Not via London

[34D]

What this all boils down to is the following question:

Does the route restriction "NOT VIA LONDON" mean (1) "You must not travel via, nor change at, a London terminal station", (2) "You must not travel via, nor change at, a station in the London routeing group", or (3) "You must not use any map combination generated by the entry LONDON in the yellow routeing guide pages"?

(Or perhaps some combination of these.)

I think there are more options than that. Does 'not london' mean:

Avoiding all members of London Group
Avoiding all members of London Terminals
Avoiding the conurbation of Greater London
Avoiding all stations in the historic city of London

Is hairyhandedfool suggesting it is the third one?

Noone has mentioned the fourth one I don't think, so I'll do so now - this is, of course, the most favourable one for the passenger.

A related question - where the shortest route is going via 'London' (or a direct train that goes via London) is such a route disallowed by a not London ticket?

Great debate folks

 

[Deerfold]

I think there are more options than that. Does 'not london' mean:

Avoiding all members of London Group
Avoiding all members of London Terminals
Avoiding the conurbation of Greater London
Avoiding all stations in the historic city of London

Is hairyhandedfool suggesting it is the third one?

Noone has mentioned the fourth one I don't think, so I'll do so now - this is, of course, the most favourable one for the passenger.

A related question - where the shortest route is going via 'London' (or a direct train that goes via London) is such a route disallowed by a not London ticket?

Great debate folks

My understanding of HHF's logic is that you are not allowed to use the map combinations that are (only) triggered by LONDON apppearing in the maps column. In some cases this has the effect of disallowing many routes via stations in Greater London.

 

[Eagle]

In some cases this has the effect of disallowing many routes via stations in Greater London.

And in one case mentioned upthread (Newcastle to Southend stations, route Not Via London), disallowing a permitted route wholly outwith Greater London, namely Newcastle–Peterborough–Ely–Ipswich–Shenfield–Southend Victoria.

 

[All Line Rover]

A related question - where the shortest route is going via 'London' (or a direct train that goes via London) is such a route disallowed by a not London ticket?

I believe, although I may be completely wrong, that route-specific tickets forbid the shortest route when the shortest route fails to comply with the route printed on the ticket. Is this correct?

 

[island]

I agree with ALR.

 

[yorkie]

Have you discussed the validity of the fare in question with South Eastern (the fare setters) and/or ATOC (the Routeing Guide owners) ? What is their take on the matter ?

SET do not know much about routeing and just because they set the fare does not mean they can decide what routes are permitted.

As for ATOC, well, it depends on who you speak to. Different people within ATOC have given different answers. They do not like 'hypothetical' questions, but when you give them real examples they usually try to find any excuse to say something isn't valid.

So, for example, when it was asked if Rte: Birmingham was allowed via Aston (a member of Birmingham Group) someone from ATOC said no, as it meant Birmingham Stns. However as Indigo2 says above, some official ATOC data states that it means Birmingham Group. So we have a disagreement within ATOC, which is not surprising. Someone called them back in January about an error that was occuring on some booking sites and it was made clear that a particular department was not communicating well with another department.

So, yes, we can ask ATOC, but depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer, and some of them like to give the answer that is least favourable to the customer (even if it means contradicting official ATOC documentation!)

• We were told the shortest route can be different in different directions
• The official data has it the same in both directions.

• The public are told to use current fares for the fares check.
• The booking engines are told to use 1996 fares for the fares check (which are considered protected routes).

• The public are told to use NRT data (which is inaccurate and rounded to 1/4 miles) for shortest route calculations.
• The booking engines are told to use decimalised data from a different source.
  
  (Many more examples exist)

 

[b0b]

And in one case mentioned upthread (Newcastle to Southend stations, route Not Via London), disallowing a permitted route wholly outwith Greater London, namely Newcastle–Peterborough–Ely–Ipswich–Shenfield–Southend Victoria.

That makes me think of this:


Qu.5: What are the permitted routes where a ticket is routed "not London"; in particular, what if the only route given in the Guide is "London"?

In this case, you can use the ticket via London. The routes "London" and "not London" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

http://www.rossrail.co.uk/central/routeqn2.html

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I suspect that the difference of opinion here comes from the lazy use of terms in the Routeing Guide in detail.

If there is a route “LONDON” as one of the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide,
the range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method:
1. Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London.
2. Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point.
3. Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any
route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are
permitted routes for the journey except those with a repeated map.

