Strange Easements

[John @ home]

when was the most recent revision please,

The date that ATOC think each Section of the Routeing Guide was last revised is shown on the NRG home page. But, as with much of the railway fares system, this is not always accurate.

For example, examining the Properties of the National Routeing Guide in Detail pdf shows that it was last modified on 17 January 2003, not 24 February 2010.

who was consulted on the changes?

The latest information I have on consultation over NRG changes is now 2 years old.

14 January 2010

Changes to the (NRG) may be needed from time to time, if errors are discovered, new rail routes opened or reopened, additional routes are to be allowed, or train operators propose to disallow a route. The ATOC document, the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) allows changes to permitted routes to be made. The TSA requires ATOC to obtain approval from the Secretary of State for any changes, and that the SoS consults with Passenger Focus to ensure that passengers' routing flexibility is preserved.

Approximately 20,000 flows were amended in and around 2001/2 through this full change process. Since the Department for Transport have been responsible for the change approval process to the NRG no such requests have been received at all from ATOC in the intervening period.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/changes_to_naitonal_rail_routein#incoming-65101

Perhaps it's time to submit another FoI request.

 

[34D]

I can confirm that there are some high profile lurkers on here.

In that case, I hope they are significantly embarrassed by the poor grammar/apparent ambiguity/stupidity of the current easements list that they will allow this forum to update/correct the whole lot, in a fair structured way.

In particular, I would want to look seriously at the negative easements with a view to making them fairer.

 

[RJ]

In that case, I hope they are significantly embarrassed by the poor grammar/apparent ambiguity/stupidity of the current easements list that they will allow this forum to update/correct the whole lot, in a fair structured way.

In particular, I would want to look seriously at the negative easements with a view to making them fairer.

I'm of the opinion that if something bears absolutely no consequence on your life, then it shouldn't be complained about.

So what if there's an easement that says that one may travel from Brookmonds (sic) Park to Hitchin via Stevenage. There's a spelling mistake and it doesn't on the surface make much sense to list it as an easement. Who exactly does this affect?

Of the amount of people who actually travel, what percentage actively use the Routeing Guide and the easements when deciding what tickets to buy? 0.0001%? Of that percentage, how many are these grammatical errors/apparently ambiguous/stupid easements actually affecting? I see no benefit to anyone by these proposals to review it.

Sorry but I think that it's nothing more than pendancy going a step too far. Personally I think it should be left alone before people who scrutinise it properly decide to get rid of some of the more useful ones.

 

[RJ]

On checking my NFM10 CD last night I see that the only fares provided for Shelford to Hitchin or Letchworth etc are for "route Cambridge" - there is no "any permitted" fare shown. So you have to travel via Cambridge. EC & FCC sites will let you buy those tickets.

So I think the easement is intended to stop Shelford tickets to London going via Cambridge & FCC but is badly worded.

I think the easement is there to stop people buying a Hackney Downs to London Terminals ticket and travelling via Stansted/Cambridge/Hitchin.

Quite funny how anomalies published on the NRG entry on Wikipedia have been corrected by easements!

 

[34D]

On checking my NFM10 CD last night I see that the only fares provided for Shelford to Hitchin or Letchworth etc are for "route Cambridge" - there is no "any permitted" fare shown. So you have to travel via Cambridge. EC & FCC sites will let you buy those tickets.

So I think the easement is intended to stop Shelford tickets to London going via Cambridge & FCC but is badly worded.

I think everyone is agreed that an easement to allow travel via Birmingham allows a NOT BIRMINGHAM ticket to go via Birmingham - ie Easements overrule other parts of the routeing guide.

If an easement to "not go via Cambridge" overrules the RG then ROUTE CAMBRIDGE means to still avoid cambridge.

Thankfully we have the consumer legislation around doubt/ambiguity (most favourable interpretation to the consumer), so if it suits one person to make the journey via royston then fine, and if it suits another to go via Hackney then....

 

[Paul Kelly]

This not Cambridge easement (700119) seems to be a pretty new one, added on 7th March 2011 by First Capital Connect. Seeing it makes the only fares between the stations mentioned unusable, it would appear to be a good one to inquire of DfT/Passenger Focus about the consultation involved prior to its implementation, if anyone feels like annoying them again. You could possibly frame it from a fares regulation point of view - regulation requires all protected fares to always be offered for sale, but these Shelford to Hitchin/Letchworth fares are no longer valid on any trains and thus aren't being sold...

 

[RJ]

Considering the hassle you seem to have on a regular basis while exploiting those loopholes, is it really worth it?

Absolutely. At the moment I can travel with a walkup Anytime fare on the MML between St Pancras and Sheffield for around £12, which means roughly £48 for the general public.

Given that the Anytime Single is £104 and the Super Off Peak Single is £66.50, I think some people will understand why I'm happy to do what I do.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I think everyone is agreed that an easement to allow travel via Birmingham allows a NOT BIRMINGHAM ticket to go via Birmingham - ie Easements overrule other parts of the routeing guide....

The Routeing Guide shows permitted routes for a ticket (in addition to the shortest and by direct train), the easements follow this to add or remove permitted routes. A ticket routed 'Via Birmingham' would allow only those permitted routes that pass through Birmingham. A ticket routed 'Not Via Birmingham' would allow only those routes which do not go via Birmingham.

There is only one exception to this, where the fare for another route is lower than the fare paid.

 

[34D]

The Routeing Guide shows permitted routes for a ticket (in addition to the shortest and by direct train), the easements follow this to add or remove permitted routes. A ticket routed 'Via Birmingham' would allow only those permitted routes that pass through Birmingham. A ticket routed 'Not Via Birmingham' would allow only those routes which do not go via Birmingham.

There is only one exception to this, where the fare for another route is lower than the fare paid.

Good point. So are we saying that an easement or a route x cannot override the direct train rule or the shortest route rule?

 

[SickyNicky]

Good point. So are we saying that an easement or a route x cannot override the direct train rule or the shortest route rule?

For easements, yes. For route X no, I believe. If you're on a direct train or the shortest route, you don't have to consult the routeing guide at all, so no easements are relevant. But you still need to adhere to the route on your ticket.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Good point. So are we saying that an easement or a route x cannot override the direct train rule or the shortest route rule?

You collect together all the permitted routes (including the shortest and direct trains) and then select those that pass through (or avoid) the place named in the route.

Easements (either negative or positive) cannot alter the shortest route or direct trains as these are listed in the NRCoC.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Isn't this the point in the conversation when someone usually pipes up with "the Fife Circle" (or similar direct looping service)?

 

[MarkyMarkD]

You collect together all the permitted routes (including the shortest and direct trains) and then select those that pass through (or avoid) the place named in the route.

Easements (either negative or positive) cannot alter the shortest route or direct trains as these are listed in the NRCoC.

So, can you remind me whether shortest route mileages include the length of (a) walks and/or (b) LUL mileage?

For some of my favourite possible routes, a very lengthy LUL journey is suggested by some routeing engines and this reduces the NR mileage substantially, turning what might not otherwise be a short route into a far shorter one!

 

[John @ home]

can you remind me whether shortest route mileages include the length of (a) walks

No. See ATOC's answer to Q.9 in part 2 of The Amazing Routeing Question.

(b) LUL mileage?

The convention is that distances travelled by tube, bus, tram, DLR, boat etc. are discarded in the calculation of the shortest route.

 

[yorkie]

This not Cambridge easement (700119) seems to be a pretty new one, added on 7th March 2011 by First Capital Connect. Seeing it makes the only fares between the stations mentioned unusable, it would appear to be a good one to inquire of DfT/Passenger Focus about the consultation involved prior to its implementation, if anyone feels like annoying them again. You could possibly frame it from a fares regulation point of view - regulation requires all protected fares to always be offered for sale, but these Shelford to Hitchin/Letchworth fares are no longer valid on any trains and thus aren't being sold...

Yes, someone definitely needs to do that! I am happy to assist in proof reading a letter if anyone wants to give it a go!.

Isn't this the point in the conversation when someone usually pipes up with "the Fife Circle" (or similar direct looping service)?

In case anyone is wondering here is my view on the Fife Circle issue, part of a 113 post thread with plenty of debate about circular services which I'd recommend anyone who is curious and hasn't already read it, gives it a read as the chances are that any further questions on the subject have already been debated/answered there

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So, can you remind me whether shortest route mileages include the length of (a) walks and/or (b) LUL mileage?

For some of my favourite possible routes, a very lengthy LUL journey is suggested by some routeing engines and this reduces the NR mileage substantially, turning what might not otherwise be a short route into a far shorter one!

You should bear in mind that some LUL journeys on journey planners are allowed as part of 'Inter-available routes' and some are cross London routes. 'Inter-available routes' should count towards mileage (use the NR mileage), cross London journeys do not.

 

[sheff1]

You collect together all the permitted routes (including the shortest and direct trains) and then select those that pass through (or avoid) the place named in the route.

Easements (either negative or positive) cannot alter the shortest route or direct trains as these are listed in the NRCoC.

Glad you now accept this method of determining routes. I remember lengthy discussions where you argued otherwise

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You obviously have a better memory than me because I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

You should bear in mind that some LUL journeys on journey planners are allowed as part of 'Inter-available routes' and some are cross London routes. 'Inter-available routes' should count towards mileage (use the NR mileage), cross London journeys do not.

Thanks.