I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
a look when I'm next in the area.

<https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/video-shows-cambridge-south-railway-26730287>

It's going to be a bit more disruptive than usual, because the
site is on both the Liverpool St and Kings Cross lines, so no
trains to London on weekends that require a possession. Buses to
Royston and Bishops Stortford I suppose.
--
Roland Perry

In message <u1Zlbww3$1RkFAkt@perry.uk>, at 06:07:03 on Tue, 25 Apr 2023,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
>a look when I'm next in the area.
>
>
><https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/video-shows-cambri
>dge-south-railway-26730287>
>
>It's going to be a bit more disruptive than usual, because the
>site is on both the Liverpool St and Kings Cross lines, so no
>trains to London on weekends that require a possession. Buses to
>Royston and Bishops Stortford I suppose.

Someone's coming from London to see me this weekend, and it looked like
maybe this work had begun. But no: two separate sets of engineering
works at Shelford and Shepreth, meaning buses Royston-Cambridge and
Audley End to Cambridge North.

Roughly adding an hour to the journey time from 1:11 to 2:08, and 1:38
to 2:27 respectively. Maybe they need to buy some express buses?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
> a look when I'm next in the area.

This was about a month ago:
https://ibb.co/album/Y44p1Z

Theo

In message <Icq*N-1ez@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:35:42 on Sat,
29 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
>> a look when I'm next in the area.
>
>This was about a month ago:
>https://ibb.co/album/Y44p1Z

Thanks. Any idea who the anonymous photographer is?
--
Roland Perry

In message <XY6ohwiylJTkFAwu@perry.uk>, at 05:13:38 on Sat, 29 Apr 2023,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>In message <u1Zlbww3$1RkFAkt@perry.uk>, at 06:07:03 on Tue, 25 Apr
>2023, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
>>a look when I'm next in the area.
>>
>>
>><https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/video-shows-cambri
>>dge-south-railway-26730287>
>>
>>It's going to be a bit more disruptive than usual, because the
>>site is on both the Liverpool St and Kings Cross lines, so no
>>trains to London on weekends that require a possession. Buses to
>>Royston and Bishops Stortford I suppose.
>
>Someone's coming from London to see me this weekend, and it looked like
>maybe this work had begun. But no: two separate sets of engineering
>works at Shelford and Shepreth, meaning buses Royston-Cambridge and
>Audley End to Cambridge North.
>
>Roughly adding an hour to the journey time from 1:11 to 2:08, and 1:38
>to 2:27 respectively. Maybe they need to buy some express buses?

So my visitor arrived, one and a half minutes late despite the brand new
departures board saying the train was "on time". Turns out there's no
arrivals board at the station, and when I asked the staff they shrugged
and said "were is the train going to", to which honestly replied "I have
no idea, all I can say is its coming here from Cambridge".

My visitor is clearly not a basher, because having been on three trains
(three different TOCS) and a bus, just to get from Kings Cross, was
perceived as a disadvantage.

Ticketing note: They changed at Stevenage (LNER to Thameslink), because
that ticket was cheaper. Must have been an AP with no booking deadline.
Because it wasn't a day trip, the only alternative is an eyewateringly
expensive SVR (or given it's a bank Holiday Weekend, two Super-off-Peak
Singles is 80p cheaper than the SVR).
--
Roland Perry

In message <1ydAblQtifTkFA33@perry.uk>, at 06:12:13 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>In message <XY6ohwiylJTkFAwu@perry.uk>, at 05:13:38 on Sat, 29 Apr
>2023, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>In message <u1Zlbww3$1RkFAkt@perry.uk>, at 06:07:03 on Tue, 25 Apr
>>2023, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
>>>a look when I'm next in the area.
>>>
>>>
>>><https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/video-shows-cambri
>>>dge-south-railway-26730287>
>>>
>>>It's going to be a bit more disruptive than usual, because the
>>>site is on both the Liverpool St and Kings Cross lines, so no
>>>trains to London on weekends that require a possession. Buses to
>>>Royston and Bishops Stortford I suppose.
>>
>>Someone's coming from London to see me this weekend, and it looked
>>like maybe this work had begun. But no: two separate sets of
>>engineering works at Shelford and Shepreth, meaning buses
>>Royston-Cambridge and Audley End to Cambridge North.
>>
>>Roughly adding an hour to the journey time from 1:11 to 2:08, and 1:38
>>to 2:27 respectively. Maybe they need to buy some express buses?
>
>So my visitor

<thread convergence> who referred to an earlier leg as being on "The
Lizard Line" - on which they commute daily.

>arrived, one and a half minutes late despite the brand new departures
>board saying the train was "on time". Turns out there's no arrivals
>board at the station, and when I asked the staff they shrugged and said
>"were is the train going to",

It could of course (unless terminated short because of planned
engineering works elsewhere) be any of:

Norwich
Kings Lynn
Peterborough or
Birmingham New St

...and finally (which raises the stakes wrt absence of arrivals board):
"Terminates here".

>to which honestly replied "I have no idea, all I can say is its coming
>here from Cambridge".
>
>My visitor is clearly not a basher, because having been on three trains
>(three different TOCS) and a bus, just to get from Kings Cross, was
>perceived as a disadvantage.
>
>Ticketing note: They changed at Stevenage (LNER to Thameslink), because
>that ticket was cheaper. Must have been an AP with no booking deadline.
>Because it wasn't a day trip, the only alternative is an eyewateringly
>expensive SVR (or given it's a bank Holiday Weekend, two Super-off-Peak
>Singles is 80p cheaper than the SVR).

--
Roland Perry

On 25/04/2023 06:07, Roland Perry wrote:
> I

FFS, a thread with 6 posts in it and 5 of them are from you.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <Icq*N-1ez@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:35:42 on Sat,
> 29 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> >> I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
> >> a look when I'm next in the area.
> >
> >This was about a month ago:
> >https://ibb.co/album/Y44p1Z
>
> Thanks. Any idea who the anonymous photographer is?

I can neither confirm nor deny that I stood on the bridge and pressed the
shutter button.

In message <u2lnjl$3h5em$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:40:21 on Sun, 30 Apr
2023, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:

>On 25/04/2023 06:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>> I
>
>FFS, a thread with 6 posts in it and 5 of them are from you.

It's a developing story (and five themes so far, this is the sixth,
thanks to yourself); apologies for not waiting a few days then posting
it all at once.

Putting a seventh theme in another subthread, to save your blood
pressure :)
--
Roland Perry

In message <1ydAblQtifTkFA33@perry.uk>, at 06:12:13 on Sun, 30 Apr 2023,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>In message <XY6ohwiylJTkFAwu@perry.uk>, at 05:13:38 on Sat, 29 Apr
>2023, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>In message <u1Zlbww3$1RkFAkt@perry.uk>, at 06:07:03 on Tue, 25 Apr
>>2023, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
>>>a look when I'm next in the area.
>>>
>>> <https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/video-shows-
>>>cambri
>>>dge-south-railway-26730287>
>>>
>>>It's going to be a bit more disruptive than usual, because the
>>>site is on both the Liverpool St and Kings Cross lines, so no
>>>trains to London on weekends that require a possession. Buses to
>>>Royston and Bishops Stortford I suppose.
>>
>>Someone's coming from London to see me this weekend, and it looked
>>like maybe this work had begun. But no: two separate sets of
>>engineering works at Shelford and Shepreth, meaning buses Royston-
>>Cambridge and Audley End to Cambridge North.
>>
>>Roughly adding an hour to the journey time from 1:11 to 2:08, and 1:38
>>to 2:27 respectively. Maybe they need to buy some express buses?
>
>So my visitor arrived, one and a half minutes late despite the brand
>new departures board saying the train was "on time". Turns out there's
>no arrivals board at the station, and when I asked the staff they
>shrugged and said "were is the train going to", to which honestly
>replied "I have no idea, all I can say is its coming here from
>Cambridge".
>
>My visitor is clearly not a basher, because having been on three trains
>(three different TOCS) and a bus, just to get from Kings Cross, was
>perceived as a disadvantage.
>
>Ticketing note: They changed at Stevenage (LNER to Thameslink), because
>that ticket was cheaper. Must have been an AP with no booking deadline.
>Because it wasn't a day trip, the only alternative is an eyewateringly
>expensive SVR (or given it's a bank Holiday Weekend, two Super-off-Peak
>Singles is 80p cheaper than the SVR).

No apologies for a very on-topic railway trip report (albeit by proxy).

Friend got a far as Cambridge, only to be told the Royston-London line
was closed because of some incident[1]. So diverted to LST.

Haven't quite worked this out, but they were told to double-back to
Cambridge North, and then take a bus to Audley End. I'd have thought
providing a bus from Cambridge to Audley End would have been better,
but heigh-ho! Greater Anglia works in mysterious ways.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:F39945/2023-05-01

Maybe they'll be delayed enough to get a refund.

[1] ... later, NRES 1613:

"Lines have reopened between London Kings Cross / Moorgate and
Stevenage following the earlier incident where a person was hit by a
train. Trains may still be delayed by up to 30 minutes or cancelled
whilst service recovers. Disruption is expected until 19:00.
--
Roland Perry

On 1 May 2023 16:27, Roland Perry wrote:
[snip]
>
> Haven't quite worked this out, but they were told to double-back to
> Cambridge North, and then take a bus to Audley End. I'd have thought
> providing a bus from Cambridge to Audley End would have been better,
> but heigh-ho! Greater Anglia works in mysterious ways.
>

If you consider the outside spaces of Cambridge and Cambridge North
stations and the time to get to a bypass (A14, M11 etc) perhaps it
might become clearer.

In message <kbcshbFo6ukU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:36:57 on Tue, 2 May
2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 1 May 2023 16:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> Haven't quite worked this out, but they were told to double-back to
>> Cambridge North, and then take a bus to Audley End. I'd have thought
>> providing a bus from Cambridge to Audley End would have been better,
>> but heigh-ho! Greater Anglia works in mysterious ways.
>
>If you consider the outside spaces of Cambridge and Cambridge North
>stations and the time to get to a bypass (A14, M11 etc) perhaps it
>might become clearer.

For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.

Why didn't they advise them to get off the first time they passed
through?
--
Roland Perry

On 02/05/2023 20:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <kbcshbFo6ukU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:36:57 on Tue, 2 May
> 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>> On 1 May 2023 16:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Haven't quite worked this out, but they were told to double-back to
>>> Cambridge North, and then take a bus to Audley End. I'd have thought
>>> providing a bus from Cambridge to Audley End would have been better,
>>> but heigh-ho! Greater Anglia works in mysterious ways.
>>
>> If you consider the outside spaces of Cambridge and Cambridge North
>> stations and the time to get to a bypass (A14, M11 etc) perhaps it
>> might become clearer.
>
> For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
> caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
> was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
> earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>
> Why didn't they advise them to get off the first time they passed through?

Obviously this was a developing situation.

In message <u2rsv8$tj8i$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:48:40 on Tue, 2 May
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 02/05/2023 20:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <kbcshbFo6ukU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:36:57 on Tue, 2
>>May 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>> On 1 May 2023 16:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Haven't quite worked this out, but they were told to double-back to
>>>> Cambridge North, and then take a bus to Audley End. I'd have thought
>>>> providing a bus from Cambridge to Audley End would have been better,
>>>> but heigh-ho! Greater Anglia works in mysterious ways.
>>>
>>> If you consider the outside spaces of Cambridge and Cambridge North
>>> stations and the time to get to a bypass (A14, M11 etc) perhaps it
>>> might become clearer.

>> For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special
>>disruption caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain
>>why the person was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they
>>passed through earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.

>> Why didn't they advise them to get off the first time they passed
>>through?
>
>Obviously this was a developing situation.

It was, although the ECML had ground to a halt an hour before my friend
got to Cambridge, at which point staff at that station were aware of the
futility of sending more people on the scheduled replacement buses to
Royston (for London).

The funny thing was, the scheduled Cambridge to Audley End (direct or
all-shacks) replacement buses to cover the long weekend engineering
works near Shelford left from Cambridge *North*, first stop Shelford,
then Whittlesford etc.

Perhaps they could have kept the all-shacks Cambridge-Royston bus (which
ran from Cambridge central) going for the people whose ultimate
destination was Foxton-Royston, but diverted the express bus to Audley
End instead.

Despite some scepticism from Rupert, it's 15 miles [a mile from the
station to Addenbrookes, then open country], and shouldn't take much
more than half an hour. And the roads were pretty quiet (despite it
being a Bank Holiday afternoon).

The Cambridge North to Audley End express bus was scheduled at 56min (23
miles), and the express Cambridge central to Royston bus at 40min (14
miles).

Due to the granularity of the RRB service (and trains from Audley End),
the doubling-back exercise which appears to have involved delaying the
hourly southbound bus for people doing the doubling back (tick! gold
star) meant arrival in London only 45 minutes later than the originally
scheduled Ely-Cambridge-bus-Royston-London.

It could have been an hour and 45 mins: giving a total Ely-London time
compared to no engineering works of +2.5hrs; but nevertheless an
interesting if complicated Delay-Repay claim.

ps. Looking at RTT, there's Sunday bustitution on the Ely-London flow
7th, 14th, 21st, 28th May; 4th, 25th June. Not sure if dates later than
that have nothing planned, or are merely beyond the timetabling horizon.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>
>For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
>caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>
The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.

>Why didn't they advise them to get off the first time they passed
>through?

In message <ej645idarkrob487rv24m0tgfp1m5q38d6@4ax.com>, at 09:27:20 on
Wed, 3 May 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
>>caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>>was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>>earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>>
>The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
>be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
>good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.

Good taste has nothing to do with it. Publicising the matter, and
drawing attention to the services of The Samaritans etc, is likely
to save lives in the future.

>>Why didn't they advise them to get off the first time they passed
>>through?

--
Roland Perry

Am 03.05.2023 um 10:27 schrieb Ken:
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
>> caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>> was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>> earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>>
> The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
> be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
> good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.

It's technically impossible to prevent people from crossing a railway at
a level crossing at the wrong time. It's almost impossible to prevent
peole from crossing the track at an unmanned railway station.

In countries where railways are not fenced in, 'only' half of the people
hit by a railway are chosing to be so.
Especially people who are not used to trains going significantly faster
than 100 mph are sometimes caught unawares ;-(

Rolf

Am 03.05.2023 um 10:45 schrieb Roland Perry:
> In message <ej645idarkrob487rv24m0tgfp1m5q38d6@4ax.com>, at 09:27:20 on
> Wed, 3 May 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>> On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
>>> caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>>> was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>>> earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>>>
>> The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
>> be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
>> good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.
>
> Good taste has nothing to do with it. Publicising the matter, and
> drawing attention to the services of The Samaritans etc, is likely
> to save lives in the future.

Au contraire. There is a well-documented 'Werther effect'

<https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/the-werther-effect/42915/>

that publicity of suicides triggers massive copycat actions. This is
the reason why most newspapers world-wide have a policy to publish
suicides only in very rare situations (celebrities etc).

Rolf

In message <u2t8ap$17lfb$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:44 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>Am 03.05.2023 um 10:45 schrieb Roland Perry:
>> In message <ej645idarkrob487rv24m0tgfp1m5q38d6@4ax.com>, at 09:27:20
>>on Wed, 3 May 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
>>>> caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>>>> was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>>>> earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>>>>
>>> The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
>>> be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
>>> good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.
>> Good taste has nothing to do with it. Publicising the matter, and
>>drawing attention to the services of The Samaritans etc, is likely
>> to save lives in the future.
>
>Au contraire. There is a well-documented 'Werther effect'
>
><https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/the-werther-effect/42915/>
>
>that publicity of suicides triggers massive copycat actions. This is
>the reason why most newspapers world-wide have a policy to publish
>suicides only in very rare situations (celebrities etc).

Alternatively:

https://suicidebereavementuk.com/what-is-the-papageno-effect/
--
Roland Perry

In message <u2t7lb$17jk2$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:17 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>Am 03.05.2023 um 10:27 schrieb Ken:
>> On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special
>>>disruption
>>> caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>>> was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>>> earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>>>
>> The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
>> be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
>> good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.
>
>It's technically impossible to prevent people from crossing a railway
>at a level crossing at the wrong time. It's almost impossible to
>prevent peole from crossing the track at an unmanned railway station.

I don't think there's any level/barrow crossings on the ECML at
Knebworth.

On the other hand, before they installed lifts, here at Grantham - one
of my most popular photos on Panoramio [RIP]:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Grantham-barrow-crossing.jpg

It's slightly misinterpretable, because the train on the left has just
departed for London from platform 1 with a red signal visible, and the
one on the right, while approaching, is destined to go into platform 4,
to the right of the island from which I was taking the photo.

https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/ecm3#T_GTHM

Platform 3 is a bay within that rather wide island.
--
Roland Perry

In article <XY6ohwiylJTkFAwu@perry.uk>, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
scribeth thus
>In message <u1Zlbww3$1RkFAkt@perry.uk>, at 06:07:03 on Tue, 25 Apr 2023,
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
>>a look when I'm next in the area.
>>
>>
>><https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/video-shows-cambri
>>dge-south-railway-26730287>
>>
>>It's going to be a bit more disruptive than usual, because the
>>site is on both the Liverpool St and Kings Cross lines, so no
>>trains to London on weekends that require a possession. Buses to
>>Royston and Bishops Stortford I suppose.
>
>Someone's coming from London to see me this weekend, and it looked like
>maybe this work had begun. But no: two separate sets of engineering
>works at Shelford and Shepreth, meaning buses Royston-Cambridge and
>Audley End to Cambridge North.
>
>Roughly adding an hour to the journey time from 1:11 to 2:08, and 1:38
>to 2:27 respectively. Maybe they need to buy some express buses?

Bouut time the got on with East West rail!....
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In message <n9KqhxACUjUkFw9s@bancom.co.uk>, at 11:18:42 on Wed, 3 May
2023, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> remarked:
>In article <XY6ohwiylJTkFAwu@perry.uk>, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>scribeth thus
>>In message <u1Zlbww3$1RkFAkt@perry.uk>, at 06:07:03 on Tue, 25 Apr 2023,
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>I hadn't realised work had begun on the station, but will have
>>>a look when I'm next in the area.
>>>
>>>
>>><https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/video-shows-cambri
>>>dge-south-railway-26730287>
>>>
>>>It's going to be a bit more disruptive than usual, because the
>>>site is on both the Liverpool St and Kings Cross lines, so no
>>>trains to London on weekends that require a possession. Buses to
>>>Royston and Bishops Stortford I suppose.
>>
>>Someone's coming from London to see me this weekend, and it looked like
>>maybe this work had begun. But no: two separate sets of engineering
>>works at Shelford and Shepreth, meaning buses Royston-Cambridge and
>>Audley End to Cambridge North.
>>
>>Roughly adding an hour to the journey time from 1:11 to 2:08, and 1:38
>>to 2:27 respectively. Maybe they need to buy some express buses?
>
>Bouut time the got on with East West rail!....

That wouldn't have helped with any of last weekend's planned or
unplanned bustitutions.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 3 May 2023 09:45:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ej645idarkrob487rv24m0tgfp1m5q38d6@4ax.com>, at 09:27:20 on
>Wed, 3 May 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
>>>caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>>>was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>>>earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>>>
>>The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
>>be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
>>good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.
>
>Good taste has nothing to do with it. Publicising the matter, and
>drawing attention to the services of The Samaritans etc, is likely
>to save lives in the future.
>
You said that it was never explained why the person was hittable. If
you weren't having a gratuitous swipe at the railways then I don't
know what your point was. They can't say it was a suicide as it's not
conformed until an inquest says so and the last thing anyone wants is
copycats.

The TOCs and Network Rail have worked with the Samaritans a lot. Just
about every station has signs with the Sam's phone number and I
believe staff have training in identifying those considering doing
themselves harm. Then there are the fences preventing access to
platforms with fast services but few stoppers.

>>>Why didn't they advise them to get off the first time they passed
>>>through?

Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2023 09:45:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <ej645idarkrob487rv24m0tgfp1m5q38d6@4ax.com>, at 09:27:20 on
>> Wed, 3 May 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
>>>> caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>>>> was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>>>> earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>>>>
>>> The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
>>> be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
>>> good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.
>>
>> Good taste has nothing to do with it. Publicising the matter, and
>> drawing attention to the services of The Samaritans etc, is likely
>> to save lives in the future.
>>
> You said that it was never explained why the person was hittable. If
> you weren't having a gratuitous swipe at the railways then I don't
> know what your point was. They can't say it was a suicide as it's not
> conformed until an inquest says so and the last thing anyone wants is
> copycats.
>
> The TOCs and Network Rail have worked with the Samaritans a lot. Just
> about every station has signs with the Sam's phone number and I
> believe staff have training in identifying those considering doing
> themselves harm. Then there are the fences preventing access to
> platforms with fast services but few stoppers.

I have been on the receiving end of such training! Some years ago I was
heading north from Bolton. Bolton has a long platform northbound and part
way along it there is, or was, a small sign saying you shouldn’t go beyond
it. I didn’t spot that so I headed along to the end because there were
some interesting points or signals or something just beyond the platform
end. I was looking at these when a woman’s voice asked if I was OK. I
explained that I was just looking at the points or whatever and the member
of staff explained that I shouldn’t be there so I apologised and on our way
back along the platform she showed me the sign I should have noticed.
Slighly embarrassing, but all sorted out pleasantly.

Sam

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

In message <ae355i9v8qca246npth149a2f6rhfq9cf7@4ax.com>, at 17:43:51 on
Wed, 3 May 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 3 May 2023 09:45:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <ej645idarkrob487rv24m0tgfp1m5q38d6@4ax.com>, at 09:27:20 on
>>Wed, 3 May 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 2 May 2023 20:20:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>For a routine bustitiution, yes. But given the extra special disruption
>>>>caused by the person hit by a train (they never explain why the person
>>>>was hittable), sending people back to somewhere they passed through
>>>>earlier, does appear to some passengers to be perverse.
>>>>
>>>The person was 'hittable', in almost all cases,because they chose to
>>>be. Surely you know it's a euphemism for a suicide attempt? It's not
>>>good taste to try to use that to have a go at the railways.
>>
>>Good taste has nothing to do with it. Publicising the matter, and
>>drawing attention to the services of The Samaritans etc, is likely
>>to save lives in the future.
>>
>You said that it was never explained why the person was hittable. If
>you weren't having a gratuitous swipe at the railways then I don't
>know what your point was.

Because it doesn't distinguish between accidents (which could also mean
it was a rail worker who was hit) or "jumpers".

>They can't say it was a suicide as it's not conformed until an inquest
>says so

Indeed, if it's kids playing chicken on footpath crossing, you probably
wouldn't characterise that as suicide. Or maybe just playing, with no
element of "chicken".

>and the last thing anyone wants is copycats.

Perhaps a description which would not encourage copycats is to call it
"trespassing" (without saying what the outcome was).

--
Roland Perry