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 
DUPLICATION INJUSTICES
Page 92
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE limitation of the duplication of iong-distance coaches strikes at the very foundation upon which that branch of the road-transport industry has been built, namely, advance book
ing. It places the operator in the position of having, at Bank Holiday periods, to restrict the number of passengers carried, during several days, on the outward journey, in order to ensure that they may all return on Bank Holiday. Thus, coaching concerns providing daily services throughout the year are deprived of that extra profit which may help to counterbalance a deficit during the winter.
In 1933, the Minister of Transport ruled that, on extreme-distance services not primarily of a holiday nature, duplication should be limited to three times the minimum number of journeys worked daily throughout the year. As the result of the storm of protest which this decision created. the Minister, last year, revised the previous ruling to enable two-thirds of the minimum number of journeys to be used in one direction.
At the beginning of last month, the Minister issued his decisions on a number of other appeals raising the duplication question, and he again applied the modified limits outlined
above. In the case of services to Blackpool, however, he permitted unlimited duplication, so long as passengers were not picked up or set down at intermediate points en route.
The position with regard to duplication is still far from satisfactory and calls for united effort on the part of the industry. In the Minister's view, the limitation of duplication appears to be justified where the receipts on backbone railway routes may be adversely affected by the activities of coaching companies and where the road services are of a business character.
It remains for the coach operators concerned to prove that their traffic is mainly of a pleasure or social nature. That this is the case appears obvious, otherwise heavy duplication would be unnecessary at holiday periods.