Minister Again Upholds Limited Duplication
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Minister of Transport has now decided the outstanding appeals concerning the duplication of long-distance coaches froth the North-Western Area to Birmingham and London. Rulings of the North-Western, West Midland and Metropolitan Traffic Commissioners are involved. The Minister has also given his decision on a nuintier of earlier appeals by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. against duplication conditions. The appeals fall into three groups.
Group A.—(1) Appeals by Scout Motor Services, Ltd., Yelloway Motor Services, Ltd., W. C. Standenvick, Ltd., Wood Brothers (Blackpool), Ltd., and J, Bracewell, Ltd., concerning decisions of the North-Western Commissioners regarding services from 131ackpool, Fleetwood and Blackburn to London. • • (2) By the L.M.S. Railway Co. against decisions of the Metropolitan Commissioner on services from Blackpool, Fleetwood and Colne to London. (3) By Majestic Express Motors, Ltd., and Fingland's Hire Cars, Ltd., against decisions of the North-Western Commissioners on Manchester-London services. (4) By the North Western Road Car Co., Ltd., Majestic, and Fingland's against the decisions of the Metropolitan Commissioner on Manchester-London services.
(5) By Messrs. J. Pearson and Sons against decisions of the Metropolitan Commissioner on a Southport-Liverpool-London service. (6) By W. C. Standerwick, Ltd., against the West Midland Commissioners' decision as to sectional duplication on a BlackpoolBirmingham service.
Group B.—Appeals by the Scout, Yelloway, Standerwick, Wood, Bracewell, Majestic and Fingland's concerns against the North-Western Commissioners' exclusion of return fares on services from Blackpool, Fleetwood, Blackburn and Manchester to London.
Group C.—Appeals by the Yelloway, Standenvick, Wood and Bracewell concerns against decisions of the NorthWestern Commissioners concerning the spacing of times, additional picking-up points and fare stages.
In connection with Group A (1), the North-Western Commissioners applied Appeals Order No. 54, 1933 (the Minister's well-known decision on duplication), because they did not regard.. the traffic as of an excursion, touring or primarily holiday character. In fact, they do not regard any regular traffic in the North-Western Area as being in that category.
The Metropolitan Commissioner, on the other hand, in restricting the duplication of vehicles in Group A (2), did not follow Order No. 54. He considered that the Minister recognized that persons going on holiday often desired to make a road journey part of their vacation, so that it might not be necessary to impose such strict limits of duplication if services were not between widely distant industrial towns.
The Minister considers that the Commissioner's words aptly describe the type of service which was excluded from consideration when Order No. 1-,4 was made.
Sir Henry Wynne, who heard the appeals, supported the North-Western Commissioners' view as to the nature of the traffic on these services, and apparently based that opinion mainly on the ground that they carried passengers to and from intermediate industrial towns. The Minister, however, is disposed to accept the Metropolitan Commissioner's general principle applied to these services, but he thinks it desirable to revise the latter's decisions in two particulars.
The Minister agrees that two-thirds of the additional vehicle-journeys allowed on any one day should be available for use in either direction.
The North-Western Commissioners considered that the application of Order No. 54 to the Liverpool-London and similar services might largely be negatived if the same limits were not applied to the services involved in these appeals. The Minister, therefore, makes provision to prevent any duplicate vehicle used on services enumerated in Group A (1) and (2), in excess of the number of duplicates 'allowed under the decision of September, 1033, from picking up and setting down passengers other than those beginning or ending their journeys at Blackpool.
In connection with Group A (3) and (4), the North-Western Commissioners limited duplication in accordance with Order No. 54, but the Metropolitan Commissioner allowed varying degrees of duplication within the same maximum. The Minister upholds the Metropolitan Commissioner's decisions, subject to two-thirds of the additional vehicle-journeys allowed on any day being available for use in either direction.
So far as Group A (5) is concerned, the Minister interferes with the Metropolitan Commissioner's decision only to the extent of inserting the above provision for flexibility in duplication. The appeal under Group A (6) is dismissed, but those under Group B are upheld.
In connection with Group C, the Minister considers that there is insufficient justification for extending existing facilities as proposed by three of the appellants, although certain minor adjustments require to be made. With some hesitation, the Minister agrees that Wood Brothers' winter service should be restored.
Some of the exclusions of picking-up points appear to be due to errors on the part of the Commissioners,