Film, Media & TV10 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Captain23. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Plans (not yet finalised) to scrap free children and the under 18 concessions too.
https:/ /www.my london. news/ne ws/zone -1-news /i-wont -help-i t-sadiq -183971 73
https:/
Key workers are prioritised for peak rail travel.
Social distancing means that reduced numbers are allowed in coaches.
This is what it looked like today when I had to use the train
https:/ /ibb.co /TTcmhV w
Obviously they want essential users to have the remaining places.
Social distancing means that reduced numbers are allowed in coaches.
This is what it looked like today when I had to use the train
https:/
Obviously they want essential users to have the remaining places.
//...that was a couple of weeks ago (and still going).//
No it wasn't. It begins next Monday (15th).
There are a couple of threads going on a transport forum I use. The consensus there (among many people employed in public transport) is that social distancing and public transport are not compatible and if the country is to get back to normal (which it absolutely must, and soon) then so must the buses and trains. There are currently no restrictions on who can use public transport. It will remain that way and they will get crowded. Limiting a bus to 20% of its capacity and trains to even less is unsustainable, impractical and unenforceable.
No it wasn't. It begins next Monday (15th).
There are a couple of threads going on a transport forum I use. The consensus there (among many people employed in public transport) is that social distancing and public transport are not compatible and if the country is to get back to normal (which it absolutely must, and soon) then so must the buses and trains. There are currently no restrictions on who can use public transport. It will remain that way and they will get crowded. Limiting a bus to 20% of its capacity and trains to even less is unsustainable, impractical and unenforceable.
//Key workers are prioritised for peak rail travel. //
No they are not. There are no restrictions on who can travel and when (and more than that there are no definitions of "key workers"). Many of the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are giving that impression (with most of them having been told to desist from doing so).
No they are not. There are no restrictions on who can travel and when (and more than that there are no definitions of "key workers"). Many of the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are giving that impression (with most of them having been told to desist from doing so).
NJ
At the rail station and on the train you are told that you should only make the journey if absolutely essential, and that the train is for people going work.
As you can see from the photograph I took, most of the seats are not in use.
https:/ /ibb.co /TTcmhV w
They may be rules that are unenforceable, but they are being strictly enforced.
At the rail station and on the train you are told that you should only make the journey if absolutely essential, and that the train is for people going work.
As you can see from the photograph I took, most of the seats are not in use.
https:/
They may be rules that are unenforceable, but they are being strictly enforced.
//At the rail station and on the train you are told that you should only make the journey if absolutely essential, and that the train is for people going work.//
Yes that's the impression the TOCs would like to portray. Fortunately there is no legislation to enforce that. I have made a number of train journeys in the past few weeks (not for work purposes) and only once was I questioned about the purpose of my journey. I simply (but politely) declined and boarded my train.
The railways haven't a hope in hell of running trains with the restrictions as shown in your photo when most people return to work. The buses will face similar problems. The sooner that's accepted the sooner we can move on to something a little more sensible.
Yes that's the impression the TOCs would like to portray. Fortunately there is no legislation to enforce that. I have made a number of train journeys in the past few weeks (not for work purposes) and only once was I questioned about the purpose of my journey. I simply (but politely) declined and boarded my train.
The railways haven't a hope in hell of running trains with the restrictions as shown in your photo when most people return to work. The buses will face similar problems. The sooner that's accepted the sooner we can move on to something a little more sensible.
on journeys I have made, I have been told that I may be required to leave the train if a key worker needs to board (I too am a key worker but I hold a concession pass). On one occasion I was asked to leave, but it was at the station I was getting off at anyway.
A colleague was once refused boarding at Bristol Parkway for the same reason - but was allowed on the next service (an hour later) without demur.
A colleague was once refused boarding at Bristol Parkway for the same reason - but was allowed on the next service (an hour later) without demur.
//On one occasion I was asked to leave, but it was at the station I was getting off at anyway.//
Just as well because they would have struggled to have you removed. There is neither legislation nor anything in the Conditions of Carriage which would allow for your removal. A police officer would have no power to forcibly remove you because you had committed no offence nor would he have any cause to suspect that you had.
The government has ideas of returning the country to normal. Well, along with getting children back into school (the failure to do so being an absolute disgrace), operating normal public transport services is a priority. So long as TOCs are of the opinion that they can pick and choose whom they allow to use their services this will not happen. I imagine their aim is to make the use of their services as unattractive as possible. That's fine at present because, like the teachers, they are being paid by the taxpayer whether they provide their services or not. TfL began the lockdown by telling passengers that their services were for essential workers only whose journeys were absolutely necessary. As part of their £1.6bn government bail out they were told to stop being so silly.
Just as well because they would have struggled to have you removed. There is neither legislation nor anything in the Conditions of Carriage which would allow for your removal. A police officer would have no power to forcibly remove you because you had committed no offence nor would he have any cause to suspect that you had.
The government has ideas of returning the country to normal. Well, along with getting children back into school (the failure to do so being an absolute disgrace), operating normal public transport services is a priority. So long as TOCs are of the opinion that they can pick and choose whom they allow to use their services this will not happen. I imagine their aim is to make the use of their services as unattractive as possible. That's fine at present because, like the teachers, they are being paid by the taxpayer whether they provide their services or not. TfL began the lockdown by telling passengers that their services were for essential workers only whose journeys were absolutely necessary. As part of their £1.6bn government bail out they were told to stop being so silly.
>>> There is neither legislation nor anything in the Conditions of Carriage which would allow for your removal
I seem to remember, from my days of running a railway station, that it's an offence to remain on railway property when required to leave by any authorised agent of a railway company. Indeed, I've had people ejected from the premises by BTP officers, based upon that legislation, on several occasions. [See s.16, Railway Act 1840]
I seem to remember, from my days of running a railway station, that it's an offence to remain on railway property when required to leave by any authorised agent of a railway company. Indeed, I've had people ejected from the premises by BTP officers, based upon that legislation, on several occasions. [See s.16, Railway Act 1840]
//I seem to remember, from my days of running a railway station, that it's an offence to remain on railway property when required to leave by any authorised agent of a railway company. Indeed, I've had people ejected from the premises by BTP officers, based upon that legislation, on several occasions. [See s.16, Railway Act 1840]//
Quite so, 'Chico. But: "If any person shall wilfully obstruct or impede any officer or agent of any railway company in the execution of his duty upon any railway, or upon or in any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith, or if any person shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, or any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith, and shall refuse to quit the same upon request to him made by any officer or agent of the said company, [he commits an offence]"
In short, railway staff cannot ask somebody to leave a station on a whim. The person involved has to "...wilfully obstruct or impede..." the railway officer in the execution of his duties. Attempting to board a train when entitled to do so cannot be interpreted as obstruction.
As it happens I believe that avoiding public transport where practical is a good idea at the moment. However, from next week all shops are being allowed to open. It is hardly fair to restrict their custom to those who can only get to them without using public transport. Large numbers of people are being hoodwinked into believing that there are far more restrictions than there actually are. Northern Rail seems to be the biggest culprits as far as this particular aspect goes, near enough telling people that hey are not allowed to use their services unless they are key workers and their journey is essential. This is completely out of order.
Quite so, 'Chico. But: "If any person shall wilfully obstruct or impede any officer or agent of any railway company in the execution of his duty upon any railway, or upon or in any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith, or if any person shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, or any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith, and shall refuse to quit the same upon request to him made by any officer or agent of the said company, [he commits an offence]"
In short, railway staff cannot ask somebody to leave a station on a whim. The person involved has to "...wilfully obstruct or impede..." the railway officer in the execution of his duties. Attempting to board a train when entitled to do so cannot be interpreted as obstruction.
As it happens I believe that avoiding public transport where practical is a good idea at the moment. However, from next week all shops are being allowed to open. It is hardly fair to restrict their custom to those who can only get to them without using public transport. Large numbers of people are being hoodwinked into believing that there are far more restrictions than there actually are. Northern Rail seems to be the biggest culprits as far as this particular aspect goes, near enough telling people that hey are not allowed to use their services unless they are key workers and their journey is essential. This is completely out of order.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.