was asked that, should the appeal with reference to the 15s. ticket be allowed, protection should be granted to the municipal services from 'this unassailable competition."
The hearing was resumed yesterday.