Stephen Furley wrote:
On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote:

If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they
would strengthen the service? If they need several buses to cope with
this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the
unwanted traffic off the busy London roads?

What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on
the bus? Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait
for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? Sounds like
this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they
don't want people using this farce, er service.

I guess you'd just be told to take the next service to Wandsworth Road:
Train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, then train to WWR.

If that means you get to Wandsworth Road later, then you'd probably have
to claim for a delayed journey to XC in the normal way.

On 8 Jan, 18:51, Mark Morton wrote:

Stephen Furley wrote:

On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote:

If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they
would strengthen the service? *If they need several buses to cope with
this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the
unwanted traffic off the busy London roads?

What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on
the bus? *Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait
for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? *Sounds like
this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they
don't want people using this farce, er service.

I guess you'd just be told to take the next service to Wandsworth Road:
Train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, then train to WWR.


Or Underground all the way to Victoria - the District line goes
direct.


If that means you get to Wandsworth Road later, then you'd probably have
to claim for a delayed journey to XC in the normal way.


Looking over the (intentional) absurdity of the very question, I've a
feeling that XC aren't actually involved in this arrangement
whatsoever, not even by name - I read somewhere that the revised law
now allows for this obligation to fall back on the franchising
authority (i.e. DfT or Transport Scotland) though I've no idea if this
is actually correct.

Mizter T wrote:
On 8 Jan, 18:51, Mark Morton wrote:

Stephen Furley wrote:

On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote:
If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they
would strengthen the service? If they need several buses to cope with
this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the
unwanted traffic off the busy London roads?
What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on
the bus? Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait
for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? Sounds like
this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they
don't want people using this farce, er service.
I guess you'd just be told to take the next service to Wandsworth Road:
Train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, then train to WWR.

Or Underground all the way to Victoria - the District line goes
direct.

Would a NR ticket from Ealing to WWR be valid for Ealing to Victoria on
the Underground?

On 8 Jan, 19:12, Mizter T wrote:
On 8 Jan, 18:51, Mark Morton wrote:





Stephen Furley wrote:

On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote:

If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they
would strengthen the service? *If they need several buses to cope with
this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the
unwanted traffic off the busy London roads?

What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on
the bus? *Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait
for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? *Sounds like
this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they
don't want people using this farce, er service.

I guess you'd just be told to take the next service to Wandsworth Road:
Train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, then train to WWR.

Or Underground all the way to Victoria - the District line goes
direct.



If that means you get to Wandsworth Road later, then you'd probably have
to claim for a delayed journey to XC in the normal way.

Looking over the (intentional) absurdity of the very question, I've a
feeling that XC aren't actually involved in this arrangement
whatsoever, not even by name - I read somewhere that the revised law
now allows for this obligation to fall back on the franchising
authority (i.e. DfT or Transport Scotland) though I've no idea if this
is actually correct
Yes,

Responsibility is with the "funding body" or something like that - so
nothing to do with XC. I do know that at least one other bid for XC
retained the Brighton trains, with the bid actually pointing out to
the DfT how this would save it the hassle and cost of going through
the closure process.

You can find all the details on the ORR website - which includes what
the DfT should have done, even in introducing the replacement bus, and
you can therefore work out what it hasn't done legally.

The crazy thing, as Barry Doe reported in Rail, and as I also got from
the ORR (same quote we reckon), is that the ORR reckons it can't tell
the DfT if it is breach of the Railways Act 2005 unless the DfT asks
it if it is in breach of the Act!! So in the week before the services
ended several of us rang the ORR (at that point the DfT hadn't even
contracted the bus operation) and said "Is the DfT about to breach the
Railway Act 2005" and we all got the reply that the ORR couldn't say
because the DfT hadn't asked it. When we pointed out the list of
things that the DfT had failed to do etc. the ORR basically said
"Nothing to do with us until the DfT refers the matter to us..."

In a conversation I had with the ORR they even said "If the DfT has
acted in the way you describe then it 'would' be acting illegally, but
we cant rule on this until the DfT asks us to.."

How crazy is that?

Tony

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 03:54:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Responsibility is with the "funding body" or something like that - so
nothing to do with XC. I do know that at least one other bid for XC
retained the Brighton trains, with the bid actually pointing out to
the DfT how this would save it the hassle and cost of going through
the closure process.

You can find all the details on the ORR website - which includes what
the DfT should have done, even in introducing the replacement bus, and
you can therefore work out what it hasn't done legally.

The crazy thing, as Barry Doe reported in Rail, and as I also got from
the ORR (same quote we reckon), is that the ORR reckons it can't tell
the DfT if it is breach of the Railways Act 2005 unless the DfT asks
it if it is in breach of the Act!! So in the week before the services
ended several of us rang the ORR (at that point the DfT hadn't even
contracted the bus operation) and said "Is the DfT about to breach the
Railway Act 2005" and we all got the reply that the ORR couldn't say
because the DfT hadn't asked it. When we pointed out the list of
things that the DfT had failed to do etc. the ORR basically said
"Nothing to do with us until the DfT refers the matter to us..."

In a conversation I had with the ORR they even said "If the DfT has
acted in the way you describe then it 'would' be acting illegally, but
we cant rule on this until the DfT asks us to.."

Insane. I thought ORR were supposed to be "independent"?

How crazy is that?

About as crazy as it can get. This is simply stupid but I guess also
instructive given that the DfT have now revealed exactly how they can
utilise the legislation they carefully created for themselves to the
detriment of just about everybody.
--
Paul C

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 03:54:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
In a conversation I had with the ORR they even said "If the DfT has
acted in the way you describe then it 'would' be acting illegally, but
we cant rule on this until the DfT asks us to.."

Insane. I thought ORR were supposed to be "independent"?

That's by no means unusual, sadly.

In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the
Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could
answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before
finding out whether it was illegal or not.


How crazy is that?

About as crazy as it can get.

That was my reaction.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

[still off topic]

"Ian Jelf" wrote :
In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability
Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that
question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out
whether it was illegal or not.

That's been a feature of English law since approximately 1066
Laws are usually made for specific purposes, but the phrasing tends to pull
in related items that may require the courts interpretation as to whether or
not the law really applies in that case.

Virtually all new legislation has areas that need 'testing'. A good example
is the business of banks routinely overcharging customers as the mood takes
them - it's been tough to get a ruling because whenever someone tries to sue
under a recent act of parliament, the banks keep settling out of court (I
wonder why? Thieving *******s!).

And it's all cash in hand by the million for squads of lawyers ...
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

In message , Andrew Heenan
writes
[still off topic]

"Ian Jelf" wrote :
In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability
Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that
question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out
whether it was illegal or not.

That's been a feature of English law since approximately 1066
Laws are usually made for specific purposes, but the phrasing tends to pull
in related items that may require the courts interpretation as to whether or
not the law really applies in that case.

Then the phrasing should be clearer.


Virtually all new legislation has areas that need 'testing'

Well, I for one didn't want to be the guinea pig.


. A good example
is the business of banks routinely overcharging customers as the mood takes
them - it's been tough to get a ruling because whenever someone tries to sue
under a recent act of parliament, the banks keep settling out of court (I
wonder why? Thieving *******s!).

Isn't that a Civil matter, though?


And it's all cash in hand by the million for squads of lawyers ...

Quite.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote
[off topic]
In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the
Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could
answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before

finding out whether it was illegal or not.

No way of avoiding a court decision but you don't have to risk
prosecution.

Consider the court applications about what "assisted suicide" means and
whether buying a ticket to Switzerland is "aiding and abetting".

--
Mike D

In message 01c974bc$f7a79b00$LocalHost@default, Michael R N Dolbear
writes

Ian Jelf wrote
[off topic]
In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the
Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could
answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before

finding out whether it was illegal or not.

No way of avoiding a court decision but you don't have to risk
prosecution.

Given that it was a criminal matter, I can't see how I could have
"tested" anything without an attempted prosecution.

Consider the court applications about what "assisted suicide" means and
whether buying a ticket to Switzerland is "aiding and abetting".

Can you just go to a court and ask them to rule on something before
(possibly) committing an offence, then? I assume that's likely to be
an expensive process?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk