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.

It doesn't mean it has any legal force. The Conditions of Carriage
state the direct trains are permitted. It doesn't say you have to
look in the Routeing Guide first to check for any relevant
(dis)easements.

That's a very good point re the CoC, but I'm not sure I'd want to have
to argue the case with a gipper or on a penalty fares appeal.

-roy

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?)
--
Roland Perry

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 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.

tom

--
Let's roll on the floor!

"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...

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 , at 21:23:49 on Tue, 1
Mar 2011, Clive D. W. Feather remarked:

[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.

I don't remember that incident, but I do recall explaining it to a
gripper who was featured in a contemporaneous WAGN fly-on-the-wall
documentary; there was plenty of time because they could check everyone
on a Cruiser in about ten minutes, then had the rest of the trip with
nothing to do but chat to passengers. They said they'd never had the
underlying rules explained to them before.

I think I also had a chat with someone selling the tickets at Cambridge
station and it seemed that when they pulled up Cambridge-London on the
screen there were several variants to choose from, but the "Not
Stansted" was the first (and thus default).
--
Roland Perry