In message , at 07:28:17
on Mon, 25 May 2015, remarked:
I'm taking my definition of "London" as what's shown on TfL's map of
"London rail and tube services" (see the thread title).

Zones beyond 6 are only there to allow Oyster to work outside Greater
London. Are you asking for Oyster zones all the way to Bishop's Stortford?

No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map to
be generally understood as being in London.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
07:28:17 on Mon, 25 May 2015, remarked:
I'm taking my definition of "London" as what's shown on TfL's map of
"London rail and tube services" (see the thread title).

Zones beyond 6 are only there to allow Oyster to work outside Greater
London. Are you asking for Oyster zones all the way to Bishop's
Stortford?

No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map
to be generally understood as being in London.

You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire.

And the STAR service could not be handed over to LO unless its stations were
added to the Oyster zones.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 09:00:46
on Mon, 25 May 2015, remarked:
I'm taking my definition of "London" as what's shown on TfL's map of
"London rail and tube services" (see the thread title).

Zones beyond 6 are only there to allow Oyster to work outside Greater
London. Are you asking for Oyster zones all the way to Bishop's
Stortford?

No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map
to be generally understood as being in London.

You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire.

The stations in question are inside the green belt (although some might
say anomalously so).

http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk...gbmapleaflet15
..02.15.pdf
--
Roland Perry

wrote:

Given that the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland are
perfectly capable of having cycle, tram and trolleybus
infrastructure working alongside each other with little difficulty
I don't think that's an issue. Of course the UK has little
experience of such infrastructure and parallel modal working that
we will imagine all sorts of risk, crises, accidents etc which is
really a load of old ********. We decided that we didn't want to
do that "continental rubbish" after the 1950s and 60s so we've
wasted nigh on half a century wedding ourselves to the car when we
could have achieved a better mix of modes.

A further UK-only hazard is the 1870 Tramways Act which still makes
tramway operators responsible for maintaining the highway around the
tracks at their expense, in effect subsidising their opposition.

That seems reasonable enough. I would assume in almost every case the
road was there before the tram came along?

Peter Smyth

"Roland Perry" wrote

No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map
to be generally understood as being in London.

You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire.

The stations in question are inside the green belt (although some might
say anomalously so).

http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk...gbmapleaflet15
..02.15.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Green_Belt

Goes out to Guildford, Windsor and more so Metropolitan-but outside-London




--
Mike D

In article , (Peter Smyth) wrote:

wrote:

Given that the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland are
perfectly capable of having cycle, tram and trolleybus
infrastructure working alongside each other with little difficulty
I don't think that's an issue. Of course the UK has little
experience of such infrastructure and parallel modal working that
we will imagine all sorts of risk, crises, accidents etc which is
really a load of old ********. We decided that we didn't want to
do that "continental rubbish" after the 1950s and 60s so we've
wasted nigh on half a century wedding ourselves to the car when we
could have achieved a better mix of modes.

A further UK-only hazard is the 1870 Tramways Act which still makes
tramway operators responsible for maintaining the highway around the
tracks at their expense, in effect subsidising their opposition.

That seems reasonable enough. I would assume in almost every case the
road was there before the tram came along?

The rest of the world doesn't expect the areas outside the tracks to be
maintained as well as those incidental to the actual tracks.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
09:00:46
on Mon, 25 May 2015, remarked:
I'm taking my definition of "London" as what's shown on TfL's map of
"London rail and tube services" (see the thread title).

Zones beyond 6 are only there to allow Oyster to work outside Greater
London. Are you asking for Oyster zones all the way to Bishop's
Stortford?

No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map
to be generally understood as being in London.

You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire.

The stations in question are inside the green belt (although some might
say anomalously so).


http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk...leaflet15.02.1
5.pdf

Hertford East and Bishop's Stortford? Doesn't look like it to me.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:

In article , (Peter Smyth)
wrote:

wrote:

Given that the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland are
perfectly capable of having cycle, tram and trolleybus
infrastructure working alongside each other with little
difficulty I don't think that's an issue. Of course the UK has
little experience of such infrastructure and parallel modal
working that we will imagine all sorts of risk, crises,
accidents etc which is really a load of old ********. We
decided that we didn't want to do that "continental rubbish"
after the 1950s and 60s so we've wasted nigh on half a century
wedding ourselves to the car when we could have achieved a
better mix of modes.

A further UK-only hazard is the 1870 Tramways Act which still
makes tramway operators responsible for maintaining the highway
around the tracks at their expense, in effect subsidising their
opposition.

That seems reasonable enough. I would assume in almost every case
the road was there before the tram came along?

The rest of the world doesn't expect the areas outside the tracks to
be maintained as well as those incidental to the actual tracks.

They are only required to maintain the road within 18 inches either
side of the tracks.

Peter Smyth

In article , (Peter Smyth) wrote:

wrote:

In article , (Peter Smyth)
wrote:

wrote:

Given that the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland are
perfectly capable of having cycle, tram and trolleybus
infrastructure working alongside each other with little
difficulty I don't think that's an issue. Of course the UK has
little experience of such infrastructure and parallel modal
working that we will imagine all sorts of risk, crises,
accidents etc which is really a load of old ********. We
decided that we didn't want to do that "continental rubbish"
after the 1950s and 60s so we've wasted nigh on half a century
wedding ourselves to the car when we could have achieved a
better mix of modes.

A further UK-only hazard is the 1870 Tramways Act which still
makes tramway operators responsible for maintaining the highway
around the tracks at their expense, in effect subsidising their
opposition.

That seems reasonable enough. I would assume in almost every case
the road was there before the tram came along?

The rest of the world doesn't expect the areas outside the tracks to
be maintained as well as those incidental to the actual tracks.

They are only required to maintain the road within 18 inches either
side of the tracks.

Exactly. Do they have to do that in Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland or
Austria? I know that strict cost allocation helped cross-subsidise German
tramways while we were ripping ours up.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 20:18:25 on Mon, 25
May 2015, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote

No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map
to be generally understood as being in London.

You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire.

The stations in question are inside the green belt (although some might
say anomalously so).

http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk...gbmapleaflet15
.02.15.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Green_Belt

Goes out to Guildford, Windsor and more so Metropolitan-but outside-London

Did you look at the flyer I posted? It shows that the area adjacent to
the railway line, all the way to Broxbourne, isn't designated green
belt.
--
Roland Perry