Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The surest protection against temptation is cowardice. -- Mark Twain


aus+uk / uk.railway / Re: Falling from platforms

SubjectAuthor
* Falling from platformsLew 1
+* Falling from platformsinvalid
|`* Falling from platformsNY
| +* Falling from platformsColinR
| |`* Falling from platformsRecliner
| | `* Falling from platformsColinR
| |  `* Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| |   `- Falling from platformsColinR
| +* Falling from platformsCertes
| |+* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| ||`* Falling from platformsCertes
| || +* Falling from platformsNY
| || |`* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || | `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |  +* Falling from platformsNY
| || |  |`- Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |  `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |   `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |    `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |     `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |      `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |       `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |        `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |         `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |          `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |           `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |            +* Falling from platformsCertes
| || |            |`- Falling from platformsBob
| || |            +* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |            |`* Falling from platformsBob
| || |            | `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |            |  +* Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| || |            |  |`* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |            |  | `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |            |  |  `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |            |  |   +* Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| || |            |  |   |`* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |            |  |   | `- Falling from platformsRecliner
| || |            |  |   `- Falling from platformsBob
| || |            |  `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |            |   `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |            |    +- Falling from platformsBob
| || |            |    `* Falling from platformsCertes
| || |            |     `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |            |      `- Falling from platformsBob
| || |            `- Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || `* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| ||  `* Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| ||   +- Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| ||   `- Falling from platformsCertes
| |+- Falling from platformsNY
| |`- Falling from platformshounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
| +* Falling from platformsMarland
| |+* Falling from platformsNobody
| ||`* Falling from platformsGraeme Wall
| || `* Falling from platformsMarland
| ||  `- Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| |+* Falling from platformsGraeme Wall
| ||`* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || +- Falling from platformsSam Wilson
| || +* Falling from platformsDave Jackson
| || |`* Falling from platformsNobody
| || | `* Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| || |  +* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |  |`* Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| || |  | +* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |  | |`- Falling from platformsColinR
| || |  | +- Falling from platformsNobody
| || |  | `- Falling from platformshounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
| || |  +- Falling from platformsGraeme Wall
| || |  +* Falling from platformsMarland
| || |  |+* Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |  ||`* Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| || |  || +- Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || |  || `- Falling from platformsKen
| || |  |`- Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
| || |  `* Falling from platformsBob
| || |   +* Falling from platformsMarland
| || |   |`* Falling from platformsBob
| || |   | `- Falling from platformsMarland
| || |   `- Falling from platformsRoland Perry
| || `- Falling from platformsChristopher A. Lee
| |+* Falling from platformsColinR
| ||`* Falling from platformsSam Wilson
| || `* Falling from platformsColinR
| ||  `- Falling from platformsSam Wilson
| |`* Falling from platformsDave Jackson
| | +- Falling from platformsChristopher A. Lee
| | `- Falling from platformsMarland
| `- Falling from platformshounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
`* Falling from platformsAnna Noyd-Dryver
 +- Falling from platformsGraeme Wall
 `- Falling from platformsSam Wilson

Pages:1234
Re: Falling from platforms

<XaUAQb9C4RgiFARK@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29553&group=uk.railway#29553

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 16:36:34 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <XaUAQb9C4RgiFARK@perry.uk>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net> <t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me>
<+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk> <t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me>
<c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com> <t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me>
<jebtvmF98rrU1@mid.individual.net> <z1W5733J3MgiFAnt@perry.uk>
<t5qos1$llj$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net JhNXWfGnT+uZIrxBQZQ1vgp6CEP/3dpjn2GWyESYS4Heug6mbW
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XBpFs/powCCUNN8zzPv3cTpqxlo=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Gq5fZrx$jxmd1U9sxR62mJqoj>)
 by: Roland Perry - Sun, 15 May 2022 15:36 UTC

In message <t5qos1$llj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:40:49 on Sun, 15 May
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <jebtvmF98rrU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:03:50 on Sun, 15
>> May 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:48:03 +0100, Dave Jackson
>>>>> <dave@dave-jackson.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/05/2022 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> I can remember trolley-buses (not London) from the late 50's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I travelled on my first (and last) trolleybuses in Bournemouth,
>>>>>>early 50s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time to visit Vancouver (BC), Seattle, and San Francisco then...
>>>>>
>>>>> All three systems have bendy-trolleys too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the sole reason of the trip is to ride a trolleybus, there are several
>>>> options rather closer to home!
>>>>
>>>> (Where is the closest trolleybus system to the UK, I wonder?)
>>>>
>>>> (For the avoidance of pedantry, the three(?) museum systems in the UK are
>>>> excluded from this contest)
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that the small system in Arnhem ,Netherlands
>>> was the nearest to the UK in terms of distance. whether it is the
>>> easiest or quickest to reach would need further exploration.
>>
>> It's a little over an hour by train from Schiphol, so Geneva's trolley
>> buses would be quicker to get to.
>
>If we're assuming flying from London, I guess so (30 min longer flight but
>zero onward travel time). Geneva's trolleybuses serve the airport IIRC,

Route 10; https://goo.gl/maps/7bNQwWycsraCxFys6

>where the other likely candidates are going to be a public transport ride
>away from the airport to find them.

--
Roland Perry

Re: Falling from platforms

<4d728h1o0sl1akpr2iaregd716k9bqstpi@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29554&group=uk.railway#29554

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!M8v1kaVOglHY/Cc407tKCQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joc...@soccer.com (Nobody)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 08:48:04 -0700
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <4d728h1o0sl1akpr2iaregd716k9bqstpi@4ax.com>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net> <t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me> <+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk> <t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me> <c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com> <t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me> <1l$4v1gsBJgiFA3k@perry.uk> <t5q4j1$ube$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="20493"; posting-host="M8v1kaVOglHY/Cc407tKCQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Nobody - Sun, 15 May 2022 15:48 UTC

On Sun, 15 May 2022 05:54:41 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>
><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus_usage_by_country> has a list by
>European country; Arnhem seems to be closest, followed by uk.r favourite
>outlier, Bergen.

That came as a surprise a few years back during a rail-tour of Sweden
and Norway. It seemed to be just a single route, rather than the
likes of Vancouver with 13 and a maze of wiring on downtown streets.

Re: Falling from platforms

<t5rnpt$raa$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29556&group=uk.railway#29556

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ukr...@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk (Sam Wilson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 20:28:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <t5rnpt$raa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5o572$u7p$1@dont-email.me>
<t5o6q4$9j5$1@dont-email.me>
<t5ohgi$i2d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 20:28:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5b49e6e393ea909e1b83ec006a76807b";
logging-data="27978"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NG6ROodnuUAI8vJDvd0Je"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:c7H3v+DhPtY3yt+WsHFXsSx4NTA=
sha1:oIURpr6XIF1YJtdp8jYpZ+Lnr9Y=
 by: Sam Wilson - Sun, 15 May 2022 20:28 UTC

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/05/2022 13:20, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2022 22:59, Marland wrote:
>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "invalid" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>>>> On 13/05/2022 15:38, Lew 1 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some harrowing stories in this article:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-61394882
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Particularly the BBC Correspondent’s experience with the island platform
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the tube… presumably one of the infamous Clapham stations…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lew
>>>>>> Or The Angel before it was rebuilt, that platform was a nightmare.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never actually used Angel while it had the island platform, but from
>>>>> photos of it, it looked as if it was an accident waiting to happen - either
>>>>> for blind people doing what the correspondent did (he walked a few steps
>>>>> away from the train, expecting to encounter the tunnel wall to use as a
>>>>> reference), or for sighted people when there was a very large crowd on the
>>>>> platform and a train arrives, disgorges its passengers and everyone backs
>>>>> away to make room for them...
>>>>>
>>>>> I imagine nowadays there are standard for the minimum permissible width of
>>>>> an island platform.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m old enough* to have ridden on the Glasgow Subway before it closed for
>>>> rebuilding in 1977,
>>>> most if not all platforms were similar in being fairly narrow Island.
>>>> platforms. How did people in those days cope or were such casualties just
>>>> accepted ?
>>>> Though I have traveled on it since I cannot recall if all of the Island.
>>>> platforms were replaced in the rebuilding or if some remain .
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> See Recliner's post above 13th May 2239hrs.
>>>
>>> Same narrow platforms, but with PEDs.
>>
>> Some of the stations have an island platform and one side platform, so the
>> island is used for one direction and the side platform for the other. The
>> island platform is fenced on the offside. Hillhead and Buchanan St are
>> like that; I’m simply ignorant of whether others are too.
>>
>> <https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/06/61/90/6619091_773e06cd_original.jpg>
>> <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_oDU94RChf8/maxresdefault.jpg>
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> These photos shows Cowcaddens as I recall it. May have changed since? I
> do also recall that some stations had a side platform, but most just a
> single island platform.
> https://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/77/04/770456_a01b40e4.jpg
> https://alchetron.com/cdn/cowcaddens-subway-station-8e16e7d8-0811-4ece-8d3b-32346fd12ab-resize-750.jpg
>
> And St George's Cross:
> http://glasgowsubwaystories.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/wpid-st_georges_vista.jpeg
>
> And Kelvinbridge:
> https://www.thefis.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Carter-Ceilings-Kelvinbridge-Subway-Station-4-980x959.jpg

Thanks. I’m not sure I’ve ever been to Cowcaddens so I can’t say how it’s
laid out.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Re: Falling from platforms

<ba348hp9qna6rdbr4k8mq13itb57dm8o2n@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29562&group=uk.railway#29562

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!fx05.ams1.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ken...@birchanger.com (Ken)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Message-ID: <ba348hp9qna6rdbr4k8mq13itb57dm8o2n@4ax.com>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net> <t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me> <+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk> <t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me> <c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com> <t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me> <jebtvmF98rrU1@mid.individual.net> <z1W5733J3MgiFAnt@perry.uk> <t5qos1$llj$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 09:38:27 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2896
 by: Ken - Mon, 16 May 2022 08:38 UTC

On Sun, 15 May 2022 11:40:49 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <jebtvmF98rrU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:03:50 on Sun, 15
>> May 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:48:03 +0100, Dave Jackson
>>>>> <dave@dave-jackson.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/05/2022 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> I can remember trolley-buses (not London) from the late 50's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I travelled on my first (and last) trolleybuses in Bournemouth, early 50s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time to visit Vancouver (BC), Seattle, and San Francisco then...
>>>>>
>>>>> All three systems have bendy-trolleys too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the sole reason of the trip is to ride a trolleybus, there are several
>>>> options rather closer to home!
>>>>
>>>> (Where is the closest trolleybus system to the UK, I wonder?)
>>>>
>>>> (For the avoidance of pedantry, the three(?) museum systems in the UK are
>>>> excluded from this contest)
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that the small system in Arnhem ,Netherlands
>>> was the nearest to the UK in terms of distance. whether it is the
>>> easiest or quickest to reach would need further exploration.
>>
>> It's a little over an hour by train from Schiphol, so Geneva's trolley
>> buses would be quicker to get to.
>>
>
>If we're assuming flying from London, I guess so (30 min longer flight but
>zero onward travel time). Geneva's trolleybuses serve the airport IIRC,
>where the other likely candidates are going to be a public transport ride
>away from the airport to find them.
>
>
When I visited not that long ago Salzburg's bus link to the town
centre was a trolleybus.

>Anna Noyd-Dryver

Re: Falling from platforms

<t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29563&group=uk.railway#29563

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 10:50:18 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk> <t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me> <k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8c0aa5cfd06fac2bb8d94fa8090daae9";
logging-data="32718"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199betLPxjtAPaq9re1JwDWnXZKYG3ztjA="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VBxi2dk529kurrwkcxEfYMWxhz4=
 by: Bob - Mon, 16 May 2022 08:50 UTC

On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14 May
> 2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...
>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They never
>>> would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure if they had a
>>> Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on receiving their 50p.
>>
>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who loses if
>> a passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to Waterloo decides to
>> break their journey at an intermediate station to do some sight-seeing
>> or shopping, and then resumes their terminus-to-terminus journey from
>> the same or another station?
>
> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.
>
>> Similarly for Network Rail where you are not (if the gripper is being
>> awkward) allowed to leave and re-enter a station along the journey for
>> which you hold a ticket. It is not depriving the rail company of a fare
>> - though it *is* depriving them of the ability to charge you *extra* ;-)
>
> That one's not primarily to prevent people ravelling through from
> having an excursion outside, but to close various fares loopholes if
> you allow people to start/resume a journey other than at one of the
> ticketed end-stations. Although they are more relaxed about this now,
> and most tickets officially permitted to have a 'Break of Journey'.

According to the rules, making use of station facilities does not
constitute a break of journey, and the rules do not distinguish between
whether those facilities are inside or outside of a gate line. Of
course convincing recalcitrant gate line staff of that is not trivial.

On a side note, I have noticed that the gates at St Pancras Kent
platforms seem to have a somewhat more restricted interpretation of
what tickets are and are not valid than the actual rules, and on two
occasions I have had gateline staff tell me a ticket was not valid when
it was (when I replied, "yes it is" when they told me it was not valid,
they didn't put up a fight and just let me through). I found it
particularly odd that a London International CIV ticket was rejected
there, as the whole pont of that ticket is to get to Eurostar.

Robin

Re: Falling from platforms

<t5t3mu$36p$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29564&group=uk.railway#29564

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 10:58:06 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <t5t3mu$36p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net> <t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me> <+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk> <t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me> <c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com> <t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8c0aa5cfd06fac2bb8d94fa8090daae9";
logging-data="3289"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+d80J3UjphH18hLvhOVlrm/VeWCmA9mmA="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BVMVSuSlaf8cUPRJneY6JMSloWI=
 by: Bob - Mon, 16 May 2022 08:58 UTC

On 2022-05-15 01:32:19 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:48:03 +0100, Dave Jackson
>> <dave@dave-jackson.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/05/2022 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> I can remember trolley-buses (not London) from the late 50's.
>>>
>>> I travelled on my first (and last) trolleybuses in Bournemouth, early 50s.
>>
>> Time to visit Vancouver (BC), Seattle, and San Francisco then...
>>
>> All three systems have bendy-trolleys too.
>>
>
> If the sole reason of the trip is to ride a trolleybus, there are several
> options rather closer to home!
>
> (Where is the closest trolleybus system to the UK, I wonder?)
>
> (For the avoidance of pedantry, the three(?) museum systems in the UK are
> excluded from this contest)

I'd guess either Limoges or Arnhem, not sure which is actually closer.
Ghent had them until relatively recently (wikipedia suggests 2009).

Robin

Re: Falling from platforms

<t5t45t$6o4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29565&group=uk.railway#29565

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@privacy.invalid (NY)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 10:05:56 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <t5t45t$6o4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk> <t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me> <k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 09:06:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="af22e9ce7fa2769d5d6e06aa1a5368c0";
logging-data="6916"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ZE7JbWhY9m9k4LRvPoygMyC1n8Lk5VFM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G5sGUGArHhYeaOeDZ/xh6BYkufE=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
In-Reply-To: <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
Importance: Normal
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220515-8, 15/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: NY - Mon, 16 May 2022 09:05 UTC

"Bob" <email@domain.com> wrote in message news:t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14 May 2022,
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They never
>>>> would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure if they had
>>>> a
>>>> Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on receiving their 50p.
>>>
>>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who loses if a
>>> passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to Waterloo decides to
>>> break their journey at an intermediate station to do some sight-seeing
>>> or shopping, and then resumes their terminus-to-terminus journey from
>>> the same or another station?
>>
>> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.

How? What extra does it cost the railway company (that they have to pass the
cost onto you) if you get off a train, leave the station, return later and
continue your journey, over and above the cost of transporting you all the
way on the same train? It looks very much like "we will charge you because
we can".

Re: Falling from platforms

<jeek88Fou15U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29572&group=uk.railway#29572

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: gemeha...@btinternet.co.uk (Marland)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: 16 May 2022 09:36:08 GMT
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <jeek88Fou15U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me>
<+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk>
<t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me>
<c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com>
<t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me>
<t5t3mu$36p$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net /rrFRYShg4a9h6L6UNJqAw1VR4qnljQsTXoMNO3ZLsVvkCh9CN
Cancel-Lock: sha1:V/nIp4T8YMX0Xf6yqAbVy1wbhEs= sha1:PzgBRjpgx0oa4ebZ9AeoMrkKnqA=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
 by: Marland - Mon, 16 May 2022 09:36 UTC

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-15 01:32:19 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>
>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:48:03 +0100, Dave Jackson
>>> <dave@dave-jackson.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/05/2022 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> I can remember trolley-buses (not London) from the late 50's.
>>>>
>>>> I travelled on my first (and last) trolleybuses in Bournemouth, early 50s.
>>>
>>> Time to visit Vancouver (BC), Seattle, and San Francisco then...
>>>
>>> All three systems have bendy-trolleys too.
>>>
>>
>> If the sole reason of the trip is to ride a trolleybus, there are several
>> options rather closer to home!
>>
>> (Where is the closest trolleybus system to the UK, I wonder?)
>>
>> (For the avoidance of pedantry, the three(?) museum systems in the UK are
>> excluded from this contest)
>
>
> Ghent had them until relatively recently (wikipedia suggests 2009).
>
> Robin
>
>
That to me seemed a strange one as it was not installed until 1987 so in
terms of transport infrastructure life was almost new. Another site <
http://www.wulfrunian.net/Ghent.htm>
mentions disruptions for roadworks so that probably did not help although
it does seem a case of bad planning for a system so recently installed.

ICBW but I think it replaced a tram route but soon after trams in Ghent
after several years of decline
came into favour again with the system including the trolley bus route
expanding again, so at least it hasn’t been replaced by Diesel vehicles.
I wonder if the time of new trolleybus systems has passed with battery or
capacitor storage giving a similar vehicle without the overhead cost of
overhead wiring.
Trams where traffic can justify a system have the benefit that rails can
guide much longer vehicles and the overhead is simpler anyway, though some
hybrid systems the French seem to like can do that as well.

GH

Re: Falling from platforms

<t5t6si$qk0$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29573&group=uk.railway#29573

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 11:52:18 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <t5t6si$qk0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net> <t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me> <+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk> <t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me> <c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com> <t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me> <t5t3mu$36p$1@dont-email.me> <jeek88Fou15U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8c0aa5cfd06fac2bb8d94fa8090daae9";
logging-data="27264"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2m+QSskVwcHV4LT0/PK2LI6imjI6wAbA="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DTLYOZ8Xledm5spYwPjLtzexr1I=
 by: Bob - Mon, 16 May 2022 09:52 UTC

On 2022-05-16 09:36:08 +0000, Marland said:

> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-05-15 01:32:19 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>
>>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:48:03 +0100, Dave Jackson
>>>> <dave@dave-jackson.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/05/2022 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> I can remember trolley-buses (not London) from the late 50's.
>>>>>
>>>>> I travelled on my first (and last) trolleybuses in Bournemouth, early 50s.
>>>>
>>>> Time to visit Vancouver (BC), Seattle, and San Francisco then...
>>>>
>>>> All three systems have bendy-trolleys too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the sole reason of the trip is to ride a trolleybus, there are several
>>> options rather closer to home!
>>>
>>> (Where is the closest trolleybus system to the UK, I wonder?)
>>>
>>> (For the avoidance of pedantry, the three(?) museum systems in the UK are
>>> excluded from this contest)
>>
>>
>> Ghent had them until relatively recently (wikipedia suggests 2009).
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
> That to me seemed a strange one as it was not installed until 1987 so in
> terms of transport infrastructure life was almost new. Another site <
> http://www.wulfrunian.net/Ghent.htm>

That site looks like it's straight out of 1998, though it claims to
have been updated in 2014.

> mentions disruptions for roadworks so that probably did not help although
> it does seem a case of bad planning for a system so recently installed.
>
> ICBW but I think it replaced a tram route but soon after trams in Ghent
> after several years of decline
> came into favour again with the system including the trolley bus route
> expanding again, so at least it hasn’t been replaced by Diesel vehicles.
> I wonder if the time of new trolleybus systems has passed with battery or
> capacitor storage giving a similar vehicle without the overhead cost of
> overhead wiring.
> Trams where traffic can justify a system have the benefit that rails can
> guide much longer vehicles and the overhead is simpler anyway, though some
> hybrid systems the French seem to like can do that as well.

The French managed to create a technology with all of the drawbacks of
both trams and trolleybuses and the benefits of neither.

I have always been of the view that trolleybuses fill a niche that is
too close to trams in terms of infrastructure cost and too close to
normal buses in terms of capacity, so don't really fit well anywhere.
The niche that trolleybuses now offer to fill is as a means to allow
for on-the-fly recharging of batteries for electric buses. Rather than
buses needing to park to recharge, if enough of the route is wired,
they can effectively keep the batteris always topped up. Zürich has
extended several of its trolleybus routes with battery hybrids so that
the routes can serve off-wire locations.

Robin

Re: Falling from platforms

<Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29574&group=uk.railway#29574

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 10:57:46 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk>
<t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>
<k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net aLe3jyJQpvU5qwbQOX+UswAs/zJoDxotTEiK3JvCGlplAMlTX7
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zuhY0neddrN5915NwibcBJY5c58=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5xr5fFt1$jhSR1U9PhU62mVtuB>)
 by: Roland Perry - Mon, 16 May 2022 09:57 UTC

In message <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:18 on Mon, 16 May
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14 May
>>2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They never
>>>> would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure if they had a
>>>> Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on receiving their 50p.

>>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who loses
>>>if a passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to Waterloo
>>>decides to break their journey at an intermediate station to do some
>>>sight-seeing or shopping, and then resumes their
>>>terminus-to-terminus journey from the same or another station?

>> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.
>>
>>> Similarly for Network Rail where you are not (if the gripper is
>>>being awkward) allowed to leave and re-enter a station along the
>>>journey for which you hold a ticket. It is not depriving the rail
>>>company of a fare - though it *is* depriving them of the ability to
>>>charge you *extra* ;-)

>> That one's not primarily to prevent people ravelling through from
>>having an excursion outside, but to close various fares loopholes if
>>you allow people to start/resume a journey other than at one of the
>>ticketed end-stations. Although they are more relaxed about this now,
>>and most tickets officially permitted to have a 'Break of Journey'.
>
>According to the rules, making use of station facilities does not
>constitute a break of journey, and the rules do not distinguish between
>whether those facilities are inside or outside of a gate line. Of
>course convincing recalcitrant gate line staff of that is not trivial.

Indeed (on both counts). And there's also a discernible trend to move
on-platform catering to landside. And also remove dual-facing catering.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in that regard at my station,
which is currently having barriers fitted, but one of the "buffets" has
doors both ways.

And the other side of the coin is that one of my main reasons for
visiting the station is to buy magazines from the on-platform buffet, so
I'll be interested in what platform-ticket options are available.

>On a side note, I have noticed that the gates at St Pancras Kent
>platforms seem to have a somewhat more restricted interpretation of
>what tickets are and are not valid than the actual rules, and on two
>occasions I have had gateline staff tell me a ticket was not valid when
>it was (when I replied, "yes it is" when they told me it was not valid,
>they didn't put up a fight and just let me through).

I get that every time in the early evening at Kings Cross with an
off-peak day return (which *are* valid, where the off-peak SVR isn't -
go figure).

> I found it particularly odd that a London International CIV ticket was
>rejected there, as the whole pont of that ticket is to get to Eurostar.

Looking at tickets from Ramsgate, we have:

Plus HighSpeed
Not HS1
Not via Ashford,

and "Any Permitted", for the CIV ticket.

Presumably the gate|staff are only trained to look for the first?
--
Roland Perry

Re: Falling from platforms

<xiyJ++QaHigiFAHv@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29576&group=uk.railway#29576

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 11:05:14 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <xiyJ++QaHigiFAHv@perry.uk>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net> <t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me>
<+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk> <t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me>
<c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com> <t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me>
<t5t3mu$36p$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net KraHLiLCCjXR4oDUvuQnbQkZsGH/+4tvUkRhdcVgdSsUHS1KEb
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A3U4/SZeSdTCr+MtW7hqk6/xx7Q=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Rm5fFb1$jxxR1U9dxW62mVbUT>)
 by: Roland Perry - Mon, 16 May 2022 10:05 UTC

In message <t5t3mu$36p$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:58:06 on Mon, 16 May
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-05-15 01:32:19 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>
>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:48:03 +0100, Dave Jackson
>>> <dave@dave-jackson.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/05/2022 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> I can remember trolley-buses (not London) from the late 50's.
>>>> I travelled on my first (and last) trolleybuses in Bournemouth,
>>>>early 50s.

>>> Time to visit Vancouver (BC), Seattle, and San Francisco then...
>>> All three systems have bendy-trolleys too.
>>>
>> If the sole reason of the trip is to ride a trolleybus, there are
>>several options rather closer to home!

>> (Where is the closest trolleybus system to the UK, I wonder?) (For
>>the avoidance of pedantry, the three(?) museum systems in the UK are
>>excluded from this contest)
>
>I'd guess either Limoges or Arnhem, not sure which is actually closer.

Crows fly from London, Limoges is over twice as far.

>Ghent had them until relatively recently (wikipedia suggests 2009).

--
Roland Perry

Re: Falling from platforms

<8CvKmFQsEigiFAkk@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29577&group=uk.railway#29577

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 11:02:20 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <8CvKmFQsEigiFAkk@perry.uk>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk>
<t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>
<k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
<t5t45t$6o4$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net e39t/xRdrMQys61hEEqsDQipQrYhBvw3wR/374GsJTT1cSFL7H
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GZeYVz7GqMK07u3OEID2zc5Lxnk=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5xj5fFN1$jhQR1U9PhW62mVNOF>)
 by: Roland Perry - Mon, 16 May 2022 10:02 UTC

In message <t5t45t$6o4$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:56 on Mon, 16 May
2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>"Bob" <email@domain.com> wrote in message news:t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14 May
>>>2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...

>>>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They
>>>>>never would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure
>>>>>if they had a Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on
>>>>>receiving their 50p.
>>>>
>>>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who loses
>>>>if a passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to Waterloo
>>>>decides to break their journey at an intermediate station to do
>>>>some sight-seeing or shopping, and then resumes their
>>>>terminus-to-terminus journey from the same or another station?
>>>
>>> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.
>
>How? What extra does it cost the railway company (that they have to
>pass the cost onto you) if you get off a train, leave the station,
>return later and continue your journey, over and above the cost of
>transporting you all the way on the same train? It looks very much like
>"we will charge you because we can".

Pricing in very many industries isn't "cost-plus", it's "what the market
will stand". That's basic economics.

Meanwhile, the re-entering check would need to be implemented *only* at
gates plausibly en-route for a Maltese Cross, otherwise people could
enter way off-piste and get a 'free' trip all the way from Z6 to their
terminal station. Plausibly, the gates aren't that micro-programmable
(not least because the magstripe doesn't contain a huge amount of data).
--
Roland Perry

Re: Falling from platforms

<t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29580&group=uk.railway#29580

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 12:41:46 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk> <t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me> <k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me> <Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8c0aa5cfd06fac2bb8d94fa8090daae9";
logging-data="4167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ReJDk2xkyeJ2DCwVoL1MVCVKmpnpM9e4="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rnVIH2eQy0YQN6VxjnC1IjfdChU=
 by: Bob - Mon, 16 May 2022 10:41 UTC

On 2022-05-16 09:57:46 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:18 on Mon, 16 May
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14 May
>>> 2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They never
>>>>> would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure if they had a
>>>>> Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on receiving their 50p.
>
>>>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who loses if
>>>> a passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to Waterloo decides to
>>>> break their journey at an intermediate station to do some sight-seeing
>>>> or shopping, and then resumes their terminus-to-terminus journey from
>>>> the same or another station?
>
>>> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.
>>>
>>>> Similarly for Network Rail where you are not (if the gripper is being
>>>> awkward) allowed to leave and re-enter a station along the journey for
>>>> which you hold a ticket. It is not depriving the rail company of a fare
>>>> - though it *is* depriving them of the ability to charge you *extra*
>>>> ;-)
>
>>> That one's not primarily to prevent people ravelling through from
>>> having an excursion outside, but to close various fares loopholes if
>>> you allow people to start/resume a journey other than at one of the
>>> ticketed end-stations. Although they are more relaxed about this now,
>>> and most tickets officially permitted to have a 'Break of Journey'.
>>
>> According to the rules, making use of station facilities does not
>> constitute a break of journey, and the rules do not distinguish between
>> whether those facilities are inside or outside of a gate line. Of
>> course convincing recalcitrant gate line staff of that is not trivial.
>
> Indeed (on both counts). And there's also a discernible trend to move
> on-platform catering to landside. And also remove dual-facing catering.
> It'll be interesting to see what happens in that regard at my station,
> which is currently having barriers fitted, but one of the "buffets" has
> doors both ways.
>
> And the other side of the coin is that one of my main reasons for
> visiting the station is to buy magazines from the on-platform buffet,
> so I'll be interested in what platform-ticket options are available.
>
>> On a side note, I have noticed that the gates at St Pancras Kent
>> platforms seem to have a somewhat more restricted interpretation of
>> what tickets are and are not valid than the actual rules, and on two
>> occasions I have had gateline staff tell me a ticket was not valid when
>> it was (when I replied, "yes it is" when they told me it was not valid,
>> they didn't put up a fight and just let me through).
>
> I get that every time in the early evening at Kings Cross with an
> off-peak day return (which *are* valid, where the off-peak SVR isn't -
> go figure).
>
>> I found it particularly odd that a London International CIV ticket was
>> rejected there, as the whole pont of that ticket is to get to Eurostar.
>
> Looking at tickets from Ramsgate, we have:
>
> Plus HighSpeed
> Not HS1
> Not via Ashford,

Is there any indication of what "not Ashford" does include? For example
one might travel to Faversham and pick up a Faversham-Gravesend-St
Pancras train, which entirely avoids Ashford.

> and "Any Permitted", for the CIV ticket.
>
> Presumably the gate|staff are only trained to look for the first?

My guess is the staff are trained to reject any ticket with a route
other than "Any Permitted". I travelled once fom Kent to Worcestershire
on a ticket that was routed "not Birmingham", and I went via the GW.
The barrier rejected it and the gate staff told me it was not valid. I
had specifically checked, and the routign guide made no mention of that
ticket having any route restrictions between Kent and London.

In the case of the CIV, I assume it was because I was travelling during
what would normally be peak hours, but the validity of the CIV tickets
means you can do that on those tickets. In that instance, the gate
staff did not challenge the validity of the ticket.

Robin

Re: Falling from platforms

<Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29582&group=uk.railway#29582

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 12:29:38 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk>
<t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>
<k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
<Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net xFmatUmsJYkgtBVF4oJZwg9yR/jXeo4GsXYbkqhiPu+TBDdWix
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7u4Al62a8+xji/z3Fd1J9Tp5s5E=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Ru5fF71$jxzR1U9dxU62mV70X>)
 by: Roland Perry - Mon, 16 May 2022 11:29 UTC

In message <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:46 on Mon, 16 May
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-05-16 09:57:46 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:18 on Mon, 16 May
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14 May
>>>>2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>>>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They never
>>>>>> would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure if they had a
>>>>>> Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on receiving their 50p.
>>
>>>>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who
>>>>>loses if a passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to
>>>>>Waterloo decides to break their journey at an intermediate
>>>>>station to do some sight-seeing or shopping, and then resumes
>>>>>their terminus-to-terminus journey from the same or another station?
>>
>>>> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.
>>>>
>>>>> Similarly for Network Rail where you are not (if the gripper is
>>>>>being awkward) allowed to leave and re-enter a station along the
>>>>>journey for which you hold a ticket. It is not depriving the rail
>>>>>company of a fare - though it *is* depriving them of the ability
>>>>>to charge you *extra* ;-)
>>
>>>> That one's not primarily to prevent people ravelling through from
>>>>having an excursion outside, but to close various fares loopholes if
>>>>you allow people to start/resume a journey other than at one of the
>>>>ticketed end-stations. Although they are more relaxed about this
>>>>now, and most tickets officially permitted to have a 'Break of Journey'.
>>> According to the rules, making use of station facilities does not
>>>constitute a break of journey, and the rules do not distinguish
>>>between whether those facilities are inside or outside of a gate
>>>line. Of course convincing recalcitrant gate line staff of that is
>>>not trivial.
>> Indeed (on both counts). And there's also a discernible trend to
>>move on-platform catering to landside. And also remove dual-facing
>>catering. It'll be interesting to see what happens in that regard at
>>my station, which is currently having barriers fitted, but one of the
>>"buffets" has doors both ways.
>> And the other side of the coin is that one of my main reasons for
>>visiting the station is to buy magazines from the on-platform buffet,
>>so I'll be interested in what platform-ticket options are available.
>>
>>> On a side note, I have noticed that the gates at St Pancras Kent
>>>platforms seem to have a somewhat more restricted interpretation of
>>>what tickets are and are not valid than the actual rules, and on two
>>>occasions I have had gateline staff tell me a ticket was not valid
>>>when it was (when I replied, "yes it is" when they told me it was
>>>not valid, they didn't put up a fight and just let me through).
>> I get that every time in the early evening at Kings Cross with an
>>off-peak day return (which *are* valid, where the off-peak SVR isn't -
>>go figure).
>>
>>> I found it particularly odd that a London International CIV ticket
>>>was rejected there, as the whole pont of that ticket is to get to
>>>Eurostar.
>> Looking at tickets from Ramsgate, we have:
>> Plus HighSpeed
>> Not HS1
>> Not via Ashford,
>
>Is there any indication of what "not Ashford" does include? For example
>one might travel to Faversham and pick up a Faversham-Gravesend-St
>Pancras train, which entirely avoids Ashford.

Via Chatham to Victoria?

>> and "Any Permitted", for the CIV ticket.
>> Presumably the gate|staff are only trained to look for the first?
>
>My guess is the staff are trained to reject any ticket with a route
>other than "Any Permitted".

On that gateline I was suggesting "any ticket other than Plus
Highspeed", because the CIV (and perhaps just the CIV) is "Any
Permitted".

>I travelled once fom Kent to Worcestershire on a ticket that was routed
>"not Birmingham", and I went via the GW. The barrier rejected it and
>the gate staff told me it was not valid. I had specifically checked,
>and the routign guide made no mention of that ticket having any route
>restrictions between Kent and London.
>
>In the case of the CIV, I assume it was because I was travelling during
>what would normally be peak hours, but the validity of the CIV tickets
>means you can do that on those tickets. In that instance, the gate
>staff did not challenge the validity of the ticket.
>
>Robin
>

--
Roland Perry

Re: Falling from platforms

<t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29587&group=uk.railway#29587

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 15:42:32 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk> <t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me> <k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me> <Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me> <Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8c0aa5cfd06fac2bb8d94fa8090daae9";
logging-data="23957"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZMqnvMa3HDLqLD3NVmcvV+4V+IZdGCLA="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mp3kcXuYcrZSPjlzcb7JzblwEVc=
 by: Bob - Mon, 16 May 2022 13:42 UTC

On 2022-05-16 11:29:38 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:46 on Mon, 16 May
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-05-16 09:57:46 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:18 on Mon, 16 May
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14 May
>>>>> 2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They never
>>>>>>> would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure if they had a
>>>>>>> Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on receiving their 50p.
>>>
>>>>>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who loses if
>>>>>> a passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to Waterloo decides
>>>>>> to break their journey at an intermediate station to do some
>>>>>> sight-seeing or shopping, and then resumes their terminus-to-terminus
>>>>>> journey from the same or another station?
>>>
>>>>> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly for Network Rail where you are not (if the gripper is being
>>>>>> awkward) allowed to leave and re-enter a station along the journey for
>>>>>> which you hold a ticket. It is not depriving the rail company of a
>>>>>> fare - though it *is* depriving them of the ability to charge you
>>>>>> *extra* ;-)
>>>
>>>>> That one's not primarily to prevent people ravelling through from
>>>>> having an excursion outside, but to close various fares loopholes if
>>>>> you allow people to start/resume a journey other than at one of the
>>>>> ticketed end-stations. Although they are more relaxed about this now,
>>>>> and most tickets officially permitted to have a 'Break of Journey'.
>>>> According to the rules, making use of station facilities does not
>>>> constitute a break of journey, and the rules do not distinguish between
>>>> whether those facilities are inside or outside of a gate line. Of
>>>> course convincing recalcitrant gate line staff of that is not trivial.
>>> Indeed (on both counts). And there's also a discernible trend to move
>>> on-platform catering to landside. And also remove dual-facing catering.
>>> It'll be interesting to see what happens in that regard at my station,
>>> which is currently having barriers fitted, but one of the "buffets"
>>> has doors both ways.
>>> And the other side of the coin is that one of my main reasons for
>>> visiting the station is to buy magazines from the on-platform buffet,
>>> so I'll be interested in what platform-ticket options are available.
>>>
>>>> On a side note, I have noticed that the gates at St Pancras Kent
>>>> platforms seem to have a somewhat more restricted interpretation of
>>>> what tickets are and are not valid than the actual rules, and on two
>>>> occasions I have had gateline staff tell me a ticket was not valid when
>>>> it was (when I replied, "yes it is" when they told me it was not
>>>> valid, they didn't put up a fight and just let me through).
>>> I get that every time in the early evening at Kings Cross with an
>>> off-peak day return (which *are* valid, where the off-peak SVR isn't -
>>> go figure).
>>>
>>>> I found it particularly odd that a London International CIV ticket was
>>>> rejected there, as the whole pont of that ticket is to get to Eurostar.
>>> Looking at tickets from Ramsgate, we have:
>>> Plus HighSpeed
>>> Not HS1
>>> Not via Ashford,
>>
>> Is there any indication of what "not Ashford" does include? For example
>> one might travel to Faversham and pick up a Faversham-Gravesend-St
>> Pancras train, which entirely avoids Ashford.
>
> Via Chatham to Victoria?
>
>>> and "Any Permitted", for the CIV ticket.
>>> Presumably the gate|staff are only trained to look for the first?
>>
>> My guess is the staff are trained to reject any ticket with a route
>> other than "Any Permitted".
>
> On that gateline I was suggesting "any ticket other than Plus
> Highspeed", because the CIV (and perhaps just the CIV) is "Any
> Permitted".

OK, I've played around with BRfares to see what route options come up
for a variety of destinations, and found the following pattern, for
stations in Kent where HS1 is a potential route.

If the destination is "London Terminals" or it is a Travelcard, the
route options are "Plus High Speed" or "Not Valid on HS1".

If the destination is Farringdon, which is the only station on the
Thameslink core that is never "London Terminals" coming from Kent, the
route is "Via City Thameslink".

If the destination is somewhere where where a normal ticket would have
the maltese cross, if it is reasonably near London, the Options are
"+Not Valid on HS1" or "+Any Permitted".

For stations further away from London, the options are "+Any Permitted"
or "+[route]" where [route] relates to the route options on the
not-Kent side of London. London International (CIV) follows this
pattern.

For stations on the Southern Region, options involving "London not
Underground" and "Not HS1 not Underground" exist, where changing at
London Bridge, Waterloo, Clapham etc. makes sense.

I don't see any case where rejecting "Any Permitted" at St Pancras
would be appropriate. I also don't really see why a "Plus High Speed"
need to exist rather than just "Any Permitted".

Robin

Re: Falling from platforms

<t5tp4s$1i1h$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29589&group=uk.railway#29589

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!j/KTFQD4LKzXEidPGBcBbg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk (hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:03:56 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t5tp4s$1i1h$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net> <t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me>
<+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk> <t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me>
<c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com> <t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me>
<1l$4v1gsBJgiFA3k@perry.uk> <t5q4j1$ube$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="51249"; posting-host="j/KTFQD4LKzXEidPGBcBbg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: hounslow3@yahoo.co.u - Mon, 16 May 2022 15:03 UTC

On 15/05/2022 06:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 01:32:19 on Sun, 15 May
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:48:03 +0100, Dave Jackson
>>>> <dave@dave-jackson.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/05/2022 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> I can remember trolley-buses (not London) from the late 50's.
>>>>>
>>>>> I travelled on my first (and last) trolleybuses in Bournemouth, early 50s.
>>>>
>>>> Time to visit Vancouver (BC), Seattle, and San Francisco then...
>>>>
>>>> All three systems have bendy-trolleys too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the sole reason of the trip is to ride a trolleybus, there are several
>>> options rather closer to home!
>>>
>>> (Where is the closest trolleybus system to the UK, I wonder?)
>>>
>>> (For the avoidance of pedantry, the three(?) museum systems in the UK are
>>> excluded from this contest)
>>
>> Not the closest, but Geneva is full of them.
>>
>> Looking it up, it could be Solingen in Germany, 250 miles as the crow
>> flies.
>
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus_usage_by_country> has a list by
> European country; Arnhem seems to be closest, followed by uk.r favourite
> outlier, Bergen.
>
> (I'm presuming straight-line distance from UK coastline, which admittedly
> is not a very useful measure in terms of 'easiest to visit'!)
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

Nantes.

Somewhere in Germany or , I'm sure.

Lublin? Vilnius? Athens?

Re: Falling from platforms

<jefc6bFte5rU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29596&group=uk.railway#29596

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: gemeha...@btinternet.co.uk (Marland)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: 16 May 2022 16:24:43 GMT
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <jefc6bFte5rU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<je82liFh6nnU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5nn6q$lb3$1@dont-email.me>
<+wKq6YKGh2fiFA+e@perry.uk>
<t5p11j$uue$2@dont-email.me>
<c4908h5nta6j699vi5tko6rrefesdcebst@4ax.com>
<t5pl73$u5e$2@dont-email.me>
<t5t3mu$36p$1@dont-email.me>
<jeek88Fou15U1@mid.individual.net>
<t5t6si$qk0$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net r9slRb7H/TEYyPm4ktir6wiO8c7ksJDK48qDoyp4DbPyCoosOZ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n78HLXjD08t5No2AorhNJn7UAAE= sha1:T2PAcGW35BwiDymyA8F4yKeqNa8=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
 by: Marland - Mon, 16 May 2022 16:24 UTC

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-16 09:36:08 +0000, Marland said:
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wonder if the time of new trolleybus systems has passed with battery or
>> capacitor storage giving a similar vehicle without the overhead cost of
>> overhead wiring.

>
>
>
> I have always been of the view that trolleybuses fill a niche that is
> too close to trams in terms of infrastructure cost and too close to
> normal buses in terms of capacity, so don't really fit well anywhere.

I don’t know what happened overseas but in the UK Trolley bus networks
were mainly tram replacement or a convenient way to extend the services of
a municipal operator into new housing estates without the extra cost of
providing rails, when this was done mainly on the 1930’s many local
authorities still operated the power stations and trolley buses could
often use power distribution infrastructure which was not as worn out as
trams and rails.
And getting on for a century later we have maybe forgotten that Diesel
engines for buses were still
quite primitive and petrol ones so trolleybuses instead of trams did have
some points in their favour.
Post WW2 it had changed , the nationalisation of electricity generation
removed the advantage of generating in house and Diesel bus had become
practical.
I think only one UK network was started post WW2 though ones already
established did continue ro add sections, as late as 1968 in the case of
Teeside.
Other towns that had considered them until WW2 intervened changed their
plans and went to motor bus instead , London whose trams should have gone a
lot earlier than they did abandoned much
further conversion and went to Motor Bus instead.
So certainly in the UK with little cheap electricity the Trolley bus has
had little going for it after WW2
apart from no fumes at point of use and only recently have most people been
bothered by that,
though trolleys were sprightly compared to motor uses they have improved
over the years.

> The niche that trolleybuses now offer to fill is as a means to allow
> for on-the-fly recharging of batteries for electric buses. Rather than
> buses needing to park to recharge, if enough of the route is wired,
> they can effectively keep the batteris always topped up.

I wonder if we will see any in the UK, at the moment the charge at the
depot mode seems to be favoured with routes planned accordingly.

GH

Re: Falling from platforms

<XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29611&group=uk.railway#29611

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 07:31:24 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk>
<t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>
<k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
<Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>
<Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk> <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net 4eobSBlbsa+/r4FRed3HjALEgZD3F9jOMu+eoHZsQNXsFWIqFg
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/tM4X/UyNjcG8/EYRqGegN9Kp0Y=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Ru5fF71$jxzR1U9dxU62mV70X>)
 by: Roland Perry - Tue, 17 May 2022 06:31 UTC

In message <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:32 on Mon, 16 May
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-05-16 11:29:38 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:46 on Mon, 16 May
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 2022-05-16 09:57:46 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:18 on Mon, 16 May
>>>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14
>>>>>>May 2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They never
>>>>>>>> would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure if
>>>>>>>>they had a
>>>>>>>> Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on receiving their 50p.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who
>>>>>>>loses if a passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to
>>>>>>>Waterloo decides to break their journey at an intermediate
>>>>>>>station to do some sight-seeing or shopping, and then resumes
>>>>>>>their terminus-to-terminus journey from the same or another station?
>>>>
>>>>>> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly for Network Rail where you are not (if the gripper is
>>>>>>>being awkward) allowed to leave and re-enter a station along
>>>>>>>the journey for which you hold a ticket. It is not depriving
>>>>>>>the rail company of a fare - though it *is* depriving them of
>>>>>>>the ability to charge you *extra* ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>> That one's not primarily to prevent people ravelling through from
>>>>>>having an excursion outside, but to close various fares loopholes
>>>>>>if you allow people to start/resume a journey other than at one
>>>>>>of the ticketed end-stations. Although they are more relaxed
>>>>>>about this now, and most tickets officially permitted to have a
>>>>>>
>>>>> According to the rules, making use of station facilities does not
>>>>>constitute a break of journey, and the rules do not distinguish
>>>>>between whether those facilities are inside or outside of a gate
>>>>>line. Of course convincing recalcitrant gate line staff of that is not trivial.
>>>> Indeed (on both counts). And there's also a discernible trend to
>>>>move on-platform catering to landside. And also remove dual-facing
>>>>catering. It'll be interesting to see what happens in that regard
>>>>at my station, which is currently having barriers fitted, but one
>>>>of the "buffets" has doors both ways.
>>>> And the other side of the coin is that one of my main reasons for
>>>>visiting the station is to buy magazines from the on-platform
>>>>buffet, so I'll be interested in what platform-ticket options are
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On a side note, I have noticed that the gates at St Pancras Kent
>>>>>platforms seem to have a somewhat more restricted interpretation of
>>>>>what tickets are and are not valid than the actual rules, and on
>>>>>two occasions I have had gateline staff tell me a ticket was not
>>>>>valid when it was (when I replied, "yes it is" when they told me
>>>>>it was not valid, they didn't put up a fight and just let me through).
>>>> I get that every time in the early evening at Kings Cross with an
>>>>off-peak day return (which *are* valid, where the off-peak SVR isn't
>>>>- go figure).
>>>>
>>>>> I found it particularly odd that a London International CIV ticket
>>>>>was rejected there, as the whole pont of that ticket is to get to
>>>>>Eurostar.
>>>> Looking at tickets from Ramsgate, we have:
>>>> Plus HighSpeed
>>>> Not HS1
>>>> Not via Ashford,
>>> Is there any indication of what "not Ashford" does include? For
>>>example one might travel to Faversham and pick up a
>>>Faversham-Gravesend-St Pancras train, which entirely avoids Ashford.
>> Via Chatham to Victoria?
>>
>>>> and "Any Permitted", for the CIV ticket.
>>>> Presumably the gate|staff are only trained to look for the first?
>>> My guess is the staff are trained to reject any ticket with a route
>>>other than "Any Permitted".
>> On that gateline I was suggesting "any ticket other than Plus
>>Highspeed", because the CIV (and perhaps just the CIV) is "Any
>>Permitted".
>
>OK, I've played around with BRfares to see what route options come up
>for a variety of destinations, and found the following pattern, for
>stations in Kent where HS1 is a potential route.
>
>If the destination is "London Terminals" or it is a Travelcard, the
>route options are "Plus High Speed" or "Not Valid on HS1".
>
>If the destination is Farringdon, which is the only station on the
>Thameslink core that is never "London Terminals" coming from Kent, the
>route is "Via City Thameslink".
>
>If the destination is somewhere where where a normal ticket would have
>the maltese cross, if it is reasonably near London, the Options are
>"+Not Valid on HS1" or "+Any Permitted".
>
>For stations further away from London, the options are "+Any Permitted"
>or "+[route]" where [route] relates to the route options on the
>not-Kent side of London. London International (CIV) follows this
>pattern.
>
>For stations on the Southern Region, options involving "London not
>Underground" and "Not HS1 not Underground" exist, where changing at
>London Bridge, Waterloo, Clapham etc. makes sense.
>
>I don't see any case where rejecting "Any Permitted" at St Pancras
>would be appropriate. I also don't really see why a "Plus High Speed"
>need to exist rather than just "Any Permitted".

My impression is that the category "Plus High Speed" was invented to
clarify that tickets from say Romford to/via London terminals could not
be used on the Stratford-StP bit of HS1 to reach Kings Cross area or
onward trains. Perhaps a simpler name than "Not via Stratford
International", which would otherwise usurp the "Any Permitted"
designation for thousands of flows.

To that extent it has cemented that section of inner-London track as an
exception to regular ticketing, just like HEx on the other side of
London.
--
Roland Perry

Re: Falling from platforms

<t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29641&group=uk.railway#29641

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 21:28:42 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk> <t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me> <k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me> <Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me> <Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk> <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me> <XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2ae9e75eb0c618794e9ae50f977abeb6";
logging-data="13184"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19c1B+m/8sLHjJEmum7zwFcH3HkQnZngb8="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GJoUphbfo7LWNaeUZ/vD0qcqA0k=
 by: Bob - Tue, 17 May 2022 19:28 UTC

On 2022-05-17 06:31:24 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:32 on Mon, 16 May
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-05-16 11:29:38 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:46 on Mon, 16 May
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-05-16 09:57:46 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:18 on Mon, 16 May
>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-15 05:18:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:16:13 on Sat, 14 May
>>>>>>> 2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>>> "Certes" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>> I do remember the insistent grippers as shown in that film. They never
>>>>>>>>> would let me out with a cross-London rail ticket (not sure if they had a
>>>>>>>>> Maltese cross in those days) but insisted on receiving their 50p.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never understood the logic of that rule being enforced. Who loses if
>>>>>>>> a passenger going from (for example) Kings Cross to Waterloo decides
>>>>>>>> to break their journey at an intermediate station to do some
>>>>>>>> sight-seeing or shopping, and then resumes their terminus-to-terminus
>>>>>>>> journey from the same or another station?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the extra opportunity comes with a cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Similarly for Network Rail where you are not (if the gripper is being
>>>>>>>> awkward) allowed to leave and re-enter a station along the journey for
>>>>>>>> which you hold a ticket. It is not depriving the rail company of a
>>>>>>>> fare - though it *is* depriving them of the ability to charge you
>>>>>>>> *extra* ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That one's not primarily to prevent people ravelling through from
>>>>>>> having an excursion outside, but to close various fares loopholes if
>>>>>>> you allow people to start/resume a journey other than at one of the
>>>>>>> ticketed end-stations. Although they are more relaxed about this now,
>>>>>>> and most tickets officially permitted to have a
>>>>>> According to the rules, making use of station facilities does not
>>>>>> constitute a break of journey, and the rules do not distinguish between
>>>>>> whether those facilities are inside or outside of a gate line. Of
>>>>>> course convincing recalcitrant gate line staff of that is not trivial.
>>>>> Indeed (on both counts). And there's also a discernible trend to move
>>>>> on-platform catering to landside. And also remove dual-facing catering.
>>>>> It'll be interesting to see what happens in that regard at my
>>>>> station, which is currently having barriers fitted, but one of the
>>>>> "buffets" has doors both ways.
>>>>> And the other side of the coin is that one of my main reasons for
>>>>> visiting the station is to buy magazines from the on-platform buffet,
>>>>> so I'll be interested in what platform-ticket options are
>>>>>
>>>>>> On a side note, I have noticed that the gates at St Pancras Kent
>>>>>> platforms seem to have a somewhat more restricted interpretation of
>>>>>> what tickets are and are not valid than the actual rules, and on two
>>>>>> occasions I have had gateline staff tell me a ticket was not valid when
>>>>>> it was (when I replied, "yes it is" when they told me it was not
>>>>>> valid, they didn't put up a fight and just let me through).
>>>>> I get that every time in the early evening at Kings Cross with an
>>>>> off-peak day return (which *are* valid, where the off-peak SVR isn't -
>>>>> go figure).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I found it particularly odd that a London International CIV ticket was
>>>>>> rejected there, as the whole pont of that ticket is to get to Eurostar.
>>>>> Looking at tickets from Ramsgate, we have:
>>>>> Plus HighSpeed
>>>>> Not HS1
>>>>> Not via Ashford,
>>>> Is there any indication of what "not Ashford" does include? For example
>>>> one might travel to Faversham and pick up a Faversham-Gravesend-St
>>>> Pancras train, which entirely avoids Ashford.
>>> Via Chatham to Victoria?
>>>
>>>>> and "Any Permitted", for the CIV ticket.
>>>>> Presumably the gate|staff are only trained to look for the first?
>>>> My guess is the staff are trained to reject any ticket with a route
>>>> other than "Any Permitted".
>>> On that gateline I was suggesting "any ticket other than Plus
>>> Highspeed", because the CIV (and perhaps just the CIV) is "Any
>>> Permitted".
>>
>> OK, I've played around with BRfares to see what route options come up
>> for a variety of destinations, and found the following pattern, for
>> stations in Kent where HS1 is a potential route.
>>
>> If the destination is "London Terminals" or it is a Travelcard, the
>> route options are "Plus High Speed" or "Not Valid on HS1".
>>
>> If the destination is Farringdon, which is the only station on the
>> Thameslink core that is never "London Terminals" coming from Kent, the
>> route is "Via City Thameslink".
>>
>> If the destination is somewhere where where a normal ticket would have
>> the maltese cross, if it is reasonably near London, the Options are
>> "+Not Valid on HS1" or "+Any Permitted".
>>
>> For stations further away from London, the options are "+Any Permitted"
>> or "+[route]" where [route] relates to the route options on the
>> not-Kent side of London. London International (CIV) follows this
>> pattern.
>>
>> For stations on the Southern Region, options involving "London not
>> Underground" and "Not HS1 not Underground" exist, where changing at
>> London Bridge, Waterloo, Clapham etc. makes sense.
>>
>> I don't see any case where rejecting "Any Permitted" at St Pancras
>> would be appropriate. I also don't really see why a "Plus High Speed"
>> need to exist rather than just "Any Permitted".
>
> My impression is that the category "Plus High Speed" was invented to
> clarify that tickets from say Romford to/via London terminals could not
> be used on the Stratford-StP bit of HS1 to reach Kings Cross area or
> onward trains. Perhaps a simpler name than "Not via Stratford
> International", which would otherwise usurp the "Any Permitted"
> designation for thousands of flows.

That's a nice idea, except none of those route designations are
actaully used on tickets from those places. Places on the GEML all
just stick to the conventional "Any Permitted" or the various route
restrictions unrelated to HS1. I don't see any route options for
tickets of that sort that make any reference to either Stratford
International or HS1, so it is not immediately clear whether that is
regarded as a permitted route or not.

Robin

Re: Falling from platforms

<C$DVp+rbEhhiFAZB@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29727&group=uk.railway#29727

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 10:42:51 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <C$DVp+rbEhhiFAZB@perry.uk>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk>
<t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>
<k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
<Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>
<Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk> <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me>
<XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk> <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net W7ny3ygmNNcCY64qV94NkATwq7eunsA+WaRqhkJAVVb7WjMMkF
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oagmbU+9cK5eivQ+g1fMgQQFq5U=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<52t5fZ9V$jhXf1U93hR62mJ1e2>)
 by: Roland Perry - Thu, 19 May 2022 09:42 UTC

In message <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:28:42 on Tue, 17 May
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>> My impression is that the category "Plus High Speed" was invented to
>>clarify that tickets from say Romford to/via London terminals could
>>not be used on the Stratford-StP bit of HS1 to reach Kings Cross area
>>or onward trains. Perhaps a simpler name than "Not via Stratford
>>International", which would otherwise usurp the "Any Permitted"
>>designation for thousands of flows.
>
>That's a nice idea, except none of those route designations are
>actaully used on tickets from those places.

None of those designations, even "Any Permitted"?

>Places on the GEML all just stick to the conventional "Any Permitted"

Ah, so they do!

>or the various route restrictions unrelated to HS1. I don't see any
>route options for tickets of that sort that make any reference to
>either Stratford International or HS1, so it is not immediately clear
>whether that is regarded as a permitted route or not.

The 'rule' is that unless they say "Plus Highspeed" they are *not*
Permitted(sic).

So the gates/grippers follow that simple training, meanwhile a very few
"Any Permitted" - such as CIV tickets from Kent - get hung out to dry.
Arguably they should be annotated "Plus High Speed", because that's what
they are.
--
Roland Perry

Re: Falling from platforms

<t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29743&group=uk.railway#29743

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 13:00:42 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk> <t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me> <k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me> <Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me> <Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk> <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me> <XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk> <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me> <C$DVp+rbEhhiFAZB@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dc5757b81b1acc0ac268bf7978598186";
logging-data="21257"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DSsQRNOgPQVHMM4Rsqlp/SF80TX0frME="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WVLxsm7qdzOHY8yYmxlESlvoB24=
 by: Bob - Thu, 19 May 2022 11:00 UTC

On 2022-05-19 09:42:51 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:28:42 on Tue, 17 May
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>
>>> My impression is that the category "Plus High Speed" was invented to
>>> clarify that tickets from say Romford to/via London terminals could not
>>> be used on the Stratford-StP bit of HS1 to reach Kings Cross area or
>>> onward trains. Perhaps a simpler name than "Not via Stratford
>>> International", which would otherwise usurp the "Any Permitted"
>>> designation for thousands of flows.
>>
>> That's a nice idea, except none of those route designations are
>> actaully used on tickets from those places.
>
> None of those designations, even "Any Permitted"?

Map HK (HS1) is not a permitted route for any stations on the GEML to
London, so Stratford International to St Pancras is never a permitted
route.

>> Places on the GEML all just stick to the conventional "Any Permitted"
>
> Ah, so they do!
>
>> or the various route restrictions unrelated to HS1. I don't see any
>> route options for tickets of that sort that make any reference to
>> either Stratford International or HS1, so it is not immediately clear
>> whether that is regarded as a permitted route or not.
>
> The 'rule' is that unless they say "Plus Highspeed" they are *not*
> Permitted(sic).
>
> So the gates/grippers follow that simple training, meanwhile a very few
> "Any Permitted" - such as CIV tickets from Kent - get hung out to dry.
> Arguably they should be annotated "Plus High Speed", because that's
> what they are.

The basic principle of routing of tickets in the UK railway network is
that permitted routes are defined by the routing guide, and a ticket is
valid via any permitted route unless it is explicitly disallowed. HS1
is in the routing guide, as map HK, and that route is permitted for
stations in Kent for which HS1 is a reasonable option, as outlined in
the routing guide. For every other line up and down the country, this
system is used. There really should be no cause for St Pancras to
Ebbsfleet to be a special snowflake deserving of special treatment.

I can understand the motivation to make it explicit to passengers from
Kent when tickets are and are not valid on HS1, because passengers are
stupid. Trained railway staff do not have this excuse. Automatic ticket
barriers able to read data stored on tickets and do computer logic
stuff with that data do not have that excuse. What I find most
objectionable, though, is that staff are telling passengers that valid
tickets are not valid. If they are not sure, they should find out, not
just automatically say no. It's not exactly hard to train people that
"if a ticket is for some longer journey beyond St Pancras, then it is
valid".

Robin

Re: Falling from platforms

<v6ROIK3TkjhiFA8J@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29749&group=uk.railway#29749

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 13:33:23 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <v6ROIK3TkjhiFA8J@perry.uk>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk>
<t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>
<k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
<Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>
<Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk> <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me>
<XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk> <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>
<C$DVp+rbEhhiFAZB@perry.uk> <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net NRflAovwex+UlJDnbaFzxAxT2CUGRyuUTC8MDcN17ig6hSQ3l0
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0wRUvyBfhaYK2QaWLXKmCW5+tck=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Rg5fFLV$jxwT1U9FxW62mVDMg>)
 by: Roland Perry - Thu, 19 May 2022 12:33 UTC

In message <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:00:42 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-05-19 09:42:51 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:28:42 on Tue, 17 May
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> My impression is that the category "Plus High Speed" was invented
>>>>to clarify that tickets from say Romford to/via London terminals
>>>>could not be used on the Stratford-StP bit of HS1 to reach Kings
>>>>Cross area or onward trains. Perhaps a simpler name than "Not via
>>>>Stratford International", which would otherwise usurp the "Any
>>>>Permitted" designation for thousands of flows.
>>> That's a nice idea, except none of those route designations are
>>>actaully used on tickets from those places.
>> None of those designations, even "Any Permitted"?
>
>Map HK (HS1) is not a permitted route for any stations on the GEML to
>London, so Stratford International to St Pancras is never a permitted
>route.
>
>>> Places on the GEML all just stick to the conventional "Any Permitted"
>> Ah, so they do!
>>
>>> or the various route restrictions unrelated to HS1. I don't see any
>>>route options for tickets of that sort that make any reference to
>>>either Stratford International or HS1, so it is not immediately clear
>>>whether that is regarded as a permitted route or not.
>> The 'rule' is that unless they say "Plus Highspeed" they are *not*
>>Permitted(sic).
>> So the gates/grippers follow that simple training, meanwhile a very
>>few "Any Permitted" - such as CIV tickets from Kent - get hung out to
>>dry. Arguably they should be annotated "Plus High Speed", because
>>that's what they are.
>
>The basic principle of routing of tickets in the UK railway network is
>that permitted routes are defined by the routing guide, and a ticket is
>valid via any permitted route unless it is explicitly disallowed. HS1
>is in the routing guide, as map HK, and that route is permitted for
>stations in Kent for which HS1 is a reasonable option, as outlined in
>the routing guide. For every other line up and down the country, this
>system is used. There really should be no cause for St Pancras to
>Ebbsfleet to be a special snowflake deserving of special treatment.

Only in the sense that a fraction of a percent of passengers with valid
tickets there [CIV from Kent] will be called "Any Permitted", and the
vast majority of tickets there [anything other than CIV from Kent]
marked "Any Permitted" won't be valid.

>I can understand the motivation to make it explicit to passengers from
>Kent when tickets are and are not valid on HS1, because passengers are
>stupid.

No they aren't. If you look at a map like "London Connections" there's
no hint that changing at Stratford (onto HS1) as a short-cut to Kings
Cross area, or beyond, wouldn't be allowed. What it needs is some kind
of concept like a diode, that says you can get on/off there if the
remainder of your trip is eastbound, but only westbound if you'd paid a
supplement.

>Trained railway staff do not have this excuse. Automatic ticket
>barriers able to read data stored on tickets and do computer logic
>stuff with that data do not have that excuse.

The problems arise because of the very limited amount of data stored on
the magstripe.

>What I find most objectionable, though, is that staff are telling
>passengers that valid tickets are not valid. If they are not sure,
>they should find out, not just automatically say no.

Good luck launching your additional training programme for minimum-wage
gateline staff (who sometimes give the impression of not speaking
English very well - that's the employer's problem though). You might be
confident you have the entire routing guide burned in your brain and can
make these judgements on the fly, but not many people can.

>It's not exactly hard to train people that "if a ticket is for some
>longer journey beyond St Pancras, then it is valid".

Except they aren't!!!!
--
Roland Perry

Re: Falling from platforms

<t65j68$m9t$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29753&group=uk.railway#29753

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 16:11:20 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <t65j68$m9t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk> <t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me> <k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me> <Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me> <Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk> <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me> <XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk> <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me> <C$DVp+rbEhhiFAZB@perry.uk> <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me> <v6ROIK3TkjhiFA8J@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dc5757b81b1acc0ac268bf7978598186";
logging-data="22845"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KGZ0fXf4zKGm3RqHb1IxPeEe1Ov1iBcc="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VHSfXGF76aTRco14tfpudz3jiLQ=
 by: Bob - Thu, 19 May 2022 14:11 UTC

On 2022-05-19 12:33:23 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:00:42 on Thu, 19 May
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-05-19 09:42:51 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:28:42 on Tue, 17 May
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> My impression is that the category "Plus High Speed" was invented to
>>>>> clarify that tickets from say Romford to/via London terminals could not
>>>>> be used on the Stratford-StP bit of HS1 to reach Kings Cross area or
>>>>> onward trains. Perhaps a simpler name than "Not via Stratford
>>>>> International", which would otherwise usurp the "Any Permitted"
>>>>> designation for thousands of flows.
>>>> That's a nice idea, except none of those route designations are
>>>> actaully used on tickets from those places.
>>> None of those designations, even "Any Permitted"?
>>
>> Map HK (HS1) is not a permitted route for any stations on the GEML to
>> London, so Stratford International to St Pancras is never a permitted
>> route.
>>
>>>> Places on the GEML all just stick to the conventional "Any Permitted"
>>> Ah, so they do!
>>>
>>>> or the various route restrictions unrelated to HS1. I don't see any
>>>> route options for tickets of that sort that make any reference to
>>>> either Stratford International or HS1, so it is not immediately clear
>>>> whether that is regarded as a permitted route or not.
>>> The 'rule' is that unless they say "Plus Highspeed" they are *not*
>>> Permitted(sic).
>>> So the gates/grippers follow that simple training, meanwhile a very few
>>> "Any Permitted" - such as CIV tickets from Kent - get hung out to dry.
>>> Arguably they should be annotated "Plus High Speed", because that's
>>> what they are.
>>
>> The basic principle of routing of tickets in the UK railway network is
>> that permitted routes are defined by the routing guide, and a ticket is
>> valid via any permitted route unless it is explicitly disallowed. HS1
>> is in the routing guide, as map HK, and that route is permitted for
>> stations in Kent for which HS1 is a reasonable option, as outlined in
>> the routing guide. For every other line up and down the country, this
>> system is used. There really should be no cause for St Pancras to
>> Ebbsfleet to be a special snowflake deserving of special treatment.
>
> Only in the sense that a fraction of a percent of passengers with valid
> tickets there [CIV from Kent] will be called "Any Permitted", and the
> vast majority of tickets there [anything other than CIV from Kent]
> marked "Any Permitted" won't be valid.

I'll repeat what I wrote upthread, that got trimmed off:

[quote]
If the destination is somewhere where where a normal ticket would have
the maltese cross, if it is reasonably near London, the Options are
"+Not Valid on HS1" or "+Any Permitted".

For stations further away from London, the options are "+Any Permitted"
or "+[route]" where [route] relates to the route options on the
not-Kent side of London. London International (CIV) follows this
pattern.
[/quote]

Anyone travelling from Kent to any station vaguelly north or west of
the London Terminals group of stations, with a ticket that is valid on
HS1 will have it marked "Any Permitted" (or with some route that has
nothign to do with HS1). For example, a ticket from Strood to Potters
Bar that is valid on HS1 is marked "Any Permitted".

>> I can understand the motivation to make it explicit to passengers from
>> Kent when tickets are and are not valid on HS1, because passengers are
>> stupid.
>
> No they aren't. If you look at a map like "London Connections" there's
> no hint that changing at Stratford (onto HS1) as a short-cut to Kings
> Cross area, or beyond, wouldn't be allowed. What it needs is some kind
> of concept like a diode, that says you can get on/off there if the
> remainder of your trip is eastbound, but only westbound if you'd paid a
> supplement.

I'm looking at a map. I'm not clear on what route from Kent to London
might conceivably involve a change at Stratford. The only even vaguely
plausibe route would be via either Woolwich or Lewisham/Greenwich on
the DLR, but a normal railway ticket is not valid on the DLR.

>> Trained railway staff do not have this excuse. Automatic ticket
>> barriers able to read data stored on tickets and do computer logic
>> stuff with that data do not have that excuse.
>
> The problems arise because of the very limited amount of data stored on
> the magstripe.

You need origin, destination, route, peak/off peak and adult/child.
All that data is already on the magstripe. Everythign else is just
looking up a database of the routing guide.

>> What I find most objectionable, though, is that staff are telling
>> passengers that valid tickets are not valid. If they are not sure,
>> they should find out, not just automatically say no.
>
> Good luck launching your additional training programme for minimum-wage
> gateline staff (who sometimes give the impression of not speaking
> English very well - that's the employer's problem though). You might be
> confident you have the entire routing guide burned in your brain and
> can make these judgements on the fly, but not many people can.

It's litterally the job of ticket checkers on gate lines to check the
validity of tickets. If you're saying it's impossible to have humans
checking tickets, then why has the entire railway network functioned
with humans checking tickets for the better part of 200 years?

>> It's not exactly hard to train people that "if a ticket is for some
>> longer journey beyond St Pancras, then it is valid".
>
> Except they aren't!!!!

Example: Routing guide, yellow pages p1906: Strood Kent to London
Group. Permitted routes: FA, FB, FC, FH, FL, FN, FT, FV, HK, HS.
HK is St Pancras to North Kent via HS1. HS is HS1 to Kent.

Yellow pages p1910: Strood Kent to Worcester Group. Permitted routes
LONDON, FA+WX+LH, FA+WX+WR, FC+WX+LH, FC+WX+WR. The routes via FA and
FC cover certain edge cases involving changing trains in South
London/West London that avoid the London Group.

Ticket options for Strood to Worcester (either Shrub Hill or Foregate
St) come with the following route options: +Any Permitted, +Via H Wyc &
Birm, +Not Via Birmingham, +London Evesham. All of those are valid
between Strood and the London group via any permitted route, which
includes HK and HS.

Robin

Re: Falling from platforms

<t65m7c$lb1$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29755&group=uk.railway#29755

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: non...@nowhere.net (Certes)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 16:03:07 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <t65m7c$lb1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org>
<t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me>
<t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk>
<t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me>
<k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me>
<Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me>
<Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk> <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me>
<XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk> <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>
<C$DVp+rbEhhiFAZB@perry.uk> <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me>
<v6ROIK3TkjhiFA8J@perry.uk> <t65j68$m9t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 15:03:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d6bf1d34814cf7ba0f894e4575c589ff";
logging-data="21857"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/W/mh8ZSTpyIa6j80CgPVH"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:atuO4k4uljfmfjZmFLyhJdwRr58=
In-Reply-To: <t65j68$m9t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Certes - Thu, 19 May 2022 15:03 UTC

On 19/05/2022 15:11, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-05-19 12:33:23 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:00:42 on Thu, 19 May
>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 2022-05-19 09:42:51 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:28:42 on Tue, 17 May
>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> My impression is that the category "Plus High Speed" was invented
>>>>>> to clarify that tickets from say Romford to/via London terminals
>>>>>> could not   be used on the Stratford-StP bit of HS1 to reach Kings
>>>>>> Cross area or  onward trains. Perhaps a simpler name than "Not via
>>>>>> Stratford International", which would otherwise usurp the "Any
>>>>>> Permitted" designation for thousands of flows.
>>>>> That's a nice idea, except none of those route designations are
>>>>> actaully used on tickets from those places.
>>>> None of those designations, even "Any Permitted"?
>>>
>>> Map HK (HS1) is not a permitted route for any stations on the GEML to
>>> London, so Stratford International to St Pancras is never a permitted
>>> route.
>>>
>>>>> Places on the GEML all just stick to the conventional "Any Permitted"
>>>> Ah, so they do!
>>>>
>>>>> or the various route restrictions unrelated to HS1. I don't see any
>>>>> route options for tickets of that sort that make any reference to
>>>>> either Stratford International or HS1, so it is not immediately
>>>>> clear whether that is regarded as a permitted route or not.
>>>> The 'rule' is that unless they say "Plus Highspeed" they are *not*
>>>> Permitted(sic).
>>>> So the gates/grippers follow that simple training, meanwhile a very
>>>> few  "Any Permitted" - such as CIV tickets from Kent - get hung out
>>>> to dry.  Arguably they should be annotated "Plus High Speed",
>>>> because that's what they are.
>>>
>>> The basic principle of routing of tickets in the UK railway network
>>> is that permitted routes are defined by the routing guide, and a
>>> ticket is valid via any permitted route unless it is explicitly
>>> disallowed.  HS1 is in the routing guide, as map HK, and that route
>>> is permitted for stations in Kent for which HS1 is a reasonable
>>> option, as outlined in the routing guide. For every other line up and
>>> down the country, this system is used. There really should be no
>>> cause for St Pancras to Ebbsfleet to be a special snowflake deserving
>>> of special treatment.
>>
>> Only in the sense that a fraction of a percent of passengers with
>> valid tickets there [CIV from Kent] will be called "Any Permitted",
>> and the vast majority of tickets there [anything other than CIV from
>> Kent] marked "Any Permitted" won't be valid.
>
> I'll repeat what I wrote upthread, that got trimmed off:
>
> [quote]
> If the destination is somewhere where where a normal ticket would have
> the maltese cross, if it is reasonably near London, the Options are
> "+Not Valid on HS1" or "+Any Permitted".
>
> For stations further away from London, the options are "+Any Permitted"
> or "+[route]" where [route] relates to the route options on the not-Kent
> side of London.  London International (CIV) follows this pattern.
> [/quote]
>
> Anyone travelling from Kent to any station vaguelly north or west of the
> London Terminals group of stations, with a ticket that is valid on HS1
> will have it marked "Any Permitted" (or with some route that has nothign
> to do with HS1).  For example, a ticket from Strood to Potters Bar that
> is valid on HS1 is marked "Any Permitted".
>
>>> I can understand the motivation to make it explicit to passengers
>>> from Kent when tickets are and are not valid on HS1, because
>>> passengers are stupid.
>>
>> No they aren't. If you look at a map like "London Connections" there's
>> no hint that changing at Stratford (onto HS1) as a short-cut to Kings
>> Cross area, or beyond, wouldn't be allowed. What it needs is some kind
>> of concept like a diode, that says you can get on/off there if the
>> remainder of your trip is eastbound, but only westbound if you'd paid
>> a supplement.
>
> I'm looking at a map.  I'm not clear on what route from Kent to London
> might conceivably involve a change at Stratford. The only even vaguely
> plausibe route would be via either Woolwich or Lewisham/Greenwich on the
> DLR, but a normal railway ticket is not valid on the DLR.
>
>>> Trained railway staff do not have this excuse. Automatic ticket
>>> barriers able to read data stored on tickets and do computer logic
>>> stuff with that data do not have that excuse.
>>
>> The problems arise because of the very limited amount of data stored
>> on the magstripe.
>
> You need origin, destination, route, peak/off peak and adult/child. All
> that data is already on the magstripe.  Everythign else is just looking
> up a database of the routing guide.
>
>>> What I find most objectionable, though, is that staff are telling
>>> passengers that valid tickets are not valid.  If they are not sure,
>>> they should find out, not just automatically say no.
>>
>> Good luck launching your additional training programme for
>> minimum-wage gateline staff (who sometimes give the impression of not
>> speaking English very well - that's the employer's problem though).
>> You might be confident you have the entire routing guide burned in
>> your brain and can make these judgements on the fly, but not many
>> people can.
>
> It's litterally the job of ticket checkers on gate lines to check the
> validity of tickets. If you're saying it's impossible to have humans
> checking tickets, then why has the entire railway network functioned
> with humans checking tickets for the better part of 200 years?
>
>>> It's not exactly hard to train people that "if a ticket is for some
>>> longer journey beyond St Pancras, then it is valid".
>>
>> Except they aren't!!!!
>
> Example:  Routing guide, yellow pages p1906: Strood Kent to London
> Group. Permitted routes: FA, FB, FC, FH, FL, FN, FT, FV, HK, HS.
> HK is St Pancras to North Kent via HS1. HS is HS1 to Kent.
>
> Yellow pages p1910: Strood Kent to Worcester Group. Permitted routes
> LONDON, FA+WX+LH, FA+WX+WR, FC+WX+LH, FC+WX+WR.  The routes via FA and
> FC cover certain edge cases involving changing trains in South
> London/West London that avoid the London Group.
>
> Ticket options for Strood to Worcester (either Shrub Hill or Foregate
> St) come with the following route options: +Any Permitted, +Via H Wyc &
> Birm, +Not Via Birmingham, +London Evesham.  All of those are valid
> between Strood and the London group via any permitted route, which
> includes HK and HS.

