In message , at 22:11:13 on
Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Peter Sumner
remarked:
Meanwhile, they are wrong to imply that UTC is the legally accepted
time; unless someone has deliberately "dumbed down", for their Homepage,
the choice between UT0/UT1 and called that UTC.

Yes, but the difference between the different UTs is not relevant is
it. UTC is currently about 500msec away from UT1 and the difference is
changing as we speak. UT0 varies from UT1 according to where you are
on earth, UT2 and UT1r are smoothed versions of UT1. UTC advances
smoothly, a handy feature for measuring intervals - UT does not.

UTC is the time we use in the UK, our computers, our clocks and our
timetables all use it. Legislation still refers to GMT and this
introduces an ambiguity. Does getting to the legal time mean
correcting the time shown on the most accurate clocks we have?

Yes, unfortunately. Thankfully, there are few *legal* reasons for
knowing the time that require high precision. As this is uk.transport,
one could refer to the "10 minutes" by which trains are officially
counted as late as an example.

I can't see any dumbing down on the NPL pages - where do you see this?

Well, if you don't believe that their use of "UTC", as discussed, on
their home page is "dumbing down", then it's simply a mistake. I was
giving them the benefit of the doubt, ymmv.

The obvious thing for them to do is to briefly discuss the tensions
between the law, UT1, their clocks and UTC.
--
Roland Perry

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in
:

My understanding, though I haven't been able to confirm it, is that
official time throughout the Channel Tunnel Concession Area is that of
Paris, not London.

All the computer systems for the Channel Tunnel on both sides of the
channel use French clock time. At the time the tunnel was being built,
France and the UK changed from summer to winter time on diferent dates, and
the scope for errors with safety consequences if both clocks were used was
deemed to be too high.

I believe the decision to use French time was made because the tunnel rail
signalling system is based on the French TGV system and it is interfaced
directly to the national system on the French side. At the time, there was
no such tight integration on the UK side.

However I wouldn't go so far as to say that 'official time' is French time:
published Shuttle timetables in the UK show UK clock time, and if you go to
a meeting at the UK terminal they don't expect you to turn up an hour
early.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ LogicaCMG ~ for whom I do not speak
peter.campbell.smith_at_logicacmg.com

JRS: In article , dated Mon, 23 Aug
2004 21:34:03, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Clive D. W. Feather
posted :
In article , Dr John Stockton
writes
Fascinated by why you say almost all of the UK. Is there some part in
a different time zone?
There is some part which, I have been told by one who should know, keeps
a time differing significantly from London Time. I doubt whether it
should be described as a zone.

My understanding, though I haven't been able to confirm it, is that
official time throughout the Channel Tunnel Concession Area is that of
Paris, not London.

Unfortunately, that adds nothing to my knowledge, since I'm pretty sure
that the information came from you in the first place! However, no-one
expressed dissent with what my Web site said on the subject :

... with, I have read, a small exception :
ROT-13: Gur Punaary Ghaary Grezvany hfrf Serapu Gvzr.

Perhaps someone can check?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

Ian Jelf wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 24 Aug 2004:

The clock concerned is the one in "Tom Tower" at Christ Church
(College). They refused to adopt GMT with the coming of the railways, so
to the present day, the bell (Great Tom" rings 101 times at 9.05pm,
which is (roughly!) 9.00pm Oxford time. (Oxford is 51° 44' 60" North
and 1° 15' 24" West (of Greenwich). So Oxford Time is 5 minutes and 2
seconds behind Greenwich Time. There are those who maintain that
Oxford in, in fact, 500 years, 5 minutes and 2 seconds behind GMT but I
digress....)

Obviously they use "God's time", rather than "railway time" -
interesting that the major side-effect of the coming of the railways was
to convert the whole country to London time - and, I believe, in places
like the USA the railways also highlighted the need for standard time.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
(trying out a new .sig to reflect the personality I use in online forums)

On 23 Aug 2004 20:26:35 GMT, Robin May
wrote:



They aren't generally bought for operating normal services. They're for
private hi things like weddings where a nice bright, shiny
Routemaster - the traditional and iconic London bus - will suit the
occasion a lot better than other kinds of bus.

Some months ago there was an article in the Financial Times weekend
section, under the general heading of 'collectibles' about
opportunities to buy a Routemaster. I seem to remember that potential
purchasers might be asked to demonstrate that they had somewhere to
park the bus once they'd bought it.

Presumably low scrap metal prices have the same effect for buses as
for cars, and if you really want to scrap a bus you need to pay to
dispose of it. This would make the economics of withdrawing
Routemasters look very different if the intention was to scrap a
significant number. Somewhere (it might have been the same FT
article) I've seen the range £2000-£15,000 quoted for a Routemaster
depending on condition.

On a different subject, but prompted by the remarks above about
private hire, does any of the disability legislation apply to tourist
coaches? I only travel on private-hire coaches once in a very blue
moon, but one of these occasions was last week, when I had a couple of
rides in a coach, complete with orange curtains and brown seating
fabric right out of the 1970s, and a tiny cupboard marked 'toilet'
which was surely only for extremely urgent visits...

In any case, one of my fellow-passengers was a bit under 2 years old,
so we were quite conscious of accessibility issues. Which turned out
to be appalling. The floor was much higher than on any urban bus that
I've encountered, with I think 5 or 6 steps up from the entrance.
Thanks perhaps to rather bulkier seats than a city bus, the central
aisle would barely have accommodated the most compact push-chair, let
alone an adult wheelchair. There was no luggage space within the bus,
unless you count some overhead racks with very limited capacity, so we
had to prop up the folded pushchair against an empty seat.

But once on the move, the views from the elevated position were great
as the bus was expertly driven along some rather narrow country roads.

Martin

Martin Rich wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 25 Aug 2004:

In any case, one of my fellow-passengers was a bit under 2 years old,
so we were quite conscious of accessibility issues. Which turned out
to be appalling. The floor was much higher than on any urban bus that
I've encountered, with I think 5 or 6 steps up from the entrance.
Thanks perhaps to rather bulkier seats than a city bus, the central
aisle would barely have accommodated the most compact push-chair, let
alone an adult wheelchair. There was no luggage space within the bus,
unless you count some overhead racks with very limited capacity, so we
had to prop up the folded pushchair against an empty seat.

Normally such coaches have luggage space underneath, and the pushchair
would have been expected to go there, with the child carried on to the
bus in its parents' arms. What is done about wheelchair users, I don't
now.

On a side note, has anybody else noticed how much *bigger* pushchairs
have got now that you don't have to fold them on buses any more? They'll
be back to the full-sized perambulators of the 1950s and earlier any
minute....
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
(trying out a new .sig to reflect the personality I use in online forums)

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Annabel Smyth wrote:

Martin Rich wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 25 Aug 2004:

In any case, one of my fellow-passengers was a bit under 2 years old,
so we were quite conscious of accessibility issues. Which turned out
to be appalling.

On a side note, has anybody else noticed how much *bigger* pushchairs
have got now that you don't have to fold them on buses any more?

Not to mention how much bigger the kids in them have got - i routinely see
kids easily old enough to walk being pushed around. No wonder obesity's
rising etc rant.

tom

--
They Set Up Us The Revolution - Now We Have Set Up It Them Back

As someone who spends a lot of his professional life on "tourist
coaches" I thought I'd "chip in" here.....

In message , Martin Rich
writes
On a different subject, but prompted by the remarks above about
private hire, does any of the disability legislation apply to tourist
coaches?
Not yet although I have heard rumblings that it will eventually. This
will have considerable implications for the views people get from on
board, too.

I only travel on private-hire coaches once in a very blue
moon, but one of these occasions was last week, when I had a couple of
rides in a coach, complete with orange curtains and brown seating
fabric right out of the 1970s, and a tiny cupboard marked 'toilet'
which was surely only for extremely urgent visits...
They are indeed for "urgent" visits only (if only more people realised
this). The bane of my life is people who try to use them when a vehicle
is stationary, as an alternative to finding a "proper" public one.
They are the same people that then complain later in the tour if the
aforesaid loo is full or smelly or both.

How large a loo would you have liked, by the way? :-)) (Any bigger
than they are now and you lose yet more seats.)

In any case, one of my fellow-passengers was a bit under 2 years old,
so we were quite conscious of accessibility issues. Which turned out
to be appalling. The floor was much higher than on any urban bus that
I've encountered, with I think 5 or 6 steps up from the entrance.
This is the case for two reasons. Firstly, it gives space for large
amounts of luggage (which usually accompany people on such vehicles)
underneath and secondly it gives a much higher and better view.

Thanks perhaps to rather bulkier seats than a city bus,
"Bulkier" meaning much more comfortable, especially on longer journeys
which, again, these vehicles are intended to operate.

the central
aisle would barely have accommodated the most compact push-chair, let
alone an adult wheelchair.
Neither of those things is intended to go along that aisle. Both,
where appropriate, should have been stowed in the luggage hold
underneath.

There was no luggage space within the bus,
unless you count some overhead racks with very limited capacity,
Well, that's what coaches have. Again, anything bulkier goes "below".

so we
had to prop up the folded pushchair against an empty seat.
Now *that* plays havoc with safety issues. Such an object unsecured
could either block exit in the case of an emergency or else move around
an injure someone. I'm surprised at a coach driver for allowing it.

But once on the move, the views from the elevated position were great
as the bus was expertly driven along some rather narrow country roads.
And there you have it: higher up = better view.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message , at 13:37:30 on Wed,
25 Aug 2004, Annabel Smyth remarked:
On a side note, has anybody else noticed how much *bigger* pushchairs
have got now that you don't have to fold them on buses any more?
They'll be back to the full-sized perambulators of the 1950s and
earlier any minute....

Some people say the trend towards large 4x4 and SUVs is largely caused
by the need to have a vehicle that will easily carry these enlarged
pushchairs.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:04:57 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

Not yet although I have heard rumblings that it will eventually. This
will have considerable implications for the views people get from on
board, too.

Yet this type of vehicle (albeit newer) is still used routinely in
public service as well - National Express for one - and even two newer
operations, Megabus and Easybus (the latter with brand-new vehicles)
have publically stated that they will not accept wheelchairs.

How large a loo would you have liked, by the way? :-)) (Any bigger
than they are now and you lose yet more seats.)

The best one I've seen was on an older National Express coach. It
took the space of probably two rows of seats, and contained what was
essentially a full-size toilet bowl. It wasn't of the modular style
like some are - these may be easy to install, but are more or less
impossible for a 6-footer to use, emergency or not!

"Bulkier" meaning much more comfortable, especially on longer journeys
which, again, these vehicles are intended to operate.

Some IMO aren't. This comes from the fact that the "headrest" rests
on my shoulders and pushes them forwards.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain