On 23/11/2012 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
13:59:40 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

In short: the rail replacement service is NOT a Local Bus Service and
does not operate under the licences issued by the Traffic
Commissioners as a Local Bus Service, and a driver who takes it upon
himself to provide such a service without lawful excuse is breaking
the law.

That's a new excuse. Up to now I'd been trying to debunk the concept
that their insurance would be invalid because they were dropping people
off at highly dangerous bus stops that apparently only regular buses can
safely drop people at. Or that stopping to do so will trash their schedule.

As usual you are exagerating and introducing highly emotive language
that wasn't in the original. Are you moonlighting as a tabloid journalist/


As for running a faux-local-bus-service, I doubt if anyone on such buses
wants to be there. They'd rather be on the train that was cancelled.

It's ridiculous to expect someone might be hovering at the railway
station on the off-chance of a bustitution that might go past their house.

Not if they are aware if the bustitution and know the route it will have
to take.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 17:09:08 on Fri, 23 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

As for running a faux-local-bus-service, I doubt if anyone on such buses
wants to be there. They'd rather be on the train that was cancelled.

It's ridiculous to expect someone might be hovering at the railway
station on the off-chance of a bustitution that might go past their house.

Not if they are aware if the bustitution and know the route it will
have to take.

If they are aware, but in order to be aware they either need to be
hovering at the railway station waiting for the off-chance that the OHL
will collapse, or monitoring the ToC's twitter feed so they can rush to
the railway station rather than their regular bus stop.

These are extreme corner cases.
--
Roland Perry

On 24/11/2012 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:09:08 on Fri, 23 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

As for running a faux-local-bus-service, I doubt if anyone on such buses
wants to be there. They'd rather be on the train that was cancelled.

It's ridiculous to expect someone might be hovering at the railway
station on the off-chance of a bustitution that might go past their
house.

Not if they are aware if the bustitution and know the route it will
have to take.

If they are aware, but in order to be aware they either need to be
hovering at the railway station waiting for the off-chance that the OHL
will collapse, or monitoring the ToC's twitter feed so they can rush to
the railway station rather than their regular bus stop.

These are extreme corner cases.

Well those seem to be your favourites.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 11:23:05 on Sat, 24 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:
As for running a faux-local-bus-service, I doubt if anyone on such buses
wants to be there. They'd rather be on the train that was cancelled.

It's ridiculous to expect someone might be hovering at the railway
station on the off-chance of a bustitution that might go past their
house.

Not if they are aware if the bustitution and know the route it will
have to take.

If they are aware, but in order to be aware they either need to be
hovering at the railway station waiting for the off-chance that the OHL
will collapse, or monitoring the ToC's twitter feed so they can rush to
the railway station rather than their regular bus stop.

These are extreme corner cases.

Well those seem to be your favourites.

This time it's your corner cases that I'm saying shouldn't be dictating
general policy.
--
Roland Perry

On 24/11/2012 14:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:23:05 on Sat, 24 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:
As for running a faux-local-bus-service, I doubt if anyone on such
buses
wants to be there. They'd rather be on the train that was cancelled.

It's ridiculous to expect someone might be hovering at the railway
station on the off-chance of a bustitution that might go past their
house.

Not if they are aware if the bustitution and know the route it will
have to take.

If they are aware, but in order to be aware they either need to be
hovering at the railway station waiting for the off-chance that the OHL
will collapse, or monitoring the ToC's twitter feed so they can rush to
the railway station rather than their regular bus stop.

These are extreme corner cases.

Well those seem to be your favourites.

This time it's your corner cases that I'm saying shouldn't be dictating
general policy.

Not my cases, you keep inventing unlikely and improbable scenarios and
then, apparently, claiming they are dictating general policy.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 15:28:38 on Sat, 24
Nov 2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

This time it's your corner cases that I'm saying shouldn't be dictating
general policy.

Not my cases, you keep inventing unlikely and improbable scenarios and
then, apparently, claiming they are dictating general policy.

There was an objection to intermediate drop-off by bustitution vehicles
in that they are apparently uninsured if giving random non-train-users
local rides.

My improbable and unlikely scenarios (glad you agree about that, by the
way) relate to the mechanism by which such random non-train-users might
ever find their way onto the buses in the first place.

If it's unlikely and improbable that they find their way onto the buses,
then the intermediate drop-off policy should not be dictated by the
objective of preventing them using the bus.
--
Roland Perry

On 24/11/2012 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:28:38 on Sat, 24
Nov 2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

This time it's your corner cases that I'm saying shouldn't be dictating
general policy.

Not my cases, you keep inventing unlikely and improbable scenarios and
then, apparently, claiming they are dictating general policy.

There was an objection to intermediate drop-off by bustitution vehicles
in that they are apparently uninsured if giving random non-train-users
local rides.

Well you've got that bit wrong.


My improbable and unlikely scenarios (glad you agree about that, by the
way) relate to the mechanism by which such random non-train-users might
ever find their way onto the buses in the first place.

Well you've got that bit wrong as well.


If it's unlikely and improbable that they find their way onto the buses,
then the intermediate drop-off policy should not be dictated by the
objective of preventing them using the bus.

And you've got that bit wrong as well.

Doing well so far.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail