On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:52:17 -0000, Paul Scott wrote:
I don't think they actually need to run over the physical junction for the
purposes of keeping the route open to passengers. The requirement is only
for a passenger to be able to get between the stations in question - IIRC
this point came up in a previous discussion about the subtle difference
between a 'line closure' and 'withdrawal of railway passenger services'
under the 2005 Act.

Is the act online?

--
jhk

"Jarle H Knudsen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:52:17 -0000, Paul Scott wrote:
I don't think they actually need to run over the physical junction for
the
purposes of keeping the route open to passengers. The requirement is
only
for a passenger to be able to get between the stations in question - IIRC
this point came up in a previous discussion about the subtle difference
between a 'line closure' and 'withdrawal of railway passenger services'
under the 2005 Act.

Is the act online?

all acts from about 2000 are.

but you have to know its correct name :-(

tim

Is the act online?

all acts from about 2000 are.

but you have to know its correct name :-(

I'm all for doing all I can to encourage visitors to the UK: we need all
the inward investment we can get (and so far as I know our beer supplies
are reasonably secure and can stand Jarle's visits!)

Most UK statutes can now be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/. -
and not just those since 2000. They have Acts back to 1267.

I think the 2005 Act in question is the Railways Act 2005 -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/14/contents



--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

tim..... wrote


"Jarle H Knudsen" wrote

under the 2005 Act.

Is the act online?

all acts from about 2000 are.

but you have to know its correct name :-(

All now (finally) with translations from law-french for the earliest
ones.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

And you can search.

Try all acts containing "crossbow" for example.


--
Mike D

In article 01cdccca$03d89c80$LocalHost@default, (Michael R
N Dolbear) wrote:

tim..... wrote

"Jarle H Knudsen" wrote

under the 2005 Act.

Is the act online?

all acts from about 2000 are.

but you have to know its correct name :-(

All now (finally) with translations from law-french for the earliest ones.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

And you can search.

Try all acts containing "crossbow" for example.

What would they tell us about the South London Line then?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote

(Michael R Dolbear) wrote:

tim..... wrote

Is the act online?

all acts from about 2000 are.

but you have to know its correct name :-(

All now (finally) with translations from law-french for the
earliest ones.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

And you can search.

Try all acts containing "crossbow" for example.

What would they tell us about the South London Line then?

I'll leave the fascinating but subtle difference
between a 'line closure' and 'withdrawal of railway passenger
services'
to someone else, my post was to point out that a search was possible
even when the correct name of the act wasn't known.

A correction, I should have said that all /public general/ acts of
parliament were now online.

--
Mike D

In uk.transport.london message 01cdccff$41190d20$78cf403e@default, Wed,
28 Nov 2012 00:28:39, Michael R N Dolbear posted:

A correction, I should have said that all /public general/ acts of
parliament were now online.

But they are not all correct (as of a few days ago).

In one case, it is both certain and obvious that either a faulty
amendment was legislated into an Annex to a perfectly good original Act,
or that the minions who provided Webmaster with material had been at best
incompetent at cut'n'paste (either with paper and glue, or in the modern
manner).

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05.
Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

In one case, it is both certain and obvious that either a faulty
amendment was legislated into an Annex to a perfectly good original
Act, or that the minions who provided Webmaster with material had
been at best incompetent at cut'n'paste (either with paper and glue,
or in the modern manner).

The process is not automatic so it should not be surprising if there are
occasional errors, especially in the "keeled text". IMLE those
responsible welcome reports of such errors to


PS
Acts usually have "Schedules" rather than Annexes. Was this an ancient
one?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid