Routeing Guide 'Easements' amended 14/03/2012

[island]

The whole point of negative easements is that they forbid routes that would otherwise be permitted.

It has been argued that easements only come into play when one is consulting the routeing guide because one is not on the shortest route or a through train.

I am not making that argument.

 

[SickyNicky]

It has been argued that easements only come into play when one is consulting the routeing guide because one is not on the shortest route or a through train.

I am not making that argument.

Whereas I would tend to agree with hairyhandedfool's interpretation earlier, where the shortest route and through trains seem to be permitted without consulting the routeing guide at all (and thus never needing to know about easements), but the 3 mile rule is only mentioned in the routeing guide and so probably does bring easements into play.

We don't know the answer for sure, but I think the above is defendable, at least.

 

[Deerfold]

The loss of 64 is also very harsh, and could add quite a bit of time onto Baldock-Leeds - noting that one Leeds per hour calls kgx svg then gra omitting pbo.

That is a very nasty one. I used to do Hitchin - Leeds a lot.

If you're looking at fastest trains it effectively reduces the service from 2 to 1 per hour in the middle of the day as it's usually quicker to wait for the Peterborough train from Leeds - and it's the fast option that's ben removed so the journey goes from a 2h02 and 2h18 in each hour to just a 2h18.

 

[Mike395]

Finsbury Park - Cambridge no longer being valid via Kings Cross is a big one, which lots of people use (including a few I know personally) due to the "Cambridge Cruiser" non-stop service being so much quicker - and unless it's advertised clearly at all affected stations, it's going to cause a LOT of problems..

 

[transmanche]

Finsbury Park - Cambridge no longer being valid via Kings Cross is a big one, which lots of people use (including a few I know personally) due to the "Cambridge Cruiser" non-stop service being so much quicker - and unless it's advertised clearly at all affected stations, it's going to cause a LOT of problems..

It's going to hit me personally - and I can see a lot of PFs handed out to unhappy customers over the next few weeks/months.

The same with the removal of 79, which was very useful to users of London suburban stations when connecting to/from EC services. Methinks it's time to complain to ATOC/DfT/London TravelWatch/anyone who will listen...

 

[Mike395]

Methinks it's time to complain to ..../anyone who will listen...

So none of the above organisations then? :P

Seriously, I can see the Cambridge easement removal causing enough trouble for FCC that it will be reinstated by ATOC before too long
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just noticed as well that the removal of 69 is going to remove a lot of common-sense routings too! Not a good set of easement changes for those using the London-Cambridge lines!

(It is interesting to note that pretty much every easement altered here does not benefit the customer - no new positive easements have been introduced)

 

[PaulLothian]

This change appears to raise a number of questions. Clarification, please (if any is possible)...

"700224. Customers travelling from Glasgow Stations to Exhibition Centre (Glasgow) may not travel via Partick. This easement applies in both directions."

Scotrail's journey planner/ticket engine has stopped showing a route to Exhibition Centre via Partick from various places (e.g. Linlithgow) that as far as I can remember have previously been valid. I have certainly used that route many times!

As far as I can see from the Scotrail site, stations on the Edinburgh - Airdrie - QS line no longer have any tickets at all to Exhibition Centre ("No tickets are available, please refine your search")

Even allowing for the rather bizarre nature of this easement, this appears to be a return to the previous ticketing issues for this traffic flow that followed the opening of the Airdrie - Bathgate route.

On a related issue, I note that the fare from either Queen Street or Central to Exhibition Centre is the same, although you get a bus trip through the city thrown in if you buy your ticket at Queen Street! The journey time is about the same as travelling via Partick, but with less tunnel wall...

 

[clagmonster]

It's going to hit me personally - and I can see a lot of PFs handed out to unhappy customers over the next few weeks/months.

The same with the removal of 79, which was very useful to users of London suburban stations when connecting to/from EC services. Methinks it's time to complain to ATOC/DfT/London TravelWatch/anyone who will listen...

A PF would not be issuable in most such cases, see:
"13. The route you are entitled to take
(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:
(i) a through train;
(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by scheduled
passenger services; or
(iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide
(details as to how you can obtain this information will be available
when you buy your ticket).
(b) If you are using a Zonal Ticket you may travel in trains which take any route within
the zone or zones shown on the ticket.
...
(e) If you make your journey by a route other than those referred to in (a) and (b)
above, you will be liable to pay an excess fare. This excess fare will be the
difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the
lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that would have entitled you
to travel by that route."
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

If a passenger with a Finsbury Park-Cambridge ticket travels via Kings Cross, in my opinion they should be excess to the tune of the diffeence between the fare paid and the sum of the appropriate Finsbury Park-Kings Cross and Kings Cross-Cambridge tickets.

The only way that I can see a PF being justified is if a passenger with such a ticket attempts to leave the station completely at Kings Cross, in which case it is debateable.

 

[LexyBoy]

unless it's advertised clearly at all affected stations, it's going to cause a LOT of problems..

Maybe I'm cynical, but as all affected stations as FCC, and it is FCC who will benefit from the fines dished out to those travelling the wrong way, I wouldn't expect to see too many posters prominently displayed.

Could there be a Via London fare on the way though?

 

[Mike395]

Maybe I'm cynical, but as all affected stations as FCC, and it is FCC who will benefit from the fines dished out to those travelling the wrong way, I wouldn't expect to see too many posters prominently displayed.

Could there be a Via London fare on the way though?

Possibly, but I would have thought the easement change wouldn't happen until the next round of changes (and a new one put in for the new Via London ticket, as an easement would still be required) if this was the reason

 

[transmanche]

Could there be a Via London fare on the way though?

I guess so.

I just tried entering Newcastle to Finsbury Park via Kings Cross into East Coast's website - it now suggests a route of Newcastle-Sheffield-St Pancras-Kings Cross-Finsbury Park. (Although if I miss out the 'via' step, it still offers me some Super Off-Peak itineraries via Kings Cross. Price is the same on either route.)

 

[Eagle]

Finsbury Park - Cambridge no longer being valid via Kings Cross is a big one, which lots of people use (including a few I know personally) due to the "Cambridge Cruiser" non-stop service being so much quicker - and unless it's advertised clearly at all affected stations, it's going to cause a LOT of problems..

Quickest route from Finsbury Park to Cambridge is via Tottenham Hale; about 20 minutes quicker than the GN stopper.

 

[Mike395]

I just tried entering Newcastle to Finsbury Park via Kings Cross into East Coast's website - it now suggests a route of Newcastle-Sheffield-St Pancras-Kings Cross-Finsbury Park. (Although if I miss out the 'via' step, it still offers me some Super Off-Peak itineraries via Kings Cross. Price is the same on either route.)

Newcastle and other ECML stations are unaffected by the removal of this easement (I have not checked if a separate easement exists for it) as the ECML does not run through Cambridge

 

[swt_passenger]

I just tried Finsbury Park to Cambridge, and by default it offered either
a 'not London' fare at £20.10, and a via LU and Tottenham Hale 'any permitted at £22.20

If 'via Kings Cross' is added the fare then becomes the £22.20 route 'any permitted'.

Looks like the basic fare is therefore the 'not London' - as of tonight 16/03.

 

[transmanche]

Newcastle and other ECML stations are unaffected by the removal of this easement (I have not checked if a separate easement exists for it) as the ECML does not run through Cambridge

Sorry, I drifted on to considering the removal of easement 79 too. Apologies for not making that clear.

79. Journeys from Peterborough and via Stevenage or via Peterborough and Stevenage to stations between London and Welham Green or London and Crews Hill may double back from London. This easement applies in both directions.

 

[David Goddard]

Is that easement intended to prevent some of the permutations discussed here? If so, that was very quick indeed!

Just what I thought, having followed and contributed to that thread a couple of times.
I am reading this to infer that if you set out from Central to say London via Slough, then you will have to return the same way, ie not via Staines and Datchet. Through tickets (ie Maidenhead to Staines) would not be affected as the ticket is not for Windsor & Eton.
It is interesting to see how many of these changes affect services operated by First Group franchises (circa 20 of them), so one has to ask the question whether this is yet another First Group squeeze to extract more money from the paying customer

 

[Eagle]

It is interesting to see how many of these changes affect services operated by First Group franchises...

Hardly surprising, being as First's franchises cover most of the country.

 

[bb21]

Depends on your reading of the rules. The three mile rule only appears in the Routeing Guide and routes permitted by the Routeing Guide can be 'invalidated' by negative easements. The only permitted routes that are immune to the negative easements, imo, are 'routes taken by a through train' and 'the shortest route' which are printed in the NRCoC.

I have just had to recheck the Routeing Guide. It says

Journeys on direct trains or taking the route of shortest distance or a distance longer by no more than 3 miles are always following a permitted route. Journeys following a route given by the Routeing Guide are following a permitted route.

Is that easement intended to prevent some of the permutations discussed here? If so, that was very quick indeed!

Possibly, but it has no bearings on travel between London Terminals and Datchet via Slough is the shortest route.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I have just had to recheck the Routeing Guide. It says

Journeys on direct trains or taking the route of shortest distance or a distance longer by no more than 3 miles are always following a permitted route. Journeys following a route given by the Routeing Guide are following a permitted route.

....

Then you will also have read

A journey which follows a route permitted by the Routeing Guide may be forbidden
that route by a negative easement.

The three mile rule only appears in the Routeing Guide (and it is only in the 'Routeing Guide in Detail' section). So if a rule permitting a route only appears in the Routeing Guide, is it not the Routeing Guide that permits that route?

 

[bb21]

Then you will also have read

So why is there a specific reference to

Journeys following a route given by the Routeing Guide are following a permitted route.

in the original quotation I provided, in addition to the mention of the 3-mile rule?

If journeys following the 3-mile rule is classed as following a route given by the Routeing Guide then surely there is no need to mention it separately.

Unfortunately as we are both aware, the whole document is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and this is just another example of it.

 

[exile]

"30261. Customers travelling between Manchester Piccadilly and Stalybridge may travel via Guide Bridge. This easement applies in both directions."

Hmmmm. This has now been deleted. Which means - how exactly is one meant to travel between Manchester Piccadilly and Stalybridge?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So why is there a specific reference to



in the original quotation I provided, in addition to the mention of the 3-mile rule?

If journeys following the 3-mile rule is classed as following a route given by the Routeing Guide then surely there is no need to mention it separately.

Unfortunately as we are both aware, the whole document is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and this is just another example of it.

A route is permitted if it's mentioned as such in the Routeing Guide except for routes which are not permitted. If it's permitted in one part of the RG and not permitted in another then this actually causes a warp in the space time continuum which means any route is permitted assuming you can travel by Virgin Starship which can be booked through their time travel website.

 

[Jonny]

Losing 10002 is a right nuisance - purpose to enable more use of rail replacement coaches?

Also, what was the point of 30071 anyway? - potentially useful but only when the Saltburn 'direct' (to/from Newcastle via Darlington) services ran.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So why is there a specific reference to

Journeys following a route given by the Routeing Guide are following a permitted route.

in the original quotation I provided, in addition to the mention of the 3-mile rule?

If journeys following the 3-mile rule is classed as following a route given by the Routeing Guide then surely there is no need to mention it separately....

I didn't write it so I don't know why it is written like that, but just as it does not say specifically it is permitted by the Routeing Guide, it does not specifically say that it isn't.

....Unfortunately as we are both aware, the whole document is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and this is just another example of it.

I think there are areas which are very badly worded certainly. The vast majority of inconsistencies are in Section F though, I'm convinced it was written by a completely different person, maybe in another building in another city (maybe on the other side of the world) with no means of communication to the creator of the rest of the Routeing Guide.

"30261. Customers travelling between Manchester Piccadilly and Stalybridge may travel via Guide Bridge. This easement applies in both directions."

Hmmmm. This has now been deleted. Which means - how exactly is one meant to travel between Manchester Piccadilly and Stalybridge?....

By the permitted routes

 

[lyndhurst25]

20001. Passengers from Cumbria and the Scottish borders are permitted to travel on an evening service to Glasgow to join the London sleeper. Tickets must be routed via Glasgow.
20002. Passengers travelling between London and stations to Hexham may travel via Edinburgh and Newcastle if holding sleeper berth reservations.

How did these two work? Could you, for example, book a Bargain Berth from Glasgow to Euston and, without buying another ticket, travel from Barrow-in-Furness to Glasgow in to join the Sleeper? That could have been useful. Not sure how they defined "Scottish Borders" though.

 

[Paul Kelly]

It is been noted elsewhere that ATOC are currently engaging software developers to produce a graphical visualisation of permitted routes (i.e. plotted on a map). Could it be that they are starting to realise how impossibly ambiguous so many of the easements are, and are simply deleting any that are giving them trouble without regard to the reasons they were added in the first place?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How did these two work? Could you, for example, book a Bargain Berth from Glasgow to Euston and, without buying another ticket, travel from Barrow-in-Furness to Glasgow in to join the Sleeper? That could have been useful.

No; the origin on the ticket would need to be Barrow-in-Furness. You could though buy an off-peak return from Barrow-in-Furness to London and travel via Glasgow on it.

Not sure how they defined "Scottish Borders" though.

Simply by a big long list of stations!

 

[Ivo]

So none of the above organisations then? :P

Seriously, I can see the Cambridge easement removal causing enough trouble for FCC that it will be reinstated by ATOC before too long

As opposed to being the kind of stunt that FCC are known for?

Just noticed as well that the removal of 69 is going to remove a lot of common-sense routings too! Not a good set of easement changes for those using the London-Cambridge lines!

(It is interesting to note that pretty much every easement altered here does not benefit the customer - no new positive easements have been introduced)

You're just copying what I said in Post #4!

 

[John @ home]

20001. Passengers from Cumbria and the Scottish borders are permitted to travel on an evening service to Glasgow to join the London sleeper. Tickets must be routed via Glasgow.

Not sure how they defined "Scottish Borders" though.

Simply by a big long list of stations!

There are no passenger railway stations (until 2014) in the Scottish Borders Council area.
http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/info/1526/public_and_community_transport

 

[yorkie]

"30261. Customers travelling between Manchester Piccadilly and Stalybridge may travel via Guide Bridge. This easement applies in both directions."

Hmmmm. This has now been deleted. Which means - how exactly is one meant to travel between Manchester Piccadilly and Stalybridge?

via Guide Bridge, or via Victoria.

The deletion of an easement does not necessarily affect validity, because...

Quite a few easements purport to permit journeys that are already permitted. This is to facilitate some booking engines which aren't evaluating routes correctly.

Perhaps the booking engines had difficulty because there is an error with map TP, which is supposed to show the route via Guide Bridge but fails to do so.

It's far too much effort for ATOC to correct the maps, and all too easy for them to make an easement instead. It is confusing for passengers and their contractors, but ATOC aren't bothered about that.

 

[Paul Kelly]

There are no passenger railway stations (until 2014) in the Scottish Borders Council area.
http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/info/1526/public_and_community_transport

I see! Looks like the long list of stations is for Cumbria. Looks like by "the Scottish Borders", easement 20001 means Lockerbie.

 

[OwlMan]

It is been noted elsewhere that ATOC are currently engaging software developers to produce a graphical visualisation of permitted routes (i.e. plotted on a map). Could it be that they are starting to realise how impossibly ambiguous so many of the easements are, and are simply deleting any that are giving them trouble without regard to the reasons they were added in the first place?

The "cleansing" of the NRG is ongoing - it is being evaluated by the TOCs present expect a lot more changes:cry:

From NRE update

Fares quick wins: The first cut of the data for the London terminals initiative will be made available to the TOCs later this month for testing & approval. The data cleansing exercise for the routing guide is on-going with a plan to make it available to the TOCs next month (March) for their testing & approval.