Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Get a refund, I suspect. This easement is probably to stop the fares coming up for buses from Slough that are in the railway timetable (didn't know there were any!) on which they're not meant to be valid.
Yet another ludicrous change. So if you get a ticket to Pontefract Stations Group, it's not actually valid to travel to a station beginning with the word "Pontefract". But you can still travel via Pontefract Baghill in order to satisfy a Routeing Guide map that requires you to go via Pontefract Group Stations. Glad that's cleared up then...One effect of this is to make it more awkward (or perhaps more expensive) to buy tickets for a journey where you use a different line in each direction. Both stations remain part of the Pontefract routeing group, though.
This has already been changed in the fare list. I don't know how each version of the record is actually used.
What is the rationale for the change from a TOC viewpoint?Yet another ludicrous change. So if you get a ticket to Pontefract Stations Group, it's not actually valid to travel to a station beginning with the word "Pontefract". But you can still travel via Pontefract Baghill in order to satisfy a Routeing Guide map that requires you to go via Pontefract Group Stations. Glad that's cleared up then...
Oh and if you happened to have a ticket routed "via Pontefract" (not that there's such a route), that would be a third kind of Pontefract that does actually include all the stations that are in Pontefract. But it wouldn't be referring to Pontefract Group Stations or Pontefract Stations Group.
It's not strictly the TOC that makes the change, but I expect Northern will have asked the RDG to make the change because they are worried about potential anomalies (I'll leave it at that). Quite frankly it's such an obscure matter that they are totally overthinking it. The same end could have been achieved much more effectively and less confusingly by simply adding a negative easement.What is the rationale for the change from a TOC viewpoint?
This seems a bad misunderstanding by whoever is making these updates. The fares group list in the routeing guide data is used when interpreting the NFM64 fares in order to do the fares check. It is not supposed to represent the current state of the fares database. Unless RDG are proposing to also change the way the NFM64 fares are defined (surely that's not permitted?) then this will only have the effect of making the fares check always be impossible to do for a journey to or from Pontefract Baghill.Fare group changes:
Pontefract Baghill (PFR) is no longer a member of Pontefract Stations (0268).
Pontefract Tanshelf (POT) is now a member of Pontefract Stations (0268).One effect of this is to make it more awkward (or perhaps more expensive) to buy tickets for a journey where you use a different line in each direction. Both stations remain part of the Pontefract routeing group, though.
This has already been changed in the fare list. I don't know how each version of the record is actually used.
This seems a bad misunderstanding by whoever is making these updates. The fares group list in the routeing guide data is used when interpreting the NFM64 fares in order to do the fares check. It is not supposed to represent the current state of the fares database. Unless RDG are proposing to also change the way the NFM64 fares are defined (surely that's not permitted?) then this will only have the effect of making the fares check always be impossible to do for a journey to or from Pontefract Baghill.
I'm surprised at this time that changes are being made, given the TOCs are on management contracts. I'd have thought they would just let things tick along as they are.I should say, pretending that Pontefract Tanshelf was in the Pontefract Stations group at NFM64 solves a lot of problems, because it always had a lot of missing fares to/from various stations. But removing Baghill only creates a lot of new problems. It would be better to keep them both there.
I'm surprised at this time that changes are being made, given the TOCs are on management contracts. I'd have thought they would just let things tick along as they are.
If they want the station file in the routeing data to reflect the modern fare groups, I suppose another way of solving the problem is to add Pontefract Baghill to the "new station" file. It wouldn't be the oldest station there.I should say, pretending that Pontefract Tanshelf was in the Pontefract Stations group at NFM64 solves a lot of problems, because it always had a lot of missing fares to/from various stations. But removing Baghill only creates a lot of new problems. It would be better to keep them both there.
Sorry, but I don't know when this change was actually made. I have been keeping an eye on the PDF files, but I'd only check how recent the "data" ones are when one of the PDF files is updated.I'm surprised at this time that changes are being made, given the TOCs are on management contracts. I'd have thought they would just let things tick along as they are.
From 17th MaySorry, but I don't know when this change was actually made.
I don't see that this has changed. Pontefract Baghill is still a member of the Pontefract [Routeing Point] Group, so you can still trace a mapped route by going Thurnscoe-Pontefract Baghill-walk to Monkhill/Tanshelf-Leeds-York. Obviously not currently possible due to the lack of service to Baghill but I don't see why it isn't a mapped route.For what it's worth, one journey which had mapped routes according to the "routeing point calculator", but doesn't now, is Thurnscoe-York.
I don't see that this has changed. Pontefract Baghill is still a member of the Pontefract [Routeing Point] Group, so you can still trace a mapped route by going Thurnscoe-Pontefract Baghill-walk to Monkhill/Tanshelf-Leeds-York. Obviously not currently possible due to the lack of service to Baghill but I don't see why it isn't a mapped route.
Ah, you are right of course. So my comments above are misleading. I confused myself by using Dore & Totley to Pontefract Baghill as an example but it seems to have had no fares to any of the Pontefract stations in NFM64!We apply the fares check pair-wise for every origin routeing group member (against each destination group member if applicable) and we just need one of these pairs to pass for the routeing point to be acceptable.
Thats fair enough. I'm grateful for the work you do.If they want the station file in the routeing data to reflect the modern fare groups, I suppose another way of solving the problem is to add Pontefract Baghill to the "new station" file. It wouldn't be the oldest station there.
For what it's worth, one journey which had mapped routes according to the "routeing point calculator", but doesn't now, is Thurnscoe-York.
This sort of thing isn't an immediate problem, admittedly, as Pontefract Baghill seems to be closed for the summer in any case.
Sorry, but I don't know when this change was actually made. I have been keeping an eye on the PDF files, but I'd only check how recent the "data" ones are when one of the PDF files is updated.
I would not be surprised if it was actually made at the May timetable change, or if it came up in meetings for some time before then.
From 17th May
I'm not looking at rp_calc because its decisions are right or wrong, or because other web sites tend to agree with it (I don't know if they do or not), but because it's an industry web page which gives an explanation of how it reaches its decisions. This means I can be fairly confident that something has changed even without visiting it both before and after the change.I'm not completely sure why rp_calc is struggling with this when 4 out of 5 group members actually pass but it looks as though the application of its spurious rule rejecting any "group member which cannot be reached without passing through another member of the group" could be the cause.
I'm not looking at rp_calc because its decisions are right or wrong, or because other web sites tend to agree with it (I don't know if they do or not), but because it's an industry web page which gives an explanation of how it reaches its decisions...
Two easements were published this afternoon, both to accommodate Northern's reduced timetable.
Changes from 21 Jul 2020 (309) to 27 Jul 2020 (310).Easement changes:Added:700917 (Local) Due to temporary timetable changes, until midnight 13 September 2020, customers travelling from Church Fenton to Leeds on tickets priced (00000) ANY PERMITTED may travel via York or via Selby. This Local easement applies in both directionsThere's one train a day each way in the current schedule between Leeds and Ulleskelf, and one from Church Fenton to Leeds with no return journey. Hull-York trains call more frequently at Church Fenton, so this easement increases the journey opportunities for a Church Fenton-Leeds ticket.
All of the tickets offered between Church Fenton and Leeds are "any permitted" ones.
700918 (Routeing Point) Due to temporary timetable changes until 13 September 2020, customers travel from Crewe to Manchester Airport may travel via Manchester Piccadilly. This Routeing Point easement applies in both directionsThere are no trains (or rail replacement buses) between Wilmslow and Manchester Airport, so the shortest route between Crewe and Manchester Airport is via Manchester Piccadilly. The data used by web sites to calculate routes doesn't reflect this, so this easement enables them to show it as being a valid route for this journey.
I suspect it may cause certain booking engines to override any rules associated with what would normally be a "local journey" for Routeing Guide purposes (and which therefore couldn't pass through any other Routeing Points, i.e. York, on the way to the common Routeing Point, Leeds). In other words it makes sure that different booking engines which implement the rule in different ways apply this easement as intended, without having to be completely rewritten.Another easement was added to the routeing guide on Wednesday.
Changes from 27 Jul 2020 (310) to 29 Jul 2020 (311).700919 (Routeing Point) Due to temporary timetable changes, until midnight 13 September 2020, customers travelling from Church Fenton to Leeds on tickets priced (00000) ANY PERMITTED may travel via York or via Selby. This Routeing Point easement applies in both directionsThis is a "Routeing Point" version of easement 700917. I don't know what effect this has.
The description of this type of easement in the routeing guide refers to the "fare check", but you wouldn't carry this out for a Church Fenton-Leeds journey as the Leeds routeing group is associated with Church Fenton.