On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 10:24:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <tcrs53$112fl$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:51 on Mon, 8 Aug
>2022, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2022 11:20:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> The list of criteria we started discussing was:
>>>
>>> "nearly all local registered and long-distance scheduled bus
>>> services. Only a few services, such as premium-fare night buses and
>>> City Sightseeing buses, do not accept the card."
>>>
>>> Nothing there about "bookable". Maybe the English rules are different?
>>>
>>> ... later "Excluded journeys are: long distance coach services, services
>>> with bookable seats, trams, tubes and rail travel."
>>
>>The English rules *are* different, as I've said several times. In
>>Scotland, the National Entitlement Card is valid on all buses and coaches
>>with the very few exceptions above.
>
>And ones where the next formal pick/up set-down point is in England.
>
>>In England, the equivalent pass is valid on local buses, and is *not*
>>valid on coaches.
>
>Whatever a "coach" is. (And of course whatever "local" means. We've been
>round and round this several times now.)
>
It is immaterial what a "coach" is. The matter in hand is whether or
not it is a "local bus service" as defined in e.g. the Transport Act
1985 and elsewhere, defining by the nature of the service not the
nature of the vehicle.
In past times, the only difference between a e.g. "coach" and a "bus"
with London Transport was often that the former was green and the
latter was red (apparently the difference between RF country buses and
Green Line coaches was down to whether or not they had luggage racks
but either could turn up on the same service). Elsewhere the same
vehicle might be on a (advertised as) coach service one day and a
(ditto) bus service the next.
<snip>

In message <p375fhp7b8n1c5dmlm7q5mlslreoav36fl@4ax.com>, at 19:12:28 on
Tue, 9 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 10:24:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <tcrs53$112fl$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:51 on Mon, 8 Aug
>>2022, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2022 11:20:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> The list of criteria we started discussing was:
>>>>
>>>> "nearly all local registered and long-distance scheduled bus
>>>> services. Only a few services, such as premium-fare night buses and
>>>> City Sightseeing buses, do not accept the card."
>>>>
>>>> Nothing there about "bookable". Maybe the English rules are different?
>>>>
>>>> ... later "Excluded journeys are: long distance coach services, services
>>>> with bookable seats, trams, tubes and rail travel."
>>>
>>>The English rules *are* different, as I've said several times. In
>>>Scotland, the National Entitlement Card is valid on all buses and coaches
>>>with the very few exceptions above.
>>
>>And ones where the next formal pick/up set-down point is in England.
>>
>>>In England, the equivalent pass is valid on local buses, and is *not*
>>>valid on coaches.
>>
>>Whatever a "coach" is. (And of course whatever "local" means. We've been
>>round and round this several times now.)
>>
>It is immaterial what a "coach" is. The matter in hand is whether or
>not it is a "local bus service" as defined in e.g. the Transport Act
>1985 and elsewhere, defining by the nature of the service not the
>nature of the vehicle.

The public, however, look at vehicles and say "ah - that's a bus, that's
a coach, and that's a combine harvester".

As for what "local" means, you've not yet provided an explanation which
would be familiar to the average member of the public. Most of them
might say "embarks and disembarks at a stop local to me".

--
Roland Perry

On 10/08/2022 13:02, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <p375fhp7b8n1c5dmlm7q5mlslreoav36fl@4ax.com>, at 19:12:28 on
> Tue, 9 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 10:24:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tcrs53$112fl$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:51 on Mon, 8 Aug
>>> 2022, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2022 11:20:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> The list of criteria we started discussing was:
>>>>>
>>>>>     "nearly all local registered and long-distance scheduled bus
>>>>>      services. Only a few services, such as premium-fare night
>>>>> buses and
>>>>>      City Sightseeing buses, do not accept the card."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing there about "bookable". Maybe the English rules are different?
>>>>>
>>>>> ... later "Excluded journeys are: long distance coach services,
>>>>> services
>>>>>             with bookable seats, trams, tubes and rail travel."
>>>>
>>>> The English rules *are* different, as I've said several times. In
>>>> Scotland, the National Entitlement Card is valid on all buses and
>>>> coaches
>>>> with the very few exceptions above.
>>>
>>> And ones where the next formal pick/up set-down point is in England.
>>>
>>>> In England, the equivalent pass is valid on local buses, and is *not*
>>>> valid on coaches.
>>>
>>> Whatever a "coach" is. (And of course whatever "local" means. We've been
>>> round and round this several times now.)
>>>
>> It is immaterial what a "coach" is. The matter in hand is whether or
>> not it is a "local bus service" as defined in e.g. the Transport Act
>> 1985 and elsewhere, defining by the nature of the service not the
>> nature of the vehicle.
>
> The public, however, look at vehicles and say "ah - that's a bus, that's
> a coach, and that's a combine harvester".

The question then is are bus-passes valid on combine harvesters?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/08/2022 13:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <p375fhp7b8n1c5dmlm7q5mlslreoav36fl@4ax.com>, at 19:12:28 on
>> Tue, 9 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 10:24:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <tcrs53$112fl$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:51 on Mon, 8 Aug
>>>> 2022, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2022 11:20:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> The list of criteria we started discussing was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     "nearly all local registered and long-distance scheduled bus
>>>>>>      services. Only a few services, such as premium-fare night
>>>>>> buses and
>>>>>>      City Sightseeing buses, do not accept the card."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing there about "bookable". Maybe the English rules are different?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... later "Excluded journeys are: long distance coach services,
>>>>>> services
>>>>>>             with bookable seats, trams, tubes and rail travel."
>>>>>
>>>>> The English rules *are* different, as I've said several times. In
>>>>> Scotland, the National Entitlement Card is valid on all buses and
>>>>> coaches
>>>>> with the very few exceptions above.
>>>>
>>>> And ones where the next formal pick/up set-down point is in England.
>>>>
>>>>> In England, the equivalent pass is valid on local buses, and is *not*
>>>>> valid on coaches.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever a "coach" is. (And of course whatever "local" means. We've been
>>>> round and round this several times now.)
>>>>
>>> It is immaterial what a "coach" is. The matter in hand is whether or
>>> not it is a "local bus service" as defined in e.g. the Transport Act
>>> 1985 and elsewhere, defining by the nature of the service not the
>>> nature of the vehicle.
>>
>> The public, however, look at vehicles and say "ah - that's a bus, that's
>> a coach, and that's a combine harvester".
>
> The question then is are bus-passes valid on combine harvesters?

Only if the combine harvester provides a local stage service without
advance booking.

Sam

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

In message <rfu1fhpeoi65l1g6gknpl5bu9jst3q03ai@4ax.com>, at 12:59:59 on
Mon, 8 Aug 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 12:05:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <tcdj4k$25vu5$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:37:08 on Wed, 3 Aug
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <8daieht7dmnl3beoa7ed6rk7d48b4naoc5@4ax.com>, at 14:42:20 on
>>>> Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:22:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <tcavop$1erug$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:54:18 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tcanma$1cqku$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:36:26 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/08/2022 03:33, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Where there are, they would probably be also designated for taxis
>>>>>>>>>>> anyway. Strictly buses only tends to be for against the flow
>>>>>>>>>>>bus lanes
>>>>>>>>>>> and also private roads into stations and garages where most general
>>>>>>>>>>> traffic legislation doesn't apply.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it has come with people who have used a London taxi as
>>>>>>>>>>a private
>>>>>>>>>> vehicle and claimed that being a "taxi" has given them access
>>>>>>>>>>to some of
>>>>>>>>>> these places.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The most famous owner of one was Prince Philip but others have
>>>>>>>>>>used them
>>>>>>>>>> as a private car.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, but being taxi-shaped doesn't give them taxi-privileges,
>>>>>>>>>unless they
>>>>>>>>> are available for hire and comply with all the other taxi rules
>>>>>>>>> (onerous in
>>>>>>>>> London).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it your opinion that such a taxi has to be a hackney, or does a
>>>>>>>> private hire (Uber or whatever) count, and if so does it requires a
>>>>>>>> fare paying passenger on board at the time, rather than one driving
>>>>>>>> around randomly trying to be near potential "surge pricing" customers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every reference I can find indicates that only Hackney taxis can use bus
>>>>>>> lanes. Certainly all the references to London exclude mini cabs and thus
>>>>>>> Uber. I suspect all bus lane regulations start from the same
>>>>>>>template with
>>>>>>> perhaps a bit of tailoring to suit the locality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There’s more here
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/bus-lanes-why-can-taxis-use-bus-lanes-
>>>>>>> and-what-does-the-future-hold-in-terms-of-access
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It just gets worse and worse:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For the most part, private hire vehicles (PHV) cannot access bus
>>>>>> lanes, however there are some exceptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In Coventry and Nottingham, wheelchair accessible PHVs can access
>>>>>> bus lanes. The same goes for Northern Ireland, where there are four
>>>>>> types of ‘taxi’. ‘Permitted’ taxis are allowed access
>>>>>> which refers
>>>>>> to public hire black taxis and wheelchair-accessible PHVs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>>>>>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>>>>>> terms of being a big city.
>>>>>
>>>>> You missed the implied 'some'.
>>>>
>>>> Tricky things, invisible words. Or so people keep telling me.
>>>
>>>Your 'invisible' words are usually attempts by you to reverse the meaning
>>>of one of your many incorrect statements, without admitting your error.
>>
>>Oh dear, not that zombie argument again. I won't ask you to produce an
>>example, because you've failed to do so every time previously.
>
>Don't be so silly — your attempted citations of supposedly invisible
>words to reverse the meaning of one of your frequent misstatements are
>trivially easy to spot. It would be so much easier if you simply
>admitted you were misinformed, and thanked the person who corrected
>your error. But, oh no, you have to be true to yourself, and invariably
>deny your errors.

Yes that's the false (zombie) argument.

> For example:
>
>On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:43:15 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t3pre9$qeo$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:46:01 on Wed, 20 Apr
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3pbl5$kap$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:16:37 on Wed, 20 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <bc306htbrdo5e1saafln50i4imvcusc40o@4ax.com>, at 14:49:02 on
>>>>>> Wed, 20 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:35:15 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <t3ovuf$bmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:56:47 on Wed, 20 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 13:23, Certes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Guardian reports a potential RMT ballot over Network
>>>>>>>>>>Rail’s plans to cut 2,500 maintenance jobs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/20/threat-of-
>>>>>>>>>>biggest-rai l-strike-in-modern-uk-history>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any explanation why they have 2500 too many workers in the
>>>>>>>>> first place?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A combination of historic inefficiencies, and perhaps even modern
>>>>>>>> trackwork needing less maintenance than previously. Eliminating
>>>>>>>> level crossings (annoying as it that is to road users) must also
>>>>>>>> mean less maintenance required, and what of recently completed
>>>>>>>> re-signalling such as ECML, surely that has fewer signalboxes to
>>>>>>>> maintain, and why would it be breaking down quite so soon?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the ECML resignalling is anywhere near complete
>>>>>>>yet, is it? The existing signals are still in use. But much of
>>>>>>>the work is done by contractors, not NR staff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought they'd at least started using it as far as York.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even close. ETCS will be deployed from King’s Cross to Stoke
>>>>>Tunnel, just short of Grantham. The hope is to introduce ETCS from
>>>>>Stoke Tunnel southwards by the end of Control Period 7 in 2029.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like rather more has already been done than you give them credit
>>>> for:
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Rail_Operating_Centre#Key_signallin
>>>> g_transfers>
>>>
>>>I merely pointed out that there's at least seven more years of work to do,
>>>just to fully switch over to ETCS just as far as Grantham, let alone
>>>"completed re-signalling such as ECML".
>>
>>Oh, I see, you've been over-reading the phrase "recently completed
>>re-signalling".
>
>Ah, some more of your invisible words! What you should have said, if
>you understood the actual scope of the project was: "recently NOT-
>NEARLY completed re-signalling such as ECML"
>
>> They have completed many ECML re-signalling projects, the one I had
>>in mind being the Kings Cross area (a cause of innumerable possessions
>>the last few years). Although the list above has many places where
>>signalboxes have been decommissioned.
>
>The Kings Cross resignalling is not complete yet.
>
>>Now that project (and others like it) are complete, hopefully the
>>requirement for ongoing maintenance (of trackwork like the Kings Cross
>>throat, as well as signalling) will be reduced, so they would need fewer
>>staff.
>
>Strictly speaking, the Kings Cross remodelling was nothing to do with
>the resignalling project, but it made obvious sense to do it first.