My reading of this is that where they talk about permitted routes in this section they actually mean permitted route codes (i.e. maps). Permitted routes are found by tracing routes on each map in turn without doubling back or using a map more than once. After you have extrapolated all the permitted routes from the various map combinations you no longer have a concept of the individual maps, so the last statement (in bold) does not make sense. For that reason I believe that they mean route codes rather than routes. Once you add together the combinations of maps you are then permitted to follow the usual rules allowing any common interchange point to be used.

I agree entirely. Indeed, combining the map codes rather than the routes is exactly what is done in the worked Portsmouth-Derby example immediately following the aforementioned rules on page 9 of section F of the Routeing Guide....

So, once you have found the permitted routes to London and from London you can bin them and start again with the maps?

Or does it mean you look up the permitted routes to and from London and, having maybe found 5 to London and 3 from London, use one of the first five with one of the last three. I'm sure most people would consider that 'a combination'.

....Furthermore, it says:

Routes created from the route LONDON in the yellow pages do not oblige you to
change in London. For example Oakham to Brighton has the route LONDON which
yields LB+MM. This allows the journey Oakham – Leicester – Bedford – Brighton,
changing at Bedford and continuing via Thameslink to Brighton.

While the example happens to pass through London, the wording of the first sentence seems to be unambiguous (except for the inevitable discussion of what "London" means).

I think the example is clearly refering to changing trains, not maps (this has been discussed before and I believe even yorkie agreed it was refering to changing trains).

I think there are more options than that. Does 'not london' mean:

Avoiding all members of London Group
Avoiding all members of London Terminals
Avoiding the conurbation of Greater London
Avoiding all stations in the historic city of London

Is hairyhandedfool suggesting it is the third one?

Noone has mentioned the fourth one I don't think, so I'll do so now - this is, of course, the most favourable one for the passenger.

A related question - where the shortest route is going via 'London' (or a direct train that goes via London) is such a route disallowed by a not London ticket?

Great debate folks

I think 'London' is a constant in both ticket route (Via London/Not Via London) and Routeing Guide route terms (map combination 'London'), not something that changes depending on what the intended journey might happen to be. London Group or London Terminals are the best choices imo.

My understanding of HHF's logic is that you are not allowed to use the map combinations that are (only) triggered by LONDON apppearing in the maps column. In some cases this has the effect of disallowing many routes via stations in Greater London.

Omg, Really? Okay, you find all the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide and dismiss those you cannot use on the ticket held. Routes going via London are not valid on a ticket routed 'Not Via London'. The map combination 'London' is one of the routes to London and one of the routes from London. Does a route to London combined with a route from London create a route that goes via London? (I realise it's a tough question, but hopefully you can find a way through that minefield of information and work it out).

I believe, although I may be completely wrong, that route-specific tickets forbid the shortest route when the shortest route fails to comply with the route printed on the ticket. Is this correct?

It would be logical given you find all the permitted routes and then dismiss those that go through, or do not go through, a particular place.

SET do not know much about routeing and just because they set the fare does not mean they can decide what routes are permitted.

As for ATOC, well, it depends on who you speak to. Different people within ATOC have given different answers. They do not like 'hypothetical' questions, but when you give them real examples they usually try to find any excuse to say something isn't valid.....

Do these passages not break a forum rule?

Your contributions must not defame any person or organisation.

That makes me think of this:


Qu.5: What are the permitted routes where a ticket is routed "not London"; in particular, what if the only route given in the Guide is "London"?

In this case, you can use the ticket via London. The routes "London" and "not London" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

http://www.rossrail.co.uk/central/routeqn2.html

I think you have to read yorkie's post (above) and decide if you can trust the information given by ATOC (or the person supplying the information, or the person within ATOC who sent it out, or any other combination of people/information/organisations that fit).

 

[island]

Omg, Really? Okay, you find all the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide and dismiss those you cannot use on the ticket held. Routes going via London are not valid on a ticket routed 'Not Via London'. The map combination 'London' is one of the routes to London and one of the routes from London. Does a route to London combined with a route from London create a route that goes via London? (I realise it's a tough question, but hopefully you can find a way through that minefield of information and work it out).

A route from the origin to the London maps and a route from the London maps to the destination need not go via a London station.

 

[Deerfold]

Omg, Really? Okay, you find all the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide and dismiss those you cannot use on the ticket held. Routes going via London are not valid on a ticket routed 'Not Via London'. The map combination 'London' is one of the routes to London and one of the routes from London. Does a route to London combined with a route from London create a route that goes via London? (I realise it's a tough question, but hopefully you can find a way through that minefield of information and work it out).

