tubechallenge.com

Over 3,000,000 people use the Underground each day, most of whom are not doing any form of Tube Challenge. I've seen plenty of these non-tubechallengers holding doors for friends and other passengers, assuming that on an average day 0.01% of passengers infringe the doors that would mean around 300 services could be classed as not in "Normal Public Service".

mikehhh wrote:Taking a look at the Guiness rules, they specify "To `visit' a station, you must arrive and/or depart by an underground train in normal public service"

Surely, somebody acting on behalf of the team by holding the doors - for any period - means that the 'normal public service' requirement is not met?

Excellent finding! I find it very hard to argue with that. The point obviously being that it's intentional and on the team's behalf. Delays caused by others,, out of control by the team itself, are clearly part of normal service.

The whole argument is pointless. Everyone holds doors, gets stuck in doors, crowds in causing delays, gets their bag/head/coat stuck in the doors every day.

At no point is the entire tube network operating a "normal" service with regards to passengers delaying trains. And as pointed out above, quite correctly, (and by me in an earlier post) we are no different to normal passengers. We aren't some kind of sportspeople for whom special rules apply with regard to our conduct on the tube. We are merely using the public transport system to get around as quickly as possible.

tubeguru wrote:The whole argument is pointless. Everyone holds doors, gets stuck in doors, crowds in causing delays, gets their bag/head/coat stuck in the doors every day.

At no point is the entire tube network operating a "normal" service with regards to passengers delaying trains. And as pointed out above, quite correctly, (and by me in an earlier post) we are no different to normal passengers. We aren't some kind of sportspeople for whom special rules apply with regard to our conduct on the tube. We are merely using the public transport system to get around as quickly as possible.

This is definatly true my bag got caught in the door at Waterloo on the NB Northern Line on my last attempt and the driver decided not to reopen the doors so I could get it out but to carry on and I had to wait until Leicester Square for the right side of the doors to open to retrieve it!!

tubeguru wrote:The whole argument is pointless. Everyone holds doors, gets stuck in doors, crowds in causing delays, gets their bag/head/coat stuck in the doors every day.

At no point is the entire tube network operating a "normal" service with regards to passengers delaying trains. And as pointed out above, quite correctly, (and by me in an earlier post) we are no different to normal passengers. We aren't some kind of sportspeople for whom special rules apply with regard to our conduct on the tube. We are merely using the public transport system to get around as quickly as possible.

Tubeguru, I agree to your factual description (well, most of it, anyway), except for the use of the word "normal". "Normal" should be defined as "average" or "typical" rather than "perfect". The point is that having a support team helping you manipulate the system is not the same as you perfecting the use of it - FAR FROM IT!

It's true that passengers hold doors occasionally (surprisingly rare, I think), but almost always to someone else in their own party, or to help a slow/elderly/disabled person. I think it's quite obvious that this is almost never an organised thing, but happens at the spur of the moment. But, "organising" people, outside your party, to hold your doors? NO WAY part of "normal" operation.

E.g. in a long jump competition in a head wind, everyone waits (within the allowed time window) for the head wind to cease in order to maximize their jumps. I believe the coach may provide "intelligence" from the other side of the field about an upcoming favourable wind situation - fine. However, it's clearly not allowed having a huge support team screening off a head wind, right? If the crowd in the stands "happen" to fulfill this function - fine, but organising it? NO WAY!

Another analogy:
In a golf tournament, the ball may bounce off a bystander and gain from it. It's not uncommon to see players being saved by this. However, having a support team in the crowd, actively stopping the ball from doing bad things? OF COURSE NOT!

scrxisi wrote:I know I said I wasn't going to post again but I have a thing for regulations. Formula 1 is a sport close to my heart but is often a farce becuase they can;t enforce their own rules properly. I hate that...

On this, I'm with tubeguru and Soup Dragon - if doors being held constitutes an invalidation of "normal public servce" I don't see how, purely from a technical point of view (with regards to the regulations as written, and I emphasise not "morally" or "ethically" with regards to tube challenging), you can differentiate between passengers, the support team or the challengers.

That rule in my mind is clearly to prohibit use of a special train or an out of service train ("my mate Ken is a driver, he let me in the cab on a run to depot" type thing).

Well, the entire "bicycle/private transportation" rule thing is useless then? I don't think so. Most people respect rules, and indeed Guinness just has to assume people do. I think, generally speaking, when people compete for "glory" alone, cheating is quite uncommon. However, as soon as substantial money gets involved (like in F1), it all becomes game theory, i.e. weighing the cost and gain of different strategies (unfortunately involving cheating and it's potential sanctions).

Of course you can differentiate between passengers and support team. Just as you demand that witnesses should be reasonably independent from the challengers. The challengers are obviously clearly defined.

I still believe, there could easily be a rule stating that "the system should be used "as is" and no attempt to manipulate it is allowed". To me this would just be a clarification to the "normal operation" rule quoted above. Then it would be obvious that support team could not hold doors, but having one member of the challenge team, briefly, holding doors for another, would hardly be an infringement.

Normal Operation is not stated in the GWR rules Normal Public Service is the criteria..... You cannot change the wording to twist the argument, sorry........

GWR rejected the attempt on Saturday Dec 29th 2007 because they said that Normal Public Service was NOT used..... Of course this was an absolute nonsense as every station was visited on the Public Service that was provided for that particular day......

It has already been explained by Tubeguru what the wording means...... You are taking the word "Normal" in the wrong context.....

Going Underground wrote:Normal Operation is not stated in the GWR rules Normal Public Service is the criteria..... You cannot change the wording to twist the argument, sorry........

GWR rejected the attempt on Saturday Dec 29th 2007 because they said that Normal Public Service was NOT used..... Of course this was an absolute nonsense as every station was visited on the Public Service that was provided for that particular day......

It has already been explained by Tubeguru what the wording means...... You are taking the word "Normal" in the wrong context.....

Sorry about the wrong quoting - however, I don't think it twists the argument...

I think GWRs rejection of your X-mas attempt was tough. I think you should have had it - it was cleverly planned and well executed...

I don't agree with Tubeguru's explanation. I don't think it's wrong, but incomplete. It's merely his view - nothing else (guru or not). However, even with Tubeguru's definition, I think there is room for arguing that excessive door holding by a support team, makes the service less "Normal Public"...

In what way did GWR think the Dec 29th attempt violated the "normal public service" rule? I thought they had pre-approved the use of a weekend attempt under the unusual circumstance of being free of engineering work.

I had always thought that that "normal public service" just means using trains available to normal paying customers. This excludes, for instance, hiring your own train for a bespoke tour of the network (which might be unfair in terms of eliminating the usual waits as well as possibly using connections between lines/branches not normally utilised in public service, or stopping at stations normally passed through). I don't think "normal public service" was intended to have anything to do with door holding. It is not obvious how to treat a non-standard route or stopping pattern used by a particular train, due to engineering work or diversion. My instinct is that this is just your good luck if it helps you - just as it's your bad luck if your train is delayed, cancelled or terminated short of its destination.

Obviously I advocate behaviour that does not inconvenience, endanger or delay the paying public. I think it was Hakan who came up with the excellent descriptive term "controlled running" - i.e., run when it's safe to do so.

hwolge wrote:I still believe, there could easily be a rule stating that "the system should be used "as is" and no attempt to manipulate it is allowed". To me this would just be a clarification to the "normal operation" rule quoted above. Then it would be obvious that support team could not hold doors, but having one member of the challenge team, briefly, holding doors for another, would hardly be an infringement.

Yes but if the rule stated that then that would just be changing the rules in the favour of your opinion, of course there could easily be a change in the rules just as there could easily be a change in the rules saying that people CAN hold doors!

The frustrating thing about the 29th December attempt was that I advised Guinness in advance of the planned date and they never came back to me to say that we couldn't do it because it was a Saturday. There rules only said that the attempt was not possible on weekends because certain stations are closed, which obviously was not the case on 29th December. When I argued the case Guinness said that because there were less people on the network on the weekend it made the attempt easier, which I argued was countered by the fact there are less trains and difficulties to work around like football matches and the earlier closure of Cannon Street (which totally altered our route).

Guinness final email to me took the biscuit, they said to award us the record would be unfair to the current record holders, who happened to be us....!

Well it would have been unfair to Starkey and Going Underground i suppose.I have already told Sara due to that technicality of ur attempt she was the fastest ever 268 only attempt she was dead chuffed

Maybe a good idea to actually ask Guinness to clarify what is and isn't allowed when it comes to these things, so there'll be no more confusion and the same rules for everyone.

Like people asked for clarification on Shoreditch and got two different answers depending on who at Guinness they spoke to?

My view is that we'd be burdening GWR with too much to consider if we asked them to lay down exact rules regarding the holding of doors and the provision of food for challengers.

Where does it stop? Next we'll be asking them if it's OK to wear shorts ...