"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
th.li...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Roy Badami wrote:

In article ,
Peter Smyth wrote:

"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Smyth wrote:

So I think your second interpretation is correct and the Routeing
Guide does not have any power to ban you from using through trains or
the shortest route.

This FoI request seems to suggest otherwise:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...l_rail_routein

The pertinent extracts:

Recently First Scotrail proposed changes to some local and middle
distance journeys involving the "Fife Circle" route that have been
approved by Transport Scotland. ATOC and Passenger Focus have approved
these too. Formal approval by the Secretary of State will shortly be
given and the changes incorporated into the NRG. Essentially these are
negative easements. [...] A negative easement however as in the
Scotrail application prevents for example, a journey from Edinburgh to
Rosyth (27 minutes and 14.75 miles apart) being made via Kirkcaldy
which takes over 70 minutes and is a trip of 52 miles which the
routeing guide would normally allow solely because it is a through
train providing the journey.

That just shows that ScotRail want to ban it.

Well, it doesn't *just* say that ScotRail wants to ban it. It also ays
that Transport Scotland, ATOC, Passenger Focus and the Secretary of State
for Transport are happy with that (mis)interpretation of the rules.

For the record, i will happily bung a tenner in if anyone wants to take a
challenge against this to the European Court.

If you want to go to the European (or any) court you have to have something
to complain about.

I don't see that you do.

What is it that you think is (legally) wrong here.

tim

"tim...." wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Roy Badami wrote:
[snip]
Well, it doesn't *just* say that ScotRail wants to ban it. It also ays
that Transport Scotland, ATOC, Passenger Focus and the Secretary of
State for Transport are happy with that (mis)interpretation of the
rules.

For the record, i will happily bung a tenner in if anyone wants to take a
challenge against this to the European Court.

If you want to go to the European (or any) court you have to have
something to complain about.

I don't see that you do.

What is it that you think is (legally) wrong here.

ITYF that Tom actually meant to say the ICC at the Hague - the complaint
being that they're wrongly trying to prohibit people from going round in
circles...

On Feb 27, 10:13*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 05:05:39
on Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Roy Badami remarked:

That just shows that ScotRail want to ban it.

Well, it doesn't *just* say that ScotRail wants to ban it. *It also
ays that Transport Scotland, ATOC, Passenger Focus and the Secretary
of State for Transport are happy with that (mis)interpretation of the
rules.

It just means that they haven't thought it through. Even government
ministers lose in court (Home Secretaries seem to be more prone to this
than others, ie. more prone to capture by their misguided advisers; or
is it just that they get sued more often because the stakes are higher?)

I suspect both, with an added dose of "doing things that are obviously
illegal to please the tabloids" that doesn't apply in most other areas
(as with the prisoner votes issue).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Feb 27, 11:31*pm, W14_Fishbourne
wrote:
What I don't understand is why there is actually a need to ban this.

As long as the existence of this journey doesn't create any BoJ
opportunities, what the hell difference does it make to the operator if
someone wants to sit on a train to Rosyth via Kirkcaldy? *How many track
bashing peeps who would take advantage of this, are there?

Presumably it does create BoJ opportunities.

The main problem is season tickets. Since season tickets allow start
and break of journey at all points on all valid routes (including
through trains), if you needed to get from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy, you
could buy a season ticket to Rosyth, which would be a pretty massive
dodge.

The solution, surely, is to increase the price of the Any Permitted
Route ticket to Rosyth to reflect the distance via Kirkcaldy and
introduce a new Rosyth route Direct ticket at the current price. That
has been done in lots of other places. Or, even simpler than that,
split the train into two in the timetable. That's been done elsewhere
too.

Yes, correct.

This is a dangerous precedent and the fact that it is happening in
Scotland is worrying as the precedent could apply everywhere despite
no-one in England or Wales having a say in it. (I take it that "formal
approval by the Secretary of State" is an error as this would be dealt
with by the Scottish Transport Minister.)

IIRC the Scotland Act 2005 does require formal approval by the UK SoS
for rail matters, but it's formal approval in a similar fashion to
Royal Assent rather than "real" approval.

As other posters have said, however, it is probably invalid as it is
the NCoC that permits the use of through trains, not the Routing
Guide.

But leaving all this aside (and not being too familiar with the rail
geography of Central Scotland), why the hell is a train running to
Rosyth via Kirkaldy anyway?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fife_Circle_Line

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In message , at 11:57:39 on Mon, 28 Feb
2011, tim.... remarked:

What is it that you think is (legally) wrong here.

They are claiming that their proposed dis-easement trumps the NCoC, when
several of us think it's the other way round.

Of course, if their proposed dis-easement is lame, then there's no
particular problem with them introducing it[1], but I'm afraid they'll
try to persuade passengers that it does have an effect, when it appears
it doesn't.

[1] This reminds me of the "Not Stansted" tickets that WAGN's Cambridge
ticket office used to issue by default, when because of the fares rule
it was valid via Stansted[2] anyway. So no harm in them selling the
ticket, apart from the fact that passengers (and worse - some grippers)
are liable to take it at face value.

[2] ie a fastish (in those days Central) train to Stansted, then
Stansted Express; rather than a direct train.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:57:39 on Mon, 28 Feb
2011, tim.... remarked:

What is it that you think is (legally) wrong here.

They are claiming that their proposed dis-easement trumps the NCoC, when
several of us think it's the other way round.

Of course, if their proposed dis-easement is lame, then there's no
particular problem with them introducing it[1], but I'm afraid they'll try
to persuade passengers that it does have an effect, when it appears it
doesn't.

As long as all they are doing to "trying to persuade" then no law has been
broken. This is no different from the staff in Dixons/Currys/Comet telling
you that they have no liability to you and you have to take up a problem
with the manufacturer, something which happens frequently (apparently).

tim

In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
[1] This reminds me of the "Not Stansted" tickets that WAGN's Cambridge
ticket office used to issue by default, when because of the fares rule
it was valid via Stansted[2] anyway. So no harm in them selling the
ticket, apart from the fact that passengers (and worse - some grippers)
are liable to take it at face value.

The one we met didn't.

[2] ie a fastish (in those days Central) train to Stansted, then
Stansted Express; rather than a direct train.

Actually, we were going home from a meeting in London (back in the days
when Keith was still in charge).

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
As long as the existence of this journey doesn't create any BoJ
opportunities, what the hell difference does it make to the operator if
someone wants to sit on a train to Rosyth via Kirkcaldy? How many track
bashing peeps who would take advantage of this, are there?

Do you remember Clive Feather's classic query when the Routing Guide
first came out, about whether it was possible to travel from Finsbury
Park to (I think) London terminals via Cambridge (ie to Liverpool St).

If that that were the case, then a Finsbury Park to London season
ticket could also be used as a Cambridge to London season (because
season tickets are valid over any section of a route where a single is
valid).

Um, Clive Feather *was* using a Finsbury Park to London season as a
Foxton to London season for a few months.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message
,
W14_Fishbourne wrote:
South West Trains (or their predecessors) used to run through trains
from Waterloo to Littlehampton via Eastleigh. On my training course
this was used as an example of a case where the through train rule
applied even though the route was not otherwise valid. The through
route principle was intended to make it nice and easy for customers -
if the train went there the ticket was valid.

I don't think it's just a case of making it easy for passengers. I think
that whoever first wrote the rule was thinking of trying to defend
otherwise:

QC: "Where did the train start?"
Gordon the Gripper: "Waterloo."
QC: "Where did the train go to?"
GG: "Littlehampton."
QC: "Where did my client get on the train?"
GG: "Waterloo."
QC: "Where did my client want to go to?"
GG: "Littlehampton."
QC: "And what was the ticket that my client held?"
GG: "An Open Single from London Terminals to Littlehampton."
QC: "For the correct date?"
GG: "Yes."
QC: "And, I believe, Waterloo is one of the stations that the railways
mean by 'London Terminals'?"
GG: (sweating) "Yes."
QC: "So my client was travelling from London to Littlehampton using a
ticket saying London to Littlehampton on a train from London to
Littlehampton, and you're trying to tell me that this isn't valid?"
GG: "..."

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Mizter T wrote:

On Feb 27, 10:15*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:

In article i,
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Roland Perry wrote:

permission to double back at KGX

It's only for "Cambridge and beyond", so I suspect it's there
for the trains formerly known as Cambridge Cruiser.

Aha, noted. I got quite excited there for a minute!

You're not a Cambridge Cruiser then !

Did Mr A experience 'a moment of madness' just then...?

Oh, if that took my fancy, i have a far more convenient local venue for
it, and one where i can purchase a wide range of haberdashery and
household goods while i'm at it:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/ne...int_1_7914 93

Although not literally while i'm at it, IYSWIM.

tom

--
Sometimes it takes a madman like Iggy Pop before you can SEE the logic
really working.