Apologies if I've misrepresented or badly described your position. I've not taken a side in this arguement as I can see reasons for either side if you're arguing what I thought you were.

I've not claimed you can go via London on a "not via London" ticket nor do I think you can.

I was not suggesting that the *only* routes you would disallow were those that used the map into London and the the map out again - merely that you would not allow a route which depended on a map which was only included to be used to find a route to or from London, even if the route found did not go via a London Terminal or Routeing group.

However if a map were listed seperately from the description LONDON you would be able to use it so long as you avoided London Temrinals on that map.

 

[RJ]

I believe, although I may be completely wrong, that route-specific tickets forbid the shortest route when the shortest route fails to comply with the route printed on the ticket. Is this correct?

I read it as " the shortest route that does not go via London" which may be entirely different than the shortest Any Permitted route.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

A route from the origin to the London maps and a route from the London maps to the destination need not go via a London station.

But a permitted route to London and a permitted route from London (which is what the Routeing Guide asks you to find) MUST go via London!

Apologies if I've misrepresented or badly described your position. I've not taken a side in this arguement as I can see reasons for either side if you're arguing what I thought you were.

I've not claimed you can go via London on a "not via London" ticket nor do I think you can.

I was not suggesting that the *only* routes you would disallow were those that used the map into London and the the map out again - merely that you would not allow a route which depended on a map which was only included to be used to find a route to or from London, even if the route found did not go via a London Terminal or Routeing group....

Sorry, it probably came across a bit harsh, but a few people seem to not understand what I'm saying (and it's not like I haven't tried to explain it more than a few times), it's getting a bit annoying having to go over a simple concept over and over again. 'London' is for the purpose of finding routes via London, the Routeing Guide states this, so routes found using those map combinations must go via London. Therefore a ticket routed 'Not Via London' could not be valid on them.

....However if a map were listed seperately from the description LONDON you would be able to use it so long as you avoided London Temrinals on that map.

Yes, if you had map combinations other than 'London' then you would have no problem using routes from those maps that avoid London. For example, if you had "London CS+LK" you could probably find permitted routes that avoid London in CS+LK, but any routes (either permitted by 'CS+LK' or by 'London') that go via London would be prohibited by the 'Not via London' routeing on the ticket.

In the case of Headcorn-Redhill, there are routes on map LK (Maidstone/Tonbridge-Redhill) that are valid on a 'Not Via London' ticket, as I have stated in this thread already, also, the shortest route is not via London so this would also be fine.

 

[Deerfold]

But a permitted route to London and a permitted route from London (which is what the Routeing Guide asks you to find) MUST go via London!

This line of argument does make sense to me - if you're using the "London" maps you use it to find a route into London and then another out of the other side - you would not be able to use these maps to find other routes which did not go into or out of London for a normal ticket even if they met at other points - why should you be able to just because the routeing is NOT VIA LONDON?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I read it as " the shortest route that does not go via London" which may be entirely different than the shortest Any Permitted route.

The problem with that is that you find the permitted routes and then discard those that are not valid, so you would find the shortest route before discarding the invalid routes. However the NRCoC is not quite so clear on this point.

 

[John @ home]

I read it as "the shortest route that does not go via London" which may be entirely different than the shortest Any Permitted route.

I agree. It is the shortest route which reflects the routeing indicated by the fares manual. See here for my opinion yesterday on the validity of a DARTFORD - LONDON TERMINALS route PLUS HIGH SPEED ticket.

The problem with that is that you find the permitted routes and then discard those that are not valid

No, that's the procedure for finding mapped Permitted Routes using the Routeing Guide. For the shortest route, the paragraph WHEN TO USE THE NATIONAL ROUTEING GUIDE in the document HOW TO USE THE NATIONAL ROUTEING GUIDE tells us that "the shortest route" by rail is "calculated by reference to the National Rail Timetable" where "the correct fare has been paid to reflect [the] routeing indicated by the fares manual".

If a route qualifies as the shortest route after reading that paragraph, there is then no need to read the remainder of the Guide to determine the validity of that route.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

There is that, but then the NRCoC also mentions routes being restricted by the route on the ticket with no mention of the shortest route having to be, or not be, by that place. Perhaps this is best clarified by ATOC/DfT, assuming we can find someone in ATOC/DfT that everyone on the forum trusts to answer accurately.

 

[John @ home]

Perhaps this is best clarified by ATOC/DfT, assuming we can find someone in ATOC/DfT that everyone on the forum trusts to answer accurately.

Clive Feather has been trying to find that person for fourteen years. See The amazing routeing question.

 

[sheff1]

SET do not know much about routeing and just because they set the fare does not mean they can decide what routes are permitted.

As for ATOC, well, it depends on who you speak to. Different people within ATOC have given different answers. They do not like 'hypothetical' questions, but when you give them real examples they usually try to find any excuse to say something isn't valid.

Fair enough, but I do not understand why an employee of Southern is apparently seeking definitive answers from anonymous people on an internet meassge board (who, it turns out, have diametrically opposing views) rather than from official sources.

 

[John @ home]

I do not understand why an employee of Southern is apparently seeking definitive answers from anonymous people on an internet meassge board (who, it turns out, have diametrically opposing views) rather than from official sources.

I guess he is having the same difficulty we have in trying to get an authoritative official source to engage in meaningful correspondence.

 

[34D]

The problem with that is that you find the permitted routes and then discard those that are not valid, so you would find the shortest route before discarding the invalid routes. However the NRCoC is not quite so clear on this point.

Although I would never attempt to tell a senior person such as yourself that you are wrong, your paragraph here is what yorkie is suggesting:

Ie find permitted routes (some of which are routing point A-London and London-routing point B) then discard those that aren't valid for "not London"

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Yes, but, in the case of routes picked using 'London', all those routes must go through London and so a 'Not Via London' fare cannot be valid (because they go via London), so why bother looking at them?

What I think yorkie is suggesting is that you can pick a route from the 'London' maps that either does not go through London (which would not be following the instructions in the Routeing Guide) or uses a different definition of London (which he is seemingly unable to give a source for and, to my mind at least, defies logic) to the 'Not Via London'/'Via London' routeings.

 

[yorkie]

The purpose of the London maps is not to force you via London, but to avoid duplication on the 'yellow pages'. If you instead had to list the maps individually it would create a huge amount of extra work for the people who maintain the Routeing Guide.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Oh I'm sorry, I must have read 'find a permitted route TO LONDON and a permitted route FROM LONDON' incorrectly, how silly of me. It didn't occur to me that finding a route TO LONDON and FROM LONDON could mean you can AVOID LONDON, what a mistake to make, just makes you wonder how I've been doing it wrong all these years!

 

[SickyNicky]

To me the question is: is it valid to use any route on map combinations built from LONDON entries in the yellow pages, or must you go through London. I can't answer that, because I don't believe it's clear in the routeing guide. However, there are some pointers in the guide:

• Step 6 of Section A seems to say that we only look at the London routes for "journeys via London".
• Page F9 of Section F appears to refer to "permitted routes via London".
• Page F9 of Section F then goes on to say that you're not obliged to change in London, which leads one to wonder just what is meant by "journeys via London".

It does seem that booking engines interpret that you can use any route. I can book tickets like Hereford to Hemel Hemstead route NOT VIA LONDON going through Clapham Junction or Richmond, which would be impossible unless the London maps were applied because the only other mapped route (and the shortest) is via Birmingham.

I, for one, will be very interested to see what routes appear in the new base maps for such flows. Presumably there will be one map for each flow and geographical restrictions will merely restrict parts of that map.

 

[Paul Kelly]

in the case of routes picked using 'London', all those routes must go through London

I think that is the fundamental point of disagreement here. I don't agree with that, although I agree you can come up with that conclusion with a very pedantic reading of the Routeing Guide - and I know many people on here are fans of doing that. I'm actually not; I generally prefer to take a step back from the (more often than not) sloppy wording used in the detailed explanations of the Routeing Guide, and to think about what is the most logical and intended meaning.

And in this situation I'm pretty convinced that it means you can pick routes from combining London maps that don't go via London, as long as they use all the maps.

I should also add that for points on which the Routeing Guide is totally silent and that don't seem to have been considered in its design, then a pedantic reading is often the only option, but this is IMHO not one of those situations, and the intended meaning is quite clear.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You are not obliged to 'change' in London, but that does not mean you no longer have to go to/from/via London, the other two bits you mention make this clear.

The example used is a FCC (Thameslink) route where changing trains may delay the journey unnecessarily.

In a previous thread the consensus (as I recall) seemed to be that it refered to changing trains, though I suppose you could argue that it refers to changing maps, but that may require repeating a map or doubling back and you aren't allowed to do either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that is the fundamental point of disagreement here. I don't agree with that, although I agree you can come up with that conclusion with a very pedantic reading of the Routeing Guide - and I know many people on here are fans of doing that. I'm actually not; I generally prefer to take a step back from the (more often than not) sloppy wording used in the detailed explanations of the Routeing Guide, and to think about what is the most logical and intended meaning.

And in this situation I'm pretty convinced that it means you can pick routes from combining London maps that don't go via London, as long as they use all the maps.

I should also add that for points on which the Routeing Guide is totally silent and that don't seem to have been considered in its design, then a pedantic reading is often the only option, but this is IMHO not one of those situations, and the intended meaning is quite clear.

Pedantic? What is pedantic about following the instructions actually given? Why is not bothering to follow the instructions given properly suddenly okay to do? I think I should start backing those RPIs, Guards and Ticket Office Clerks who get their facts wrong just because everyone else is 'being pedantic' about it.

The 'intended meaning' is very clear, it says it in plain English if you care to actually read it!

The guide says find the permitted routes to London, find the permitted routes from London, use a combination of those to make a permitted route from origin to destination. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[All Line Rover]

The guide says find the permitted routes to London, find the permitted routes from London, use a combination of those to make a permitted route from origin to destination. Why is that so hard to understand?

The reason why is because parts of the Routeing Guide contradict other parts of the Routeing Guide and there are plenty of examples that don't conform to your supposed 'rules'. As there is no black & white 'rule' it is necessary to look at example journeys to see what fits, and to also look at how booking engines interpret routeings.

Your quote itself: "find the permitted routes to London," "find the permitted routes from London," "use a combination of those to make a permitted route from origin to destination." Does that actually specify you have to travel via London? No, it does not.

This example of vagueness isn't a one off occurrence. Your constance ignorance doesn't help, either. There is no right or wrong answer, so calm down and get over it!

 

[island]

If you read "permitted route to London" as "permitted maps with the destination of London", and so on, then it works.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Should I be taking you seriously ALR?

The reason why is because parts of the Routeing Guide contradict other parts of the Routeing Guide and there are plenty of examples that don't conform to your supposed 'rules'. As there is no black & white 'rule' it is necessary to look at example journeys to see what fits, and to also look at how booking engines interpret routeings....

My 'supposed rules' are written in black and white in the Routeing Guide. They do not contradict any other part of the Routeing Guide that I have seen. I can't comment on these 'examples that don't conform' to the Routeing Guide as you have not stated what they are.

Yorkie has said in other threads how journey planners are not always correct, so saying "my rules" aren't consistent with them is almost laughable, the journey planners are only as good as their programming.

....Your quote itself: "find the permitted routes to London," "find the permitted routes from London," "use a combination of those to make a permitted route from origin to destination." Does that actually specify you have to travel via London? No, it does not....

Erm, yes it does, in the very words you use.

Find the permitted routes to London. That'll be going to London then.

Find the permitted routes from London. That'll be going from London then.

Use a combination of those to make a permitted route to London. Well, this seems to be where you are going wrong.

Having just mentioned getting permitted routes to London and permitted routes from London, do you honestly think "use a combination of those to make a permitted route from origin to destination" really means "forget everything you just looked up and start again with the maps, but don't worry about going via London, it's not really important to be honest", rather than "use a combination of [a permitted route to London that you have just looked up and a permitted route from London that you have just looked up] to make a permitted route from the origin to the destination".

....This example of vagueness isn't a one off occurrence. Your constance ignorance doesn't help, either. There is no right or wrong answer, so calm down and get over it!

There is nothing vague or contradictory here, so I think you should follow your own advice and 'get over it'.

Incidentally, constance ignorance? (I assume you meant constant) What am I being constantly ignorant of?

 

[yorkie]

It is true that journey planners are sometimes wrong. But they are more often correct than wrong.

Where they do go wrong, it is more likely to be due to an error/omission in the data/map rather than wrongly interpreting the rules. For example, the shortest route is calculated differently, not due to a misinterpretation of the rule but due to the data source, and allowing +5 miles instead of +3 miles means that most errors occur in the passengers' favour, which is how it should be.

In the case of the maps, it is pretty clear that the booking engines use the interpretation favoured by most contributors to this discussion. That does not guarantee it is 'correct' but it does mean that some quite senior people at ATOC believe it is correct.

But it's not just the booking engines that agree with us. There would not be "Not via London" routings on tickets where the only mapped routes were using 'London' in the yellow pages and where the shortest route is via London, if your interpretation was correct, as it would leave those tickets without any permitted routes. So, again, there must be some quite senior people in the industry who believe that "Not via London" means that routes that go via London Terminals/Group* are not permitted but all other permitted routes are.

(* I don't know for certain which of the two it is, and it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion)