The next station is...!

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Wooton Wawen

 

[backontrack]

Wootton Wawen.

Henley-in-Arden

 

[Trainfan344]

Danzey

 

[backontrack]

Wood End

 

[FQ]

The Lakes

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Earlswood

 

[backontrack]

Wythall

 

[Trainfan344]

Whitlocks End

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Shirley

 

[Quakkerillo]

Shirley you mean Yardley Wood (sorry for this joke)

 

[backontrack]

Yardley Wood
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hall Green

 

[Buttsy]

Spring Road

 

[Darren R]

Tyseley

 

[backontrack]

Acocks Green

 

[Quakkerillo]

Birmingham Moor Street

 

[Trainfan344]

Birmingham Snow Hill

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Birmingham Snow Hill

 

[Darren R]

It seems that there are non stop services between Bicester Village and Princes Risborough. So the leg from Islip to Oxford Parkway via Bicester gets no points.

ADJUDICATION

Bicester Village to Princes Risborough was a valid move, as was the subsequent posting of Haddenham & Thame Parkway (#85097) made by fishquinn and later struck-through. A strict enforcement of the rules requires the valid posting to be reinstated and the journey restarted from the last valid post. This would result in a return to Haddenham & Thame Parkway, with all subsequent postings being invalid.

However, I am mindful of the chaos this would cause and prefer to keep the game flowing. Having looked at the sequence of postings, we have the following:

#85094 Islip being the first station on a new leg
#85095 Bicester Village
#85096 Princes Risborough
#85097 Haddenham & Thame Parkway
#85099 Oxford Parkway (invalid post)
#85100 Bicester North

Although it is possible to make four valid moves from Haddenham & Thame Parkway if we returned there and started again, Bicester North is one of those valid moves. Therefore, fishquinn should reinstate #85096 and strike-through #85099 in its entirety. This adds a few more points to this leg and will make it easier for clagmonster to follow the sequence when he is calculating the scores.

It may be a good idea at this juncture to remind everyone that the service patterns operated by Chiltern are very complex and asymmetrical. Many trains 'skip stop' different stations at different times and on different services. As an example, from Haddenham & Thame Parkway on this leg, Bicester North, Banbury, High Wycombe or London Marylebone could all have been played. (And for once the eNRT seems to be accurate, which makes it easier to check! )


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Birmingham Snow Hill

Jewellery Quarter

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

ADJUDICATION

Bicester Village to Princes Risborough was a valid move, as was the subsequent posting of Haddenham & Thame Parkway (#85097) made by fishquinn and later struck-through. A strict enforcement of the rules requires the valid posting to be reinstated and the journey restarted from the last valid post. This would result in a return to Haddenham & Thame Parkway, with all subsequent postings being invalid.

However, I am mindful of the chaos this would cause and prefer to keep the game flowing. Having looked at the sequence of postings, we have the following:

#85094 Islip being the first station on a new leg
#85095 Bicester Village
#85096 Princes Risborough
#85097 Haddenham & Thame Parkway
#85099 Oxford Parkway (invalid post)
#85100 Bicester North

Although it is possible to make four valid moves from Haddenham & Thame Parkway if we returned there and started again, Bicester North is one of those valid moves. Therefore, fishquinn should reinstate #85096 and strike-through #85099 in its entirety. This adds a few more points to this leg and will make it easier for clagmonster to follow the sequence when he is calculating the scores.

If reference back at posting # 85099 is made, it does show that a leg ended and a new leg started on that very posting. Reference to the rules states there cannot be a retrospective review on a leg deemed closed and a new leg commencing.

It always seems that starting a new leg some distance away from the closing station of thee previous leg is eminently a sensible course of action to adopt.

.

10. Once a leg has been completed and the first post of a new leg started, the previous leg cannot be edited, under any circumstances.

However, if it is found that there was a valid move possible from the 'winning' station after a new leg has started, no points will be scored for that leg.

Rule 10 is shown above.

 

[OxtedL]

I see no reason for a hold, as there is no way that any adjudication will affect where we are in the current leg. I will therefore continue with The Hawthorns.

Regarding the adjudication, it is not clear to me whether Darren R recognised a new leg had been started or not. I don't really mind either way, but the options are:

• The whole (extremely short) leg is noted as incorrect and scores no points.
• We proceed roughly as Darren suggested above and in the process merge the two or three salvageable points of the last leg onto the start of the new leg.

Such a decision only affects the availability of Princes Risborough and Bicester Village later in this leg, which may yet not be a problem we have to deal with! I await to see what the adjudicators decide to do.

The calling patterns on Chiltern are very complicated, so everyone needs to take care around that part of the world. There are, as Darren noted, daily services from Bicester Village to Princes Risborough (exactly three of them).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Hawthorns.

Smethwick Galton Bridge

 

[Quakkerillo]

To me, a new leg had started, so the adjudication would be editing an already finished leg, which shouldn't be allowed according to rule 10.

Sandwell & Dudley

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Dudley Port

 

[Quakkerillo]

Tipton

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Coseley

 

[Trainfan344]

Wolverhampton

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Penkridge

 

[Buttsy]

To me, a new leg had started, so the adjudication would be editing an already finished leg, which shouldn't be allowed according to rule 10.

I concur with this view. While it may not be messy to re-instate that leg into this one, I have no wish to set a precedent if such a situation occurs again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Penkridge

Stafford

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Stone

 

[185143]

Stoke on Trent