In message , at 17:03:33 on Sun,
29 Mar 2009, Paul Terry remarked:
"If a bus is curtailed short of its advertised destination and there
are passengers on board who wish to travel further, the driver should
issue a 'transfer ticket' to the driver of the next through bus."

That implies to me that the driver should have issued the ticket to the
next driver, not to a passenger.

"to be handed to the driver", surely?
--
Roland Perry

On 29 Mar, 17:03, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
,
" writes

Of course I understand the decision to terminate early was not the
driver's unilateral decision, but the decision not to issue individual
tickets was.

I've now found what I was looking for on the TfL website:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11105.aspx

"If a bus is curtailed short of its advertised destination and there are
passengers on board who wish to travel further, the driver should issue
a 'transfer ticket' to the driver of the next through bus."

That implies to me that the driver should have issued the ticket to the
next driver, not to a passenger.

It implies to me that the notion that each passenger should be
presented with "their own" individual transfer ticket is a complete
red herring. In some circumstances I can't see that it would be a
heinous crime for the driver to ask one of the passengers to oblige
him by passing the ticket on to the next driver on his behalf. I
suspect most people would have no problem in doing this. There could,
for example, be a horrendous gap in the service in the opposite
direction and plugging that at the earliest possible moment might be
felt to be a more productive use of the driver than remaining as a
kind of nanny or paper-pusher. Perhaps not the CORRECT procedure but
surely there should still be room for a modicum of common sense,
useful discretion by the driver and helpful co-operation between
driver and passengers? The insinuation without any apparant evidence
at all that the driver in the example given was necessarily a
beneficiery of the short-turning to facilitate fags/coffee and that it
was down to "laziness" on his part that all passengers were not issued
with individual transfer tickets seems to me to be unreasonable and
"shooting the messenger". With radio control, drivers destined to be
picking up transferred passengers will in most cases be notified of
this in advance so a sense of proportion should perhaps be brought to
bear in relation to the logistics of the same group of passengers
continuing their journey from the same location and time.
--
gordon

On Mar 29, 6:25�pm, " wrote:
On 29 Mar, 17:03, Paul Terry wrote:





In message
,
" writes

Of course I understand the decision to terminate early was not the
driver's unilateral decision, but the decision not to issue individual
tickets was.

I've now found what I was looking for on the TfL website:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11105.aspx

"If a bus is curtailed short of its advertised destination and there are
passengers on board who wish to travel further, the driver should issue
a 'transfer ticket' to the driver of the next through bus."

That implies to me that the driver should have issued the ticket to the
next driver, not to a passenger.

It implies to me that the notion that each passenger should be
presented with "their own" individual transfer ticket is a complete
red herring. In some circumstances I can't see that it would be a
heinous crime for the driver to ask one of the passengers to oblige
him by passing the ticket on to the next driver on his behalf. I
suspect most people would have no problem in doing this. There could,
for example, be a horrendous gap in the service in the opposite
direction and plugging that at the earliest possible moment might be
felt to be a more productive use of the driver than remaining as a
kind of nanny or paper-pusher. Perhaps not the CORRECT procedure but
surely there should still be room for a modicum of common sense,
useful discretion by the driver and helpful co-operation between
driver and passengers? The insinuation without any apparant evidence
at all that the driver in the example given was necessarily a
beneficiery of the short-turning to facilitate fags/coffee and that it
was down to "laziness" on his part that all passengers were not issued
with individual transfer tickets seems to me to be unreasonable and
"shooting the messenger". With radio control, drivers destined to be
picking up transferred passengers will in most cases be notified of
this in advance so a sense of proportion should perhaps be brought to
bear in relation to the logistics of the same group of passengers
continuing their journey from the same location and time.
--
gordon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gordon,

The very fact that the driver did, in the end, wait 20 minutes for the
following bus rather gives the lie to the assertion that he was
expected to plug an immediate gap by turning immediately and going
back the other way. In any event, even if he had been meant to do
this, Lillie Road was a very odd place to be turned, since there is no
immediate place to turn: the bus would have had to go about 2 stops'
distance off route to meet the first place it could have turned
around.

I am in no way "shooting the messenger"! I did not object (as indeed
everyone else did) to the FACT that the bus was turning short: I was
merely suggesting that the correct procedure ought to be adopted. I
note with interest that the effect of the old London Transport rule (I
could not remember its precise wording) that it was a conductor's duty
to ensure that all passengers were safely transferred to a following
bus, has been maintained, as helpfully quoted by Paul Terry above.

Gordon, you talk about co-operation and commonsense, but you have not
answered the question I posed as to what would happen if I had boarded
another bus from all the other passengers and left them stranded
without the magic ticket. In order for me to be safe from an
inspector, the bus I boarded would have had to keep the ticket, and it
would have been absurd to expect me instead, having boarded the other
bus and explained to that driver what was happening, to then reclaim
the ticket from him and hand it on to one of the remaining
passengers.

I stand by my assertion that it was initially laziness on the part of
the driver in refusing to issue tickets to the other passengers: what
other possible reason could he have had for refusing to do so?

What is most worrying is that had it not been for me, all of the other
passengers would have simply boarded the next bus and paid another
fare. Why should they, when totally outside their control their
original journey is cut short? If I had not asked, the driver was
certainly not volunteering to print anything out at all. That's why I
think he was lazy.

Marc.

On 29 Mar, 20:49, " wrote:
Gordon, you talk about co-operation and commonsense, but you have not
answered the question I posed as to what would happen if I had boarded
another bus from all the other passengers and left them stranded
without the magic ticket. *

They would have been conveyed on the next bus on the same route as the
short-turned bus. In the unlikely event that the second driver had not
heard a radio message instructing him/her to pick up the transferring
passengers he/she could radio in for verification if he/she was minded
to do so. The mere lack of a transfer slip would not frustrate the
exercise and it would hardly be an earth-shaking experience for any
inspector chancing to board to find that on this occasion there was no
slip - it would not be difficult to establish that such a transfer had
taken place and if a member of staff was felt to be lax he/she might
well be pulled up about it.
Incidentally I wasn't suggesting that the occasional need for buses to
be short-turned in order to slot into gaps in the opposite direction
was relevant to your case which it clearly wasn't. I merely mentioned
this as one of several examples of where it might be logical for a
short-turning driver not to await the arrival of the bus behind.
The tradition of short-notice short-turning has been rife in London
for many years and if it depended on each and every occasion upon a
transfer slip being handed over from first to second driver (or
conductor to conductor in the old days) there would be continual
evidence of the "cure" being considerably worse than the "disease".

--
gordon

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:02:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Are not the rules that the driver/conductor of a bus turning short
either has to enure (as the driver eventually did) that he has
communicated with the following bus so that the transferring
passengers do not have to pay twice, or give EACH passenger that asks
for it a transfer ticket?

And announces that they exist? Most people probably don't know.

The best solution would be to allow connectional journeys on buses for
free. (i.e. if you touch in on a bus within an hour, say, of touching
in on another bus, you don't pay another quid).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Greetings.

In article , Neil Williams wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:02:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Are not the rules that the driver/conductor of a bus turning short
either has to enure (as the driver eventually did) that he has
communicated with the following bus so that the transferring
passengers do not have to pay twice, or give EACH passenger that asks
for it a transfer ticket?

And announces that they exist? Most people probably don't know.

The best solution would be to allow connectional journeys on buses for
free. (i.e. if you touch in on a bus within an hour, say, of touching
in on another bus, you don't pay another quid).

And what if you paid cash?

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ To finish what you

Greetings.

In article
,
wrote:
Now call me pedantic if you want, but why should I, as a passenger, be
taking responsibility for other passengers (some of whom were drunk)
and trying to convince a driver of another bus that people with whom I
have had nothing to do, and a group which by when may have been joined
by all sorts of other hangers-on, trying to hitch a free ride. that
none of us should have to pay?

Are not the rules that the driver/conductor of Â*a bus turning short
either has to enure (as the driver eventually did) that he has
communicated with the following bus so that the transferring
passengers do not have to pay twice, or give EACH passenger that asks
for it a transfer ticket?

Man, since the driver announced that the transfer was for everyone, you
should have let him drive off, and then held the transfer for ransom.
That is, you could have demanded 50p from everyone who wanted to use it,
and threatened to walk off with it if not everyone paid up.

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ To finish what you

Tristan Miller wrote:
Greetings.

In article , Neil Williams
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:02:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Are not the rules that the driver/conductor of a bus turning short
either has to enure (as the driver eventually did) that he has
communicated with the following bus so that the transferring
passengers do not have to pay twice, or give EACH passenger that
asks
for it a transfer ticket?

And announces that they exist? Most people probably don't know.

The best solution would be to allow connectional journeys on buses
for
free. (i.e. if you touch in on a bus within an hour, say, of
touching
in on another bus, you don't pay another quid).

And what if you paid cash?

Same thing-just show your (time-stamped) ticket to the driver. It seems
to work in cities everywhere other than .uk!


--
Current nearest station: Wandsworth Common