In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the
station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis.

The train company, more likely. They control access to the
station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard.

I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's
railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did
the article say exactly?

"promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the
district."

What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway
land? Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they
do it confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits.

That's all an irrelevant sideshow. You claimed it was the railways
who wanted the dress code - I disagree and say it's the council.

No. I said the railway controls access to station forecourts with whatever
conditions they deem appropriate. You mentioned dress code, not me. What
conditions TOCs impose seems to be distinctly non-transparent.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 16:14:24
on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked:

At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming
they aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a
smashed sump.

Smashed sumps in general happened to chancers not out-of-town taxis.

The first one to get a lot of publicity was an out-of-town taxi.

Will *all* transgressors get ANPR tickets now, or is there still scope
for chancing?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:14:24
on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the
station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis.

The train company, more likely. They control access to the
station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard.

I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's
railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did
the article say exactly?

"promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the
district."

What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway
land? Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they
do it confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits.

That's all an irrelevant sideshow. You claimed it was the railways
who wanted the dress code - I disagree and say it's the council.

No. I said the railway controls access to station forecourts with whatever
conditions they deem appropriate.

Which is irrelevant to new rules from the council.

You mentioned dress code, not me.

Yes, in a report of the proposed new taxi-code from the COUNCIL.

You then disputed that the [new] dress code was something the council
wanted.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500
wrote:
This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and
the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on
cost grounds.

Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into place,
how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel guiderails
into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised if they didn't
recycle the old rail track to create them.

--
Spud

In message , at 08:19:03 on Thu, 20 Apr
2017, d remarked:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500
wrote:
This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and
the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on
cost grounds.

Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into place,
how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel guiderails
into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised if they didn't
recycle the old rail track to create them.

Isn't Colin saying they *didn't* cast concrete guided sections for
Cambridge North. In effect it must be just "a normal road, buses only".

Which has other benefits, such as not being restricted to
buses-with-guide-wheels.

See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the short
length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the "car
trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done carefully
enough - a couple of inches clearance either side.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg

Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or later a
driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take his hands
off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in the box.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20427214

"[Stagecoach] said it thought the driver had misjudged the entrance to
busway, causing it to leave the tracks.

The bus was left at a 45-degree angle across the entrance, before being
recovered from the scene a few hours later."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-21479277

"Passenger Michaela Murray said the bus she was on slowed down for
horses and another bus hit it from behind."

http://assets9.heart.co.uk/2016/27/c...ay-crash-july-
2016-1467897287-article-0.jpg

and probably the worst:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35841300

"A guided bus driver who crashed near Cambridge injuring five passengers
was travelling at more than 53mph in a 30mph zone, a report concluded.

....

The "excessive speed" at a junction between one set of guide tracks and
another made it "unlikely the bus was under the driver's control".

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:44:24 on Thu, 20 Apr
2017, Roland Perry remarked:

See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child.

If I'd pasted it in!

https://goo.gl/maps/HBDgRgXMfkn


--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 08:19:03 on Thu, 20 Apr
2017, d remarked:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500
wrote:
This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably
and the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are
unguided on cost grounds.

Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into
place, how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel
guiderails into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised
if they didn't recycle the old rail track to create them.

I suggest you come to Cambridge and have a closer look at Guided Busway
construction. You wouldn't then spout that nonsense.

Isn't Colin saying they *didn't* cast concrete guided sections for
Cambridge North. In effect it must be just "a normal road, buses
only".

Which has other benefits, such as not being restricted to
buses-with-guide-wheels.

Not so. The steel guide rails at the entrance and exit to the roadway
prevent anything other than guided buses from entering. There's a similar
arrangement controlling access from the guideway across Harrison Way at St
Ives.

See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the
short length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the
"car trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done
carefully enough - a couple of inches clearance either side.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg

Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or
later a driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take
his hands off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in
the box.

Which are amongst the reasons why it's probably illegal under the ROGS
regulations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20427214

"[Stagecoach] said it thought the driver had misjudged the entrance
to busway, causing it to leave the tracks.

The bus was left at a 45-degree angle across the entrance, before
being recovered from the scene a few hours later."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-21479277

"Passenger Michaela Murray said the bus she was on slowed down for
horses and another bus hit it from behind."

http://assets9.heart.co.uk/2016/27/c...ay-crash-july-
2016-1467897287-article-0.jpg

and probably the worst:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35841300

"A guided bus driver who crashed near Cambridge injuring five
passengers was travelling at more than 53mph in a 30mph zone, a
report concluded.

...

The "excessive speed" at a junction between one set of guide tracks
and another made it "unlikely the bus was under the driver's control".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
16:14:24 on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked:

At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming
they aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a
smashed sump.

Smashed sumps in general happened to chancers not out-of-town taxis.

The first one to get a lot of publicity was an out-of-town taxi.

Will *all* transgressors get ANPR tickets now, or is there still
scope for chancing?

No idea. The media have gone very quiet on this. I do see chancers and
clueless tourists driving through the New Square gate at times, usually late
at night.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
16:14:24 on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at
the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up
taxis.

The train company, more likely. They control access to the
station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard.

I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge.
It's railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too.
What did the article say exactly?

"promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the
district."

What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway
land? Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If
they do it confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such
permits.

That's all an irrelevant sideshow. You claimed it was the railways
who wanted the dress code - I disagree and say it's the council.

No. I said the railway controls access to station forecourts with
whatever conditions they deem appropriate.

Which is irrelevant to new rules from the council.

True. I don't understand why you think council rules on dress code are
anything to do with taxi access to the station.

You mentioned dress code, not me.

Yes, in a report of the proposed new taxi-code from the COUNCIL.

You then disputed that the [new] dress code was something the council
wanted.

It's not a local feature in Cambridge.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 13:32:46
on Thu, 20 Apr 2017, remarked:

The steel guide rails at the entrance and exit to the roadway
prevent anything other than guided buses from entering.

....

See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the
short length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the
"car trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
carefully enough - a couple of inches clearance either side.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg

Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or
later a driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take
his hands off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in
the box.

Which are amongst the reasons why it's probably illegal under the ROGS
regulations.

So is speeding.
--
Roland Perry