Clarifying Any Permitted Route

[Harpers Tate]

I don't want to be specific about the wheres involved as this is a question of principles rather than specifics.. So it's just letters for place names.

Imagine a triangle with Z at the top, G in the right bottom corner; S in the left bottom corner, and A midway along the bottom edge. You can realistically travel from A to Z either way around the triangle - A - G - Z or A - S - Z. There are various intermediate stations either way.

The "normal" route is A - G - Z with regular through trains and some trains that require a change at G. The single fare for this trip is (say) £10.

The other route A - S - Z always requires a change at S, takes around the same amount of time and is (according to the timetable measurements) 3/4 mile (0.75 mile) longer than via G.

Just for completeness, there is an intermediate station in between A and S (let's call it P). The one way fare P to Z is more than double the A to Z fare. In fact the one way fare from the intermediate point S to Z is also more than A to Z, as is the one way fare A to S.

So to the question: assuming there are no TOC-specific restrictions in play; no "via" endorsements - is there any small print, term or condition to prevent one from buying an A to Z fare for any journey from A or P or S to Z or even from A to S?

Or do I understand the routing rules correctly in that, because the less obvious routing (A - S - Z) is but 3/4 mile longer than the shortest route, the fare MUST be valid and accepted, including for breaks and/or short riding.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't want to be specific about the wheres involved as this is a question of principles rather than specifics.. So it's just letters for place names.

Imagine a triangle with Z at the top, G in the right bottom corner; S in the left bottom corner, and A midway along the bottom edge. You can realistically travel from A to Z either way around the triangle - A - G - Z or A - S - Z. There are various intermediate stations either way.

The "normal" route is A - G - Z with regular through trains and some trains that require a change at G. The single fare for this trip is (say) £10.

The other route A - S - Z always requires a change at S, takes around the same amount of time and is (according to the timetable measurements) 3/4 mile (0.75 mile) longer than via G.

Just for completeness, there is an intermediate station in between A and S (let's call it P). The one way fare P to Z is more than double the A to Z fare. In fact the one way fare from the intermediate point S to Z is also more than A to Z, as is the one way fare A to S.

So to the question: assuming there are no TOC-specific restrictions in play; no "via" endorsements - is there any small print, term or condition to prevent one from buying an A to Z fare for any journey from A or P or S to Z or even from A to S?

Or do I understand the routing rules correctly in that, because the less obvious routing (A - S - Z) is but 3/4 mile longer than the shortest route, the fare MUST be valid and accepted, including for breaks and/or short riding.

Which of your stations are routeing points?

Surely you'll need to know that so you can then use the routeing guide.

 

[LexyBoy]

See below - I now believe this advice to be out of date

Hopefully I have interpreted your Z-SPAG scenario correctly: it is always hard to work with hypothetical or disguised questions.

If the shortest route taken by scheduled passenger services is A-G-Z, or another route which is less than 3 miles shorter than A-S-Z, then A-S-Z is a permitted route.

If the ticket is routed Any Permitted or is unrouted, and if there are no relevant TOC restrictions, then it is valid via S. The ticket, if it is a (Super) Off Peak, may have break of journey restrictions on the return portion which would restrict starting/stopping short.

Finally, there may be an "easement" prohibiting travel via S on this ticket. It is debatable whether this would invalidate the route, as some argue that the "three mile rule" applies to NRCoC Condition 13 ("The routes you may take"), which would validate the route without reference to the NRG (and thus requirement to consult the easements list). Journey planners would in this case show it as invalid.

 

[kieron]

Or do I understand the routing rules correctly in that, because the less obvious routing (A - S - Z) is but 3/4 mile longer than the shortest route, the fare MUST be valid and accepted, including for breaks and/or short riding.

I'm afraid not, based on what you've put. I can't tell if the 3/4 mile think has any effect without knowing which routeing points each station is associated with. Nor can I tell whether the A-Z fare you refer to places any restrictions on breaking your journey at P or S.

 

[LexyBoy]

I seem to be out of date with the above advice. The "three mile rule" seems to have been removed from the NRG since October 2014, something I had missed.

John@Home quoted Section F of the NRG in October 2014 as stating:

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.

However that document now says (matching NRCoC 13):

Journeys between the stations shown on the ticket by direct trains; or by the shortest route which can be used by scheduled passenger services (including change of trains); are always following a permitted route. Journeys following a route given by the Routeing Guide are following a permitted route.

Two references to "3 miles longer" remain:

If a journey does not have an origin routeing point and a destination routeing point, its permitted route is (1) the shortest route served by a regular passenger service or (2) a route no more then 3 miles longer or (3) any other route permitted by an easement. (page F1)
[...]
If there is a common routeing point, the permitted route is the shortest route or a route which is longer by no more than 3 miles. (Page F7)

I'm not really sure what the intended application of the first quote is. If this has been discussed before I'd appreciate a link. edit: found it now.

Given this apparent change, I don't think we can say anything on the validity without knowing the stations in order to check whether either A and Z share a routeing point, or if A-S-Z is a mapped route or not.

 

[button_boxer]

The ticket, if it is a (Super) Off Peak, may have break of journey restrictions on the return portion which would restrict starting/stopping short.

Outward portion possibly, but not return.

 

[LexyBoy]

Gah, not enough sleep this week. You are right of course, it's the return part of non-Day, and both parts of Day tickets, that are unrestrictable for BoJ.

 

[Harpers Tate]

The origin A is not a routing point. It is associated with routing points G and P.
The destination Z is a routing point.

On the route A - (P) - S - Z, S is also a routing point, but A is not associated to it.
On the route A - G - Z there is at least one other routing point en route but A is not associated to it.

So, to recap

A - G (routing point ) - Z
vs.
A - (P - routing point) - S - Z (= 3/4 mile longer with intermediate fares most/all higher than A - Z)

 

[Merseysider]

I think the best course of action would be to check full details of validity in the NRG including associated routeing points, fares checking and mapping, or PM someone who could do this for you. It is impossible to give a definitive answer without knowing the specifics of the case.

 

[LexyBoy]

I agree.

From what you say I can't see via S being permitted as it is not a through train, the shortest route, nor does it sound like it could be a mapped route (P presumably failing the fares check). However without knowing the stations it's impossible to be sure. I've been trying to guess on the basis that A is a boundary station in a PTE area containing G and Z but it's hurting my brain...

 

[Merseysider]

I have it down on paper and can think of at least one example that fits the description that would be valid because journey planners offer it.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I'm sorry for being so vague but I was trying to avoid a loophole from being closed by a detailed post in a public forum drawing attention to it.

 

[Andrew1395]

If you know its a loophole why do you want to get it checked out? A loophole by definition is an unintended result of a set of rules/procedures.

 

[gray1404]

If you have a specific journey and/or ticket type(s) mind for that said journey please post the full details so we can advise you.

 

[Merseysider]

If you have a specific journey and/or ticket type(s) mind for that said journey please post the full details so we can advise you.

Posting the full details means if it is a valid 'loophole' it won't last for long!

 

[Harpers Tate]

If you know its a loophole why do you want to get it checked out? A loophole by definition is an unintended result of a set of rules/procedures.

I suspect it may be a loophole and wanted to understand why and/or what might exist to prevent it from existing.

If you have a specific journey and/or ticket type(s) mind for that said journey please post the full details so we can advise you.

No, for the reason stated. If this can't be established beyond doubt as a result of the general principle, then my detailing the specifics won't do anything except establish what applies to the specifics. And my purpose was greater understanding of the actual rules that determine this; not merely what is or isn't relevant in any one specific case.