http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2085937/Road-pricing-first-scheme-outside-of-London-to-be-announced-for-Manchester.html

That should keep the tiff-raff of the roads so the rich can have an extra
hour in bed, great idea.

I shall be chuckling driving to work in my Roller knowing
that middle classes, (working class people with a job) are forced off
the roads they have already paid for just so I can have a nice quick and
easy journey to work whilst they are struggling on public transport (yuck)
and the like.

Ah tis a great life!

"Money money, money, must be funny, in a rich mans world!!!"

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:56:30 +0100, Mike Barnes put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In uk.transport, Kenny wrote:
>>In message <P9yl9Nnj+YSIFwJ6@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid>, Mike Barnes
>> writes
>>>This particular platform 0 can take you to a station with no road
>>>leading to it (and no other railway line to change to either). Not
>>>*very* unusual, I'll grant you, but a bit weird. One for the trivia
>>>fans.
>>
>>Haymarket (Edinburgh) to Corrour on the West Highland line? ;-)
>
>I don't know whether that meets the criteria or not. It's not what I was
>thinking of.

Great Yarmouth or Norwich to Berney Arms? I can't remember whether
either of the first two have a platfom 0, but Berney Arms has no
public road access.

Mark 
-- 
Miscellaneous remarks at http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk
"When you lose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown"

"Mike Barnes"  wrote
>
> Not that one, but you're in the right country. It's three stops from
> platform 0 to the roadless station, if that helps.
>
Charlie suggested Stockport to Middlewood (post at 3 on 06/06/2008) - but I
make that four stops (or three intermediate stops).

The three platform 0s are Haymarket, Stockport, and Cardiff Central (and
another at Kings Cross soon to be built).

Peter

Mike Barnes wrote:
> In uk.transport, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:56:30 +0100, Mike Barnes put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>> In uk.transport, Kenny wrote:
>>>> In message <P9yl9Nnj+YSIFwJ6@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid>, Mike Barnes
>>>>  writes
>>>>> This particular platform 0 can take you to a station with no road
>>>>> leading to it (and no other railway line to change to either). Not
>>>>> *very* unusual, I'll grant you, but a bit weird. One for the trivia
>>>>> fans.
>>>> Haymarket (Edinburgh) to Corrour on the West Highland line? ;-)
>>> I don't know whether that meets the criteria or not. It's not what I was
>>> thinking of.
>> Great Yarmouth or Norwich to Berney Arms? I can't remember whether
>> either of the first two have a platfom 0, but Berney Arms has no
>> public road access.
> 
> Not that one, but you're in the right country. It's three stops from
> platform 0 to the roadless station, if that helps.
> 

Ah, England. That narrows things down a bit!

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Chris wrote:
> Check 'Keith's' profile - I don't think we'll hear from him again. Not
> under that moniker, anyway!
>
> Technically, he might have been right in that a specific 'ticket'
> wouldn't be required at the check he described - just so long as he
> could PROVE he had paid for his journey in some other way. The
> 'ticket' is the easiest way of course, but if he was saying that it
> isn't the only way.....and he was able to prove payment in another
> manner to the grippers, then yes, he's probably in the clear & the
> grippers couldn't then insist on the actual 'ticket' after seeing
> other proof of payment for said journey.
>
> Once etickets are introduced, there are going to be many customer
> comments of 'oh, the battery on my phone is dead / faulty, and I can't
> show it to you.....'
>
> I wonder how they'll handle that one?

By having something like this in their pocket/bag/wahtevere?

http://www.presentsformen.co.uk/product.asp?pf_id=5155

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT), Chris
 wrote:

>Check 'Keith's' profile - I don't think we'll hear from him again. Not
>under that moniker, anyway!
>
>Technically, he might have been right in that a specific 'ticket'
>wouldn't be required at the check he described

Look sunshine - do all residents in uk.train.spotting have shit for
brains.

If you are on a train, or in a compulsory ticket area then you must
have a ticket and produce it for inspection when requested.

If you are elsewhere on railway premises  then there is no obligation
to have a ticket - therefore you cannot produce it when asked.

No-one has produced any evidence in the form of a quote from the NRCC
or the  by-laws which says otherwise.

The ticket inspectors at the end of a platform may think that you have
just go off a train and therefore they would like you to have a ticket
- but they can think what they like.

You may have gone on to that platform to use the public toilets.

You may have gone on to that platform to see someone off.

You may have gone on that platform to buy something.

You may have gone on that  platform to spot the train spotters.

You may even have got off a train.

But - whatever the reason there is absolutely nothing in the by-laws
which says that you must have a ticket when you are leaving such a
platform.

The ticket inspectors can speculate as much as they like.

(And as for your introduction - I think I'll stay here a bit - it's
certainly good sport arguing with fuckwits - I found the sub-thread on
Platform 0 most  interesting)

Chris wrote:
> On 9 Jun, 13:03, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> Check 'Keith's' profile - I don't think we'll hear from him again.
>>> Not under that moniker, anyway!
>>
>>> Technically, he might have been right in that a specific 'ticket'
>>> wouldn't be required at the check he described - just so long as he
>>> could PROVE he had paid for his journey in some other way. The
>>> 'ticket' is the easiest way of course, but if he was saying that it
>>> isn't the only way.....and he was able to prove payment in another
>>> manner to the grippers, then yes, he's probably in the clear & the
>>> grippers couldn't then insist on the actual 'ticket' after seeing
>>> other proof of payment for said journey.
>>
>>> Once etickets are introduced, there are going to be many customer
>>> comments of 'oh, the battery on my phone is dead / faulty, and I
>>> can't show it to you.....'
>>
>>> I wonder how they'll handle that one?
>>
>> By having something like this in their pocket/bag/wahtevere?
>>
>> http://www.presentsformen.co.uk/product.asp?pf_id=5155- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Could they insist you hand over your mobile?.....I certainly wouldn't!

Why wouldn't you?

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:00:02 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 14:48:14 on 
>Mon, 9 Jun 2008, keith  remarked:
>>If you are on a train, or in a compulsory ticket area then you must
>>have a ticket and produce it for inspection when requested.
>>
>>If you are elsewhere on railway premises  then there is no obligation
>>to have a ticket - therefore you cannot produce it when asked.
>
>One last try:
>
>You don't have to have a ticket on a train, if it's before you've had 
>the opportunity to buy one.
>
>As soon as you've had that opportunity (which is often at the station 
>before departing, itself often but not necessarily enforced by a 
>compulsory ticket zone) then you must make it available for inspection.

You must make it available for inspection ONLY if you are in an area
which requires you to have one - be that on a train or in a compulsory
ticket area.

If you are coming off a platform which is a non-compulsory ticket area
- why must you have a ticket - what if (all of those circumstances I
have given)

Please point to the section which says you MUST have a ticket in all
of those circumstances which I have quoted.

I am sure if it was that easy, someone would have produced the simple
sentence - even a paragraph just to prove me wrong.

Surely YOU  can do this - please?

keith wrote:

> If you are on a train, or in a compulsory ticket area then you must
> have a ticket and produce it for inspection when requested.
> 
> If you are elsewhere on railway premises  then there is no obligation
> to have a ticket - therefore you cannot produce it when asked.
> 
> No-one has produced any evidence in the form of a quote from the NRCC
> or the  by-laws which says otherwise.
> 
> The ticket inspectors at the end of a platform may think that you have
> just go off a train and therefore they would like you to have a ticket
> - but they can think what they like.

Absolutely correct. Where's the argument?

But they may, of course, have watched you get off the train, or have
been made aware of your journey by a fellow-traveller, especially
if you are suspected of fraud and have been under observation.

Not that this happened in the case under discussion, but it does
happen.

Charlie

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:59:12 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 15:27:35 on 
>Mon, 9 Jun 2008, keith  remarked:
>>>One last try:
>>>
>>>You don't have to have a ticket on a train, if it's before you've had
>>>the opportunity to buy one.
>>>
>>>As soon as you've had that opportunity (which is often at the station
>>>before departing, itself often but not necessarily enforced by a
>>>compulsory ticket zone) then you must make it available for inspection.
>>
>>You must make it available for inspection ONLY if you are in an area
>>which requires you to have one - be that on a train or in a compulsory
>>ticket area.
>
>There is no such stipulation in the rules.
>
>>Please point to the section which says you MUST have a ticket in all
>>of those circumstances which I have quoted.
>>
>>I am sure if it was that easy, someone would have produced the simple
>>sentence - even a paragraph just to prove me wrong.uu
>It's been posted several times:
>
>Railway Byelaw 18:
>
>18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
>
>(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification
>       

Excellent - now we're getting there - so you believe that this applies
to  all of the circumstances where:

You may have gone on to that platform to use the public toilets.

You may have gone on to that platform to see someone off.

You may have gone on that platform to buy something.

You may have gone on that  platform to spot the train spotters.

You may even have got off a train - gone and had a drink - gone to the
toilet - you do not need to have a ticket.  I have agreed that if you
have a ticket you should show it - there is no need for you to have a
ticket in that area once you are off the train.

You may not board a train without a ticket - that is quite different -
but you can certainly be in that area without one.

In article , me@privacy.net 
says...
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:59:12 +0100, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
> 
> >In message , at 15:27:35 on 
> >Mon, 9 Jun 2008, keith  remarked:
> >>>One last try:
> >>>
> >>>You don't have to have a ticket on a train, if it's before you've had
> >>>the opportunity to buy one.
> >>>
> >>>As soon as you've had that opportunity (which is often at the station
> >>>before departing, itself often but not necessarily enforced by a
> >>>compulsory ticket zone) then you must make it available for inspection.
> >>
> >>You must make it available for inspection ONLY if you are in an area
> >>which requires you to have one - be that on a train or in a compulsory
> >>ticket area.
> >
> >There is no such stipulation in the rules.
> >
> >>Please point to the section which says you MUST have a ticket in all
> >>of those circumstances which I have quoted.
> >>
> >>I am sure if it was that easy, someone would have produced the simple
> >>sentence - even a paragraph just to prove me wrong.uu
> >It's been posted several times:
> >
> >Railway Byelaw 18:
> >
> >18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
> >
> >(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification
> >       
> 
> Excellent - now we're getting there - so you believe that this applies
> to  all of the circumstances where:
> 
> You may have gone on to that platform to use the public toilets.
> 
> You may have gone on to that platform to see someone off.
> 
> You may have gone on that platform to buy something.
> 
> You may have gone on that  platform to spot the train spotters.
> 
> You may even have got off a train - gone and had a drink - gone to the
> toilet - you do not need to have a ticket.  I have agreed that if you
> have a ticket you should show it - there is no need for you to have a
> ticket in that area once you are off the train.
> 
> You may not board a train without a ticket - that is quite different -
> but you can certainly be in that area without one.
> 
So, exactly how do I put my Mother's suitcase onto the train? And how 
does my brother take it off again?
Oh, I forgot. We have Porters. Well, used to anyway...

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:26:04 -0700 (PDT), Chris
 wrote:

>On 9 Jun, 15:59, Roland Perry  wrote:
>> >I am sure if it was that easy, someone would have produced the simple
>> >sentence - even a paragraph just to prove me wrong.
>>
>> It's been posted several times:
>>
>> Railway Byelaw 18:
>>
>> 18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
>>
>> (2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification
>>        of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
>
>Seems to do it for me!
>And as it's a criminal offence not to adhere to railway byelaws
>(that's correct?), if you don't do this, they can arrest you!
>Please - go give it a try & let us know what happens. Then we can all
>silently giggle.


Any chance of you now explaining how the gripper differentiates  -
when seeing people leaving the platform - between all of those classes
I have described - shoppers, going to toilets, train spotters, (people
like the guy who had wondered on to a platform in Manchester in this
same thread   - no check on entry - but check on exit.) etc etc

If  they cannot differentiate then they cannot insist  that some
people have a ticket and must show it.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:56:46 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 17:33:56 on 
>Mon, 9 Jun 2008, keith  remarked:
>>>Railway Byelaw 18:
>>>
>>>18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
>>>
>>>(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification
>>>
>>
>>Excellent - now we're getting there - so you believe that this applies
>>to  all of the circumstances where:
>>
>>You may have gone on to that platform to use the public toilets.
>>
>>You may have gone on to that platform to see someone off.
>>
>>You may have gone on that platform to buy something.
>>
>>You may have gone on that  platform to spot the train spotters.
>>
>>You may even have got off a train - gone and had a drink - gone to the
>>toilet - you do not need to have a ticket.  I have agreed that if you
>>have a ticket you should show it - there is no need for you to have a
>>ticket in that area once you are off the train.
>>
>>You may not board a train without a ticket - that is quite different -
>>but you can certainly be in that area without one.
>
>You are still confusing the situation of travellers and non-travellers.

I am not aware that the by-laws actually differentiate between
"travellers" and "non-travellers" - they refer to people having to
have tickets in certain areas and they refer to people  - if they have
tickets -  having to show them on demand.

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.
 
and now please explain how the ticket checkers on the exit from a
platform which is not a compulsory ticket area determine who is a
traveller and who is not  - particularly if from the exit from the
platform it is not possible to see what is happening on the platform.

In message , at 19:10:09 on 
Mon, 9 Jun 2008, keith  remarked:

>I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

I have and you just keep coming back. Sorry, this just a waste of time.
-- 
Roland Perry

keith wrote:

> If  they cannot differentiate then they cannot insist  that some
> people have a ticket and must show it.

That's patently false.  Clearly they _can_ insist that those people who 
were travelling show tickets and those who weren't don't.

Whether you think that's a sensible is another matter.

You could always lie (but as others point out you might have been 
observed getting off the train).

You seem to be conflating what you can get away with with what you are 
allowed/required to do.

Clearly, if you are at an open station, and not in a compulsory ticket 
area, then it might be relatively easy to come up with a convincing 
story that allowed you to claim you had not been travelling on the 
railway and it might be relatively hard for the gripper to determine 
conclusive you that you were lying.  But I don't see how you make the 
leap from the fact that the requirement for travellers to have tickets 
available for inspection is difficult to enforce to your assertion that 
the requiremet therefore does not exist.

I also think you are confusing two very different legal regimes.  AIUI 
(and I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong) compulsory ticket 
areas are a modern invention and relate solely to the imposition of 
penalty fares, which are a matter of civil law.

The Railway Acts and the byelaws create a number of criminal offenses. 
These offenses existed long before the creation of compulsory ticket 
areas and their operation is entirely independent of whether an area is 
a compulsory ticket area or not.

-roy

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT), Chris
 wrote:

>Once etickets are introduced, there are going to be many customer
>comments of 'oh, the battery on my phone is dead / faulty, and I can't
>show it to you.....'
>
>I wonder how they'll handle that one?

By declaring it invalid, presumably - that's what the coach mob do.

That's one reason why I'd be reluctant to use a mobile ticket.  I do
like the idea of online ticketing, though - I'd just rather print it
out.

Neil

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

In uk.transport, keith wrote:
>and now please explain how the ticket checkers on the exit from a
>platform which is not a compulsory ticket area determine who is a
>traveller and who is not  - particularly if from the exit from the
>platform it is not possible to see what is happening on the platform.

They can ask you. As you no doubt realise, you can simply lie to them,
and on the surface it looks like you might stand a good chance of
getting away with it. But it isn't a course of action I'd take or
recommend.

-- 
Mike Barnes

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:38:28 +0100, Mike Barnes
 wrote:

>They can ask you. As you no doubt realise, you can simply lie to them,
>and on the surface it looks like you might stand a good chance of
>getting away with it. But it isn't a course of action I'd take or
>recommend.

And they are probably well-versed in knowing whether someone is being
genuine or whether they might be lying, and in knowing what to ask to
further confirm this.

The situation has arisen with me at MKC, incidentally, when I went
onto the platforms to wave my parents off and the barrier was closed
on my return.  MKC is in a Penalty Fares area for local services but
is not itself a Compulsory Ticket Area.  An explanation of what I was
doing on the platform resulted in me being let straight through.

Neil

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

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:22:21 GMT, Neil Williams put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> wrote:
>
>>Once etickets are introduced, there are going to be many customer
>>comments of 'oh, the battery on my phone is dead / faulty, and I can't
>>show it to you.....'
>>
>>I wonder how they'll handle that one?
>
>By declaring it invalid, presumably - that's what the coach mob do.

It doesn't need to be declared invalid, merely missing. It's no
different to what would happen if you lost your paper ticket on the
way to the train - if that happens, it's your fault and you don't get
either a refund or allowed to travel sans ticket. So if your ticket is
stored electronically, it's up to you to ensure that the electronic
mechanism is functioning when you need to present it to the gripper.

>That's one reason why I'd be reluctant to use a mobile ticket. 

I think I trust myself, and my phone, enough for that not to be an
issue. My main objection to mobile ticketing is that I don't trust the
vendor not to spam me with text messages once they've got hold of my
number. I can easily use a throwaway email address if I buy online,
and then if it does get spammed it's no loss to me. But I can't easily
use a throwaway phone number.

> I do
>like the idea of online ticketing, though - I'd just rather print it
>out.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree.

Mark
-- 
Stuff, some of it good, at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk 
"Goodbye... And it's emotional"

"keith"  wrote in message 
news:asmq44h6lrc8sh84837hsummd14l96cv72@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:26:04 -0700 (PDT), Chris
>  wrote:
>
>>On 9 Jun, 15:59, Roland Perry  wrote:
>>> >I am sure if it was that easy, someone would have produced the simple
>>> >sentence - even a paragraph just to prove me wrong.
>>>
>>> It's been posted several times:
>>>
>>> Railway Byelaw 18:
>>>
>>> 18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
>>>
>>> (2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification
>>> of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
>>
>>Seems to do it for me!
>>And as it's a criminal offence not to adhere to railway byelaws
>>(that's correct?), if you don't do this, they can arrest you!
>>Please - go give it a try & let us know what happens. Then we can all
>>silently giggle.
>
>
> Any chance of you now explaining how the gripper differentiates  -
> when seeing people leaving the platform - between all of those classes
> I have described - shoppers, going to toilets, train spotters, (people
> like the guy who had wondered on to a platform in Manchester in this
> same thread   - no check on entry - but check on exit.) etc etc
>
> If  they cannot differentiate then they cannot insist  that some
> people have a ticket and must show it.
>

I have come into this discussion a bit late, but from what I have observed 
in the past of ticket checks on railway passengers, there is little problem 
in this regard.  In normal ticket checks, the ticket inspector has little 
choice but to give the 'passenger' the benefit of the doubt.  If he 
specifically knows that the passenger got off a train, the best he can do is 
attempt to collect an excess fare (he can try for a penalty fare, but that's 
a whole different thread).  If the 'passenger' continues to insist that he 
didn't, the inspector has little choice but to accept the situation.

Where a passenger has travelled but not paid the fare and tries to avoid 
paying the fare, then the situation becomes one of 'travelling with intent 
to evade paying the fare'.  The tricky bit here can be proving the 'intent'. 
To overcome this, many railway companies have introduced compulsory fare 
zones (which often include both the trains and the platforms inside of the 
barriers) and even penalty fares for passengers who don't have tickets.  To 
enforce these the bylaws have been modified to make possesion of a ticket 
compulsory in these areas, but even then it doesn't always work as they 
expect.  The railway company are not allowed to actually prevent you from 
travelling (as long as you intend to pay the fare), but failed automatic 
ticket machines at unsaffed stations (or machines that don't accept plastic 
for the non cash carrying pasenger) can frustrate the best of bylaws.  As 
long as the passenger really does intend to pay the fare, then that is all 
they are entitled to expect when an inspector tries to check he ticket.

When the ticket inspectors target passengers who are genuinely attempting to 
evade paying their fares, they will do it in a maner where the passenger has 
absolutely no get out.  They will even go to enormous lengths if they 
consider the rewards large enough.  I have witnessed a train being non 
stopped through 3 stations that it would normally have stopped at in order 
to catch commuters who travel with 2 season tickets*, a fleet of taxis 
having been laid on to take the passengers who would have got off at the 
intermediate stations back to those stations.

As a slight (but relevant) aside I also used to know a bloke who used to be 
a bus conductor where the inspectors had targeted a single passenger who was 
paying 2p less for his ticket than he should have been, and they mounted an 
operation over 3 days to get him.  The first day required the conductor to 
check his ticket toward the end of the journey and advise the passenger of 
the correct fare for his journey (this avoids the passenger claiming that he 
had been told that the fare he paid was the fare for his journey, which is 
exactly what he did - a legitimate defence).  The passenger didn't travel on 
the second day, but on the third day the conductor was once again required 
to check his ticket and when the passenger atempted to claim that that was 
the fare he was told, two other passengers suddenly produced inspectors 
badges and told him that he was informed of the correct fare two days ago.

*These are the commuters who have one season ticket from their start station 
to the next station and a separate ticket for the last but one station to 
their destination (but not the bit in the middle), showing the appropriate 
ticket at the barrier (and blagging it if an inspector happens to get on for 
the non ticketed part).   They get somewhat surprised when they get caught 
as they are well aware of this dodge. A pair of plain clothes inspectors 
will accompany the pasenger and act as witnesses that the passenger