• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

The next station is...!

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

D

Darren R

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,252
Location
Lancashire
The confusion on Tuesday seems to have happened as a result of near-simultaneous postings and two consecutive stations with very similar names becoming mixed-up. To further compound matters, this all took place on a line with irregular station calling patterns and skip-stopping. It may help if I summarise the timeline of postings:

1716:
#134110: DanTrain: Reedham
#134111: andyallen4014: Cantley
#134112: A Challenge: Berney Arms. Posted as a move from Reedham, but beaten by Cantley. Seeing this, the move is immediately struck-through.

1717:
#134113: DanTrain: Buckenham. Posted as a move from Cantley, and is the last valid post.

1718:
#134114: A Challenge: Brundall Gardens. This is where it starts to go wrong, as only Brundall is a valid move at this point. Moves following on from Brundall Gardens are therefore void and we remain at Buckenham until someone other than DanTrain posts Brundall.

1719:
#134115: DanTrain: Brundall. Posted as a move from Brundall Gardens. This post is invalid.
#134116: andyallen4014: Brundall. A near simultaneous posting with DanTrain, which is immediately spotted and the move struck-through. As it turns out, this move was actually valid.
#134117: andyallen4014: Lingwood. A second attempt at posting, moving from DanTrain's Brundall.
#134118: DanTrain queries the move from Buckenham to Brundall Gardens posted by A Challenge.

1727:
A Challenge realises his mistake and strikes-through his original posting of Brundall Gardens (#134114), and re-posts it (#134119) in an attempt to rectify the error in the simplest way.

However, at the time of posting, this second posting of Brundall Gardens (#134119) is not valid, for two reasons. Firstly, DanTrain has now made two consecutive moves, and A Challenge has posted Brundall Gardens here intended as a move from the second of those consecutive posts. Further, at this point #134115 (Brundall) is still being treated as valid by all players present, and andyallen4014 has already moved from that by posting Lingwood. A Challenge cannot therefore move from Lingwood (#134117) to Brundall Gardens (#134119) as no trains omit Brundall en route.

Because post #134119 Brundall Gardens is not valid at the time it was posted, I am treating this move as invalid. This move will only become valid later in the timeline as a result of subsequent events, one of which is an adjudication (made in good faith) by A Challenge himself. That being the case, I don't think it is fair to treat this as a valid move in the circumstances. An invalid move cannot be made valid retrospectively in this way. Additionally, it was the clear intention of all players present at the time to continue onto the Great Yarmouth line, although the confusion was further compounded by the erroneous belief that Brundall Gardens to Lingwood was a valid move.

Therefore, taking everything into account, these are the valid moves:

#134110 Reedham
#134111 Cantley
#134113 Buckenham
#134116 Brundall
#134124 Lingwood
#134125 Acle
#134126 Great Yarmouth
#134127 Berney Arms

I hope everyone thinks this is the fairest outcome; it is, after all, the original outcome.

The cause of the confusion on Tuesday was a very unusual set of circumstances that I can't ever remember happening before. The original rules stipulated that when a mistake was made and an invalid move posted, play should return to the last valid move before that mistake was made and be restarted from there. Possibly a small tweek of the current rules to reintroduce this may be in order? In this situation, this may have made matters much simpler, as it would have resulted in a return to Buckenham, all subsequent posts struck-through, and play resumed from the last valid move.
 
Xenophon PCDGS

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,412
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
What a very good in-depth explanation above from Darren R.

Can I ask how matters stand as regards how the thread has progressed since then, as more than one new leg has commenced since then?

Do we carry on from this current leg in progress that started at Kettering on posting # 134204.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top