So in summary, a ticket from K to N is valid on HS1 if:
1. "Any Permitted" tickets from K to London are valid on HS1, and
2. K to N has a permitted route LONDON (and possibly other routes), and
3. The ticket doesn't say it's not valid on HS1
Typically (perhaps always), K will be in Kent, and N won't.

Re: Falling from platforms

<t65miu$t39$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29757&group=uk.railway#29757

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Falling from platforms
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 17:09:18 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <t65miu$t39$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1044009485.674145331.003604.email-nowhere.com@web.aioe.org> <t5m2hq$iae$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5mh65$kks$1@dont-email.me> <t5mj1h$19m$1@dont-email.me> <GQOkydFUo1fiFAri@perry.uk> <t5p585$tk1$1@dont-email.me> <t5p675$4ri$1@dont-email.me> <k7nconeN0IgiFAET@perry.uk> <t5t38a$vue$1@dont-email.me> <Bly1$iPaAigiFAhq@perry.uk> <t5t9pa$427$1@dont-email.me> <Vi8AepXiWjgiFAzd@perry.uk> <t5tkcb$ncl$1@dont-email.me> <XZbwgom8E0giFAB5@perry.uk> <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me> <C$DVp+rbEhhiFAZB@perry.uk> <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me> <v6ROIK3TkjhiFA8J@perry.uk> <t65j68$m9t$1@dont-email.me> <t65m7c$lb1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dc5757b81b1acc0ac268bf7978598186";
logging-data="29801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kxolJj4BcVvgTWYLPOnUOR6/Hd0bR+Nc="
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Eoraep/cudGnl64DK8LXDM21dPM=
 by: Bob - Thu, 19 May 2022 15:09 UTC

On 2022-05-19 15:03:07 +0000, Certes said:

> On 19/05/2022 15:11, Bob wrote:
>> On 2022-05-19 12:33:23 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <t6580v$ko9$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:00:42 on Thu, 19 May
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-05-19 09:42:51 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <t60t1c$cs0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:28:42 on Tue, 17 May
>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My impression is that the category "Plus High Speed" was invented to
>>>>>>> clarify that tickets from say Romford to/via London terminals could not
>>>>>>>   be used on the Stratford-StP bit of HS1 to reach Kings Cross area or
>>>>>>> onward trains. Perhaps a simpler name than "Not via Stratford
>>>>>>> International", which would otherwise usurp the "Any Permitted"
>>>>>>> designation for thousands of flows.
>>>>>> That's a nice idea, except none of those route designations are
>>>>>> actaully used on tickets from those places.
>>>>> None of those designations, even "Any Permitted"?
>>>>
>>>> Map HK (HS1) is not a permitted route for any stations on the GEML to
>>>> London, so Stratford International to St Pancras is never a permitted
>>>> route.
>>>>
>>>>>> Places on the GEML all just stick to the conventional "Any Permitted"
>>>>> Ah, so they do!
>>>>>
>>>>>> or the various route restrictions unrelated to HS1. I don't see any
>>>>>> route options for tickets of that sort that make any reference to
>>>>>> either Stratford International or HS1, so it is not immediately clear
>>>>>> whether that is regarded as a permitted route or not.
>>>>> The 'rule' is that unless they say "Plus Highspeed" they are *not*
>>>>> Permitted(sic).
>>>>> So the gates/grippers follow that simple training, meanwhile a very few
>>>>>  "Any Permitted" - such as CIV tickets from Kent - get hung out to dry.
>>>>>  Arguably they should be annotated "Plus High Speed", because that's
>>>>> what they are.
>>>>
>>>> The basic principle of routing of tickets in the UK railway network is
>>>> that permitted routes are defined by the routing guide, and a ticket is
>>>> valid via any permitted route unless it is explicitly disallowed.  HS1
>>>> is in the routing guide, as map HK, and that route is permitted for
>>>> stations in Kent for which HS1 is a reasonable option, as outlined in
>>>> the routing guide. For every other line up and down the country, this
>>>> system is used. There really should be no cause for St Pancras to
>>>> Ebbsfleet to be a special snowflake deserving of special treatment.
>>>
>>> Only in the sense that a fraction of a percent of passengers with valid
>>> tickets there [CIV from Kent] will be called "Any Permitted", and the
>>> vast majority of tickets there [anything other than CIV from Kent]
>>> marked "Any Permitted" won't be valid.
>>
>> I'll repeat what I wrote upthread, that got trimmed off:
>>
>> [quote]
>> If the destination is somewhere where where a normal ticket would have
>> the maltese cross, if it is reasonably near London, the Options are
>> "+Not Valid on HS1" or "+Any Permitted".
>>
>> For stations further away from London, the options are "+Any Permitted"
>> or "+[route]" where [route] relates to the route options on the
>> not-Kent side of London.  London International (CIV) follows this
>> pattern.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> Anyone travelling from Kent to any station vaguelly north or west of
>> the London Terminals group of stations, with a ticket that is valid on
>> HS1 will have it marked "Any Permitted" (or with some route that has
>> nothign to do with HS1).  For example, a ticket from Strood to Potters
>> Bar that is valid on HS1 is marked "Any Permitted".
>>
>>>> I can understand the motivation to make it explicit to passengers from
>>>> Kent when tickets are and are not valid on HS1, because passengers are
>>>> stupid.
>>>
>>> No they aren't. If you look at a map like "London Connections" there's
>>> no hint that changing at Stratford (onto HS1) as a short-cut to Kings
>>> Cross area, or beyond, wouldn't be allowed. What it needs is some kind
>>> of concept like a diode, that says you can get on/off there if the
>>> remainder of your trip is eastbound, but only westbound if you'd paid a
>>> supplement.
>>
>> I'm looking at a map.  I'm not clear on what route from Kent to London
>> might conceivably involve a change at Stratford. The only even vaguely
>> plausibe route would be via either Woolwich or Lewisham/Greenwich on
>> the DLR, but a normal railway ticket is not valid on the DLR.
>>
>>>> Trained railway staff do not have this excuse. Automatic ticket
>>>> barriers able to read data stored on tickets and do computer logic
>>>> stuff with that data do not have that excuse.
>>>
>>> The problems arise because of the very limited amount of data stored on
>>> the magstripe.
>>
>> You need origin, destination, route, peak/off peak and adult/child. All
>> that data is already on the magstripe.  Everythign else is just looking
>> up a database of the routing guide.
>>
>>>> What I find most objectionable, though, is that staff are telling
>>>> passengers that valid tickets are not valid.  If they are not sure,
>>>> they should find out, not just automatically say no.
>>>
>>> Good luck launching your additional training programme for minimum-wage
>>> gateline staff (who sometimes give the impression of not speaking
>>> English very well - that's the employer's problem though). You might be
>>> confident you have the entire routing guide burned in your brain and
>>> can make these judgements on the fly, but not many people can.
>>
>> It's litterally the job of ticket checkers on gate lines to check the
>> validity of tickets. If you're saying it's impossible to have humans
>> checking tickets, then why has the entire railway network functioned
>> with humans checking tickets for the better part of 200 years?
>>
>>>> It's not exactly hard to train people that "if a ticket is for some
>>>> longer journey beyond St Pancras, then it is valid".
>>>
>>> Except they aren't!!!!
>>
>> Example:  Routing guide, yellow pages p1906: Strood Kent to London
>> Group. Permitted routes: FA, FB, FC, FH, FL, FN, FT, FV, HK, HS.
>> HK is St Pancras to North Kent via HS1. HS is HS1 to Kent.
>>
>> Yellow pages p1910: Strood Kent to Worcester Group. Permitted routes
>> LONDON, FA+WX+LH, FA+WX+WR, FC+WX+LH, FC+WX+WR.  The routes via FA and
>> FC cover certain edge cases involving changing trains in South
>> London/West London that avoid the London Group.
>>
>> Ticket options for Strood to Worcester (either Shrub Hill or Foregate
>> St) come with the following route options: +Any Permitted, +Via H Wyc &
>> Birm, +Not Via Birmingham, +London Evesham.  All of those are valid
>> between Strood and the London group via any permitted route, which
>> includes HK and HS.
>
> So in summary, a ticket from K to N is valid on HS1 if:
> 1. "Any Permitted" tickets from K to London are valid on HS1, and
> 2. K to N has a permitted route LONDON (and possibly other routes), and
> 3. The ticket doesn't say it's not valid on HS1
> Typically (perhaps always), K will be in Kent, and N won't.

Yes, although for stations in K where HS1 is a permitted route to
London, tickets to "London Terminals" as well as London Travelcards
that are valid on any permitted route get printed "Plus High Speed"
instead of "Any Permitted" for reasons that are not clear.

Robin

Pages:1234
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor