In article , (Ian Jelf) wrote:

But I'll still enjoy seeing them in museums!
As will I. But I hope (and suspect) that there will always be some
form of "heritage" operation with them in Central London.

How many years ago is it since they had the Tilling ST running a heritage route (100, I think)?

--
Peter Beale

In article , (Rupert Goodwins) wrote:

I wonder if the last three in service will process in state to
Willesden Bus Garage past roads thronged with wellwishers and camera
crews. It worked for Concorde...

And for the trams on their way to New Cross Gate Depot in 1952.

--
Peter Beale

Why is that unlawful? Unfair, perhaps, but unlawful? What law was it
breaking?


The law that requires subsidiary authorities to adhere to the statutory
provisions creating the powers they are exercising. The High Court has always
had the power to review the procedures adopted by inferior tribunals and local
authorities when a citizen wishes to challenge their adherence to proper
procedures, on grounds of irrationality, illegality or breach of natural
justice.

The statute was the Transport (London) Act 1969, and basically the majority of
the House of Lords decided that L.T. had to be run on a break-even basis, and
that the G.L.C. in seeking to reimburse L.T. for the inevitable operating loss
that would result from "Fares Fair" (which involved a 25% fares reduction
across the board) was abusing its power. Under Section 7(6), L.T. was required
to balance its books and by Section 11, the G.L.C. was empowered to give
general directions to L.T.but the Courts held that it was abuse of this power
to institute "Fares Fair" which was a socio-political act (to encourage people
to use public transport) because that was not the purpose of the 1969 Act or
the proper function of the G.L.C.

Marc.

In article , Peter
Beale writes
In article ,
(Ian Jelf) wrote:

But I'll still enjoy seeing them in museums!
As will I. But I hope (and suspect) that there will always be some
form of "heritage" operation with them in Central London.

How many years ago is it since they had the Tilling ST running a heritage
route (100, I think)?

I saw it running at Easter 1980 on my first ever trip to London (gulp!).
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In article , Mait001
writes
Purely out of interest, in law, how is a "massive" subsidy different
from a smaller one?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK

Ian, it is a matter of proportionality. If the ratepayers of Bromley ae paying
disproportionately for a service from which they do not benefit, no doubt they
would regard it (as did the Courts) a massive and illegal subsidy.
No, I could perhaps understand them regarding it as an *unfair* subsidy
[1] but not as an *illegal* one.

If it were a small amount, but even if it could have been proved that the
Bromley ratepayers received no direct benefit (for example, suppose there were
NO L.T. services whatsoever in that Borough), I think the G.L.C. might still
have won the case since it may have been provable that Bromleians when
travelling beyond their borough boundaries derive some benefit.

However, the scheme that Ken introduced required hugely disproportionate
contributions from some boroughs (maybe the richer ones, but also those South
of the Thames without Underground services) and this led to the challenge.

I have a lot of difficulty with this "proportion" argument, though.
Something's either legal or illegal and I still can't see how a "small"
subsidy was enshrined in law as okay, while a "large" one was not.

That said, thanks for explaining the detail of the relevant act in your
other posting on this thread. I've never seen that done on this matter
in detail before and much appreciated it. I still don't think it's
right but then who am I as a mere mortal to argue with Lord Denning et
al? ;-)


[1] As you correctly point out in the following paragraph, just because
there were no Underground Services in Bromley doesn't mean that they had
no *LT* services. That said, Fares Fair should perhaps really have
applied equally to railway services, too. After all, the mode of
transport itself is irrelevant, only the service.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In article ,
says...
In article , (Rupert Goodwins) wrote:

I wonder if the last three in service will process in state to
Willesden Bus Garage past roads thronged with wellwishers and camera
crews. It worked for Concorde...

And for the trams on their way to New Cross Gate Depot in 1952.


I was there that night!!!

I have a lot of difficulty with this "proportion" argument, though.
Something's either legal or illegal and I still can't see how a "small"
subsidy was enshrined in law as okay, while a "large" one was not.

The real point, Ian, was that this was an overtly political act (a "small
subsidy would have gone largely unnoticed) and that's why Conservative Bromley
challenged it.

That said, thanks for explaining the detail of the relevant act in your
other posting on this thread. I've never seen that done on this matter
in detail before and much appreciated it. I still don't think it's
right but then who am I as a mere mortal to argue with Lord Denning et
al? ;-)

Thanks for your compliment.

I treasure a moment when, around 1986, Ken was invited to speak after dinner at
my Inn, when amongst those in the audience were several of the Judges who had
judged against him. Ken unwisely started on some class war nonsense about upper
class judges being against him and the working classes, and one Judge got up
and rebuked him thus: " I went to my local council primary school, won a
scholarship to my local garmmar school, I served my country in the War, rising
to the grand rank of sergeant major, read for the Bar whilst a P.O.W., then
did pupillage where I was earning a Guinea a week doing traffic accident cases,
then worked my way up and used the bus and tube every day of my working life
and still do when sitting in London". Ken's embarrassment was a picture!

Marc.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:44:56 +0000, K wrote:

They're *far* more comfotable than later buses, and give a much
smother ride. (unless they just have better drivers)

Lower acceleration, probably. Don't know about smoother - except for
the few that've been refurbished with a modern drivetrain, most
shudder like anything and jerk badly on changing gear.

Most other places with mostly off-bus ticketing allow for buying a
ticket on board as well.

True - while others board at the rear, people can pay at the front -
in Hamburg, a wide range of tickets is available and doesn't cause a
lot of delay.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:56:34 GMT, Rupert Goodwins
wrote:



I wonder if the last three in service will process in state to
Willesden Bus Garage past roads thronged with wellwishers and camera
crews. It worked for Concorde...

R
Would you get J.Clarkson and J .Collins to travel on a Routemaster
even if it had just crossed the Atlantic at mach2?
G.Harman

In article , g.harman
writes
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:56:34 GMT, Rupert Goodwins
wrote:



I wonder if the last three in service will process in state to
Willesden Bus Garage past roads thronged with wellwishers and camera
crews. It worked for Concorde...

R
Would you get J.Clarkson and J .Collins to travel on a Routemaster
even if it had just crossed the Atlantic at mach2?

No. That's another reason why I like the RM.......

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk