Yes you are
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What travel restrictions change from the 29th March?
- Thread starter Jan Mayen
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Thank you. Might have a day out at Stafford this week
Thats fine, just as long as you adhere to social distancing. I plan to do some later this week too.
86247
Member
A bit further up on this thread someone can't remember who mentioned covid jabs I had mine first jab in January having my second on Wednesday, probably be next week before I venture out. All the advice that has been given I thank you all and I am determined to go out sometime next week.
As long as the station staff are happy with it, spot away. I'd have a quick word with them if you are going to be there for a longer while.
Thanks. Will be driving to Stafford, will have a word with the staff when I get there. Will keep myself at the end of the platform away from passengers and keep my mask on
trainophile
Established Member
Well I have arrived, and sure enough a trouble-free journey. Had a slight qualm when two RPIs and a BTP boarded at Crewe, but they just checked my ticket and then turned their attentions to penalty faring a young lass who didn't have one, as apparently she was too late getting to the station (Winsford) to buy one. The RPI was ever so nice with her, she was only a young teenager, and said he hoped he hadn't ruined her day, after telling her how to appeal the PF notice. Anyway I digress... no awkward questions at all at any of my three stages, and no problems at Southport either.
I tell you what though, there's an awful lot of mask exempt people on Merseyrail! About 50% in my coach.
I tell you what though, there's an awful lot of mask exempt people on Merseyrail! About 50% in my coach.
JakeMurphy
Member
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,124
Had a great day myself today all the stations I went staff seemed fine with me being out even spoke to a member of the BTP that said “great to see enthusiasts out again”
There you go the seal of approval. I think some police will enforce the law and some wont bother.
Bishopstone
Established Member
The GTR brands still have ‘Stay at Home’ on their websites and social media feeds, and have just messaged about ‘minimising journeys’ over the Easter weekend. Maybe there’s fear that hordes will descend on Brighton (and Cambridge etc), over the holiday, although the weather forecast isn’t great.
trainophile
Established Member
I used both of those today, and there were no announcements to that effect, other than the usual mask reminders. They must have had an evening de-brief, although my trains were far from busy.
Automated announcement at Whitby still telling everyone to stay at home and signage at Newcastle saying you must only travel for legal reasons.
Metro has switched to more positive messaging about being covid secure if you need to travel.
Metro has switched to more positive messaging about being covid secure if you need to travel.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Rail Delivery Group say
Rail Operators need to be scrapping these you mustn't travel banners on website and CIS announcements they need to get in as much cash as legally allowed
Yes in theory! —
Real Time Live Trains Board | National Rail
Check National Rail live trains real time status and departure boards for all train stations. Get train times, station and platform details before departure.
I think it’s a revenue protection measure specific to certain flows where outbound and inbound restrictions differ.
However I fully agree that it’s irrelevant to Covid restrictions, and besides there’s nothing illegal about using an outbound and not using a return!
trainophile
Established Member
Just to clarify, the reason I considered buying an extra "dummy" ticket, valid for returning home on the same day as my outbound travel, was because if anyone was being picky they could query my intentions, as I would have come a fairly long distance and "they" might surmise that I was planning to stay away. It would have given me the option of returning home if I was unsure whether I would get away with not doing. That's if "they" were still maintaining that overnight stays were not allowed, which I now know to be not the case. I'm sure I read somewhere a while ago that someone was told to report to their local police station the next day to prove they were there!
My tickets are all Advances so I would have been unable to show an open return portion of a two way ticket. As it happens it wasn't necessary, but this is the reason I was like a stuck record on here, asking for the latest version of the "staying away overnight" rules. Thankfully it all worked out well and no awkward questions were asked.
My tickets are all Advances so I would have been unable to show an open return portion of a two way ticket. As it happens it wasn't necessary, but this is the reason I was like a stuck record on here, asking for the latest version of the "staying away overnight" rules. Thankfully it all worked out well and no awkward questions were asked.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
If someone queries your intentions from today tell them to politely fob off. It’s none of their business, it isn’t the law, and they shouldn’t be asking. Stand your ground; be confident. Know the law and where you stand.
Whilst I can't speak for the railways, I have spent most of the year (barring around 3 months mostly working at home) commuting by car over the Pennines (M62). Expected, particularly in the early days, for roadblocks there. Not one, ever.
I had no issues (rightly!) tootling to/from/around London today on a Travelcard. Had to speak to a number of gateline staff as it stopped working in barriers after encountering a dodgy reader at Victoria, but everyone seemed fairly cheerful.
Lots of out-of-date signage and some out-of-date announcements, but I expected those.
The continual announcements and signage about 'face coverings' was very very tedious, though. I suppose at least most now mention that there are exemptions.
Lots of out-of-date signage and some out-of-date announcements, but I expected those.
The continual announcements and signage about 'face coverings' was very very tedious, though. I suppose at least most now mention that there are exemptions.
Planesandtrain
Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 75
Travelled around on buses in Surrey W/Sussex today, was absolutely wonderful to get out and about and the drivers were all welcoming and no questions asked. I even found some open public toilets in Petersfield (Jokes aside a very pleasant market town!)
I agree with all of this. Last year I walked past three coppers at Liverpool Central with a box of fish & chips in my hand, waved my rover ticket and off I went for a ride to West Kirby. They must have known that I'd be scoffing on the train. On TfW, the guards have not checked tickets since March last year.
It's incorrect. The BBC have some poor journalists these days.
That's right
It's not unlawful, but equally there is nothing to stop a train company stating that they do not wish you to be there if you are not there for the purpose of taking a train.
My advice would be to go to a non-station location if possible. Alternatively if you do go to a staffed station, check with the staff if they are happy for you to be there.
NoOnesFool
Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 602
Neutral Post | This post is not an endorsement of Government restrictions and is not an instruction on what to do or advice.
So, I've looked at the whole Act for 29th March and it only seems to mention international travel, except possibly for a mention to ammendment of some steps mentioned only by number, which do not disclose what they relate to. The Government website says that people should avoid un-essential travel, however how does one determine if the word should is legally enforceable as an obligation in law? I've looked it up, but the only website that seems to offer clarity is an American website.
The Express said they were unable to get clarification on the restrictions from the Government, despite asking for it.
I'm left feeling that this will be open to interpretation by police individuals which really is open to exploitation. There is no clarity on exactly what the Government defines as law and no clarity on local. On the other hand, it is also contradictory, as how can travel for socialising in a friend's garden be deemed as "essential"?
With another poster referring to BTP checking people's reasoning for travel only 2 days ago, I can imagine there are going to be disputes aplenty.
If the Government themselves aren't able to offer clarity, then who is?
I voted to repeal the restrictions and I am against the removal of our freedom. What I have said above is not an endorsement of the Government restrictions, I am merely venting my frustration of them.
It doesn't look as though there are any plans to amend this, even after the 21st of June. Is it technically possible that in 2030 a person could be breaking the law by going on a day trip to the beach in Cornwall, say if they live in Middlesbrough? It looks as the law could be interpreted that way, as it stands. Which is very upsetting and also angering.
So, I've looked at the whole Act for 29th March and it only seems to mention international travel, except possibly for a mention to ammendment of some steps mentioned only by number, which do not disclose what they relate to. The Government website says that people should avoid un-essential travel, however how does one determine if the word should is legally enforceable as an obligation in law? I've looked it up, but the only website that seems to offer clarity is an American website.
The Express said they were unable to get clarification on the restrictions from the Government, despite asking for it.
I'm left feeling that this will be open to interpretation by police individuals which really is open to exploitation. There is no clarity on exactly what the Government defines as law and no clarity on local. On the other hand, it is also contradictory, as how can travel for socialising in a friend's garden be deemed as "essential"?
With another poster referring to BTP checking people's reasoning for travel only 2 days ago, I can imagine there are going to be disputes aplenty.
If the Government themselves aren't able to offer clarity, then who is?
I voted to repeal the restrictions and I am against the removal of our freedom. What I have said above is not an endorsement of the Government restrictions, I am merely venting my frustration of them.
It doesn't look as though there are any plans to amend this, even after the 21st of June. Is it technically possible that in 2030 a person could be breaking the law by going on a day trip to the beach in Cornwall, say if they live in Middlesbrough? It looks as the law could be interpreted that way, as it stands. Which is very upsetting and also angering.
Matt Hancock said on This Morning on ITV yesterday that it was 'absolutely fine' to go on a day trip as long as you stay outside. He said he would even be doing it himself! The sports minister said they are allowed too Londoners CAN hit the beach for heatwave despite ‘stay local’ advice | Evening Standard
I agree that the majority of the new legislation is about international, rather than domestic travel.
Looking at the Government guidance:
The wording is to "minimise travel" rather than "avoid unessential travel" which seem to have very different meanings.
Minimising travel acknowledges that there will be a residual amount of travel and leaves it to the individual to decide how to minimise it.
Also, there isn't any attempt to disserentiate between essential and unessential travel, along with there being no attempt to define limits, so I would suggest that so long as one can travel somewhere and back in a day, there isn't really much scope for interpreting this guidance in a particularly restrictive way.
Looking at the Government guidance:
The wording is to "minimise travel" rather than "avoid unessential travel" which seem to have very different meanings.
Minimising travel acknowledges that there will be a residual amount of travel and leaves it to the individual to decide how to minimise it.
Also, there isn't any attempt to disserentiate between essential and unessential travel, along with there being no attempt to define limits, so I would suggest that so long as one can travel somewhere and back in a day, there isn't really much scope for interpreting this guidance in a particularly restrictive way.
Amateurish
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 40
A couple of weeks ago I was thrown out of Nuneaton station for being there too early for my train (50 minutes) with my 10 year old son. I was told to go away and come back with 10 minutes to spare. We were the only ones on the platform.
JakeMurphy
Member
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,124
Jobsworth alert
Jamiescott1
Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 965
I would of told the person where to go.
I'd put in a complaint.
It is not in the law because it is not the law. Simple as!
- Status