Easement preventing use of a Permitted Route

[John @ home]

In the Permitted Route Falkirk to Glasgow thread, PaulLothian asked

"Customers travelling between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh may not travel via Larbert. This easement applies in both directions" ...

what is the standing of the easement?

and

why would there be an easement preventing use of a Permitted Route?

In 1996, the first National Routeing Guide contained a small list of 12 Local Easements which were just that, relaxations of Routeing Guide rules to allow journeys that strict adherence to the rules would forbid. Unfortunately, a few years later the train companies started to add to the list a large number of rules which were not Easements at all. They were, and are, extensions of Routeing Guide rules to prohibit journeys that strict adherence to the rules would allow.

One example is

Easement 300209

Customers travelling between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh may not travel via Larbert. This easement applies in both directions.

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/easements.pdf

But this particular rule has limited application. For example, it does not seek to restrict customers travelling between Glasgow Queen Street and Haymarket, who may continue to travel via Larbert.

The train companies then played fast and loose with the English language by calling these prohibitions Negative Easements and listing them in a single document called Easements.

These so-called Negative Easements continue to proliferate. Only yesterday, more were added. See the Easements thread.

But these are no longer the only types of Easements. The National Routeing Guide Data Feed Specification tells us that there are now seven types of Easement:

1. Local easement
2. Map easement
3. Routeing point easement
4. Doubleback easement
5. Fare route easement
6. Manual easement
7. Circuitous route easement

and that for each of these types the Easement can be positive or negative.

Many of the Easements make very little sense to the passenger. For example, yesterday this rule was added:

Easement 700217

Customers travelling from Burton On Trent via Chesterfield may travel via Derby. This easement applies in both directions.

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/easements.pdf

The day before yesterday, when this Easement did not exist, whenever we travelled from Burton On Trent via Chesterfield, we went via Derby. It's the only sensible way to go! The value of telling us that we're allowed to do that is not immediately obvious.

Suggestions for sorting out this mess would be very welcome.

The 12 original, genuine Easements were:

• Customers travelling from Harling Road, Eccles Road, Attleborough, Spooner Row or Wymondham may travel to Norwich and double-back when holding tickets to Ely and all other destinations beyond Ely.
• Customers may double-back between Barnetby and Grimsby Town when changing between the Doncaster to Barnetby and the Lincoln to Barnetby Lines.
• Customers for St Ives, Carbis Bay, Lelant and Lelant Saltings from stations east of St Erth may travel via Penzance.
• Customers for Selby travelling from Doncaster and south of Doncaster may travel via York.
• Customers for Dunbar may travel via Edinburgh provided that the fare paid is the same as Edinburgh.
• Customers travelling to Chathill from the north may change trains at Alnmouth on a ticket issued to Chathill.
• Customers travelling from Carlisle/Newcastle or stations south thereof to stations between Carstairs and Glasgow may travel via Glasgow Central.
• Customers with tickets routed via London may double back between Clapham Junction and Victoria.
• Customers travelling from or to stations in the area bounded by Kings Langley, Kempston Hardwick and Milton Keynes inclusive may travel via Northampton to Rugby.
• Customers may double back between Seamer and Scarborough when changing between the Hull to Scarborough and the York to Scarborough lines.
• Customers with tickets routed via London may double-back between Clapham Junction and Waterloo.
• Customers travelling to or from stations in the area bounded by Rochester, Sheerness, Selling and Margate inclusive may travel via Bromley South to and from Sevenoaks, Bat & Ball, Otford and Shoreham (Kent).

 

[jopsuk]

Isn't there an issue that the "ngeative easements" may not actually apply anyway as many of them prohibit journeys that wouldn't actually involve referencing the Routing Guide in the first place?

 

[sheff1]

Isn't there an issue that the "ngeative easements" may not actually apply anyway as many of them prohibit journeys that wouldn't actually involve referencing the Routing Guide in the first place?

Yes this is true - a number have been discussed on here.

'Easements' should be exactly that - relaxations to permit routes which otherwise would not be permitted. Anyone with an understanding of the English language would know that 'negative easements' are an impossibility.

There is now, also, an increased tendency for ATOC to include as 'easements' things which are clearly only guidance to the people writing IT code with the purpose of ensuring valid routes (as per the RG) appear correctly in journey planners etc. These so-called 'eaaements' purport to allow things which are already allowed by the RG anyway - they should never need to be released into the public domain as part of the RG.

In my view, what is needed is a thorough reveiw of all 'easements' so that only actual easements are included in the RG. The maps should be drafted so that 'negative easements' are not necessary. It would appear ATOC have neither the will nor the expertise to do this.

 

[34D]

Yes this is true - a number have been discussed on here.

'Easements' should be exactly that - relaxations to permit routes which otherwise would not be permitted. Anyone with an understanding of the English language would know that 'negative easements' are an impossibility.

There is now, also, an increased tendency for ATOC to include as 'easements' things which are clearly only guidance to the people writing IT code with the purpose of ensuring valid routes (as per the RG) appear correctly in journey planners etc. These so-called 'eaaements' purport to allow things which are already allowed by the RG anyway - they should never need to be released into the public domain as part of the RG.

In my view, what is needed is a thorough reveiw of all 'easements' so that only actual easements are included in the RG. The maps should be drafted so that 'negative easements' are not necessary. It would appear ATOC have neither the will nor the expertise to do this.

Seconded. I mean, this forum could do this piece of work for free!

 

[PaulLothian]

Thanks for the helpful postings and PMs, folks. At least now I understand why I get confused!

 

[Yew]

Do negative easements outweight the RG? For example condition 13 says ' You may travel between the stations on your ticket in trains which take routes shown on the routeing guide' yet nowhere in the NRCOC does it say anything about easements

 

[OwlMan]

Do negative easements outweight the RG? For example condition 13 says ' You may travel between the stations on your ticket in trains which take routes shown on the routeing guide' yet nowhere in the NRCOC does it say anything about easements

The easements are part of the routeing guide and therefore in condition 13

Peter

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I share the abhorence of the concept of a Negative Easement. Its an ugly and meaningless term which is a clumsy attempt to avoid calling them what they are: they are Restrictions (but which would, no doubt, require wider consultation if they were called 'restrictions').

However, we must accept that the wording of the actual Easement itself is frequently very clear to understand and couldn't be much clearer (as in John @ Home's example : "Customers travelling between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh may not travel via Larbert. This easement applies in both directions.")

So the average passenger should not have any grounds for concern about the wording, just about : 1. the ugliness of the name, 2. the obscure location of Easements to passengers buying and using tickets, and 3. the lack of consultation. But then this distinction appears:

There is now, also, an increased tendency for ATOC to include as 'easements' things which are clearly only guidance to the people writing IT code with the purpose of ensuring valid routes . . .

I share that guess of their purpose. But if that is so, then surely the wording of the actual Easement which I find to be quite clear, shouldn't be "Passengers travelling from ......" but in reality should be : "Rail Industry software writers issuing tickets from .....".

Either they are a limitation which applies to passengers and which passengers had better observe, or it is a limitation to computer hacks which they had better observe?
At present, they are written as if to apply to the travelling public.

This distinction matters - one is a Condidtion of the Contract to travel, binding on the Passenger and supported in Law. The other is a Condidtion of software writing which in not a Contractural Term, does not involve the passenger, and has no basis in Law.
If you agree that they are instructions to software writers and you agree that they will not be applied to a passenger while travelling, then we can also agree with this:

they should never need to be released into the public domain as part of the RG.

But if we don't accept both of these propositions (e.g. you believe that Negative Easements must be considered while buying tickets and while travelling), then the Negative Easements will have to be in the Public Domain, and, in my view, ought to be written in a form which is clear, unambiguous, readily available, and are the result only of proper consultation; as a Restriction should be.

At present, thay are none of these things. In the meantime, the industry makes a fool of itself with its 'Negative Easements'.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Do negative easements outweight the RG? For example condition 13 says ' You may travel between the stations on your ticket in trains which take routes shown on the routeing guide' yet nowhere in the NRCOC does it say anything about easements

Negative easements can overrule any route allowed by the Routeing Guide, note that as the shortest route and through trains are in the NRCoC they can't be affected by easements.

 

[island]

Negative easements can overrule any route allowed by the Routeing Guide, note that as the shortest route and through trains are in the NRCoC they can't be affected by easements.

That would make the easement banning travel from london via two or more of Slade Green, Crayford, and Barnehurst (in practice stopping people going the "long way" around the Dartford loop services) meaningless though.

 

[John @ home]

As is often the case, I agree with every word written by DaveNewcastle in post #8.

Isn't there an issue that the "negative easements" may not actually apply anyway as many of them prohibit journeys that wouldn't actually involve referencing the Routing Guide in the first place?

Yes this is true - a number have been discussed on here.

Yes, an example is the series of negative Easements 600006 - 600062 which seek to prohibit long journeys round the Fife circle.

14 January 2010

Recently First Scotrail proposed changes to some local and middle distance journeys involving the "Fife Circle" route that have been approved by Transport Scotland. ATOC and Passenger Focus have approved these too. Formal approval by the Secretary of State will shortly be given and the changes incorporated into the NRG. Essentially these are negative easements. ...

A negative easement ... as in the Scotrail application prevents for example, a journey from Edinburgh to Rosyth (27 minutes and 14.75 miles apart) being made via Kirkcaldy which takes over 70 minutes and is a trip of 52 miles which the routeing guide would normally allow solely because it is a through train providing the journey.

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

Do negative easements outweigh the RG?

No. But the first page of the National Routeing Guide states that You only need refer to the Routeing Guide when a customer is not using an advertised through train or the shortest route. I agree with hairyhandedfool above that travel by the shortest route, or by a through train, can't be restricted by an Easement. As a result, Easement 600006 fails to prevent a journey from Edinburgh to Rosyth being made via Kirkcaldy on a through train.

It is obvious from the correspondence quoted above that the intention of ScotRail and DfT was to prevent a journey from Edinburgh to Rosyth via Kirkcaldy on through train. Easement 600006 fails to achieve that intention.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

That would make the easement banning travel from london via two or more of Slade Green, Crayford, and Barnehurst (in practice stopping people going the "long way" around the Dartford loop services) meaningless though.

If everyone believes something is banned, is that not as good as banning it?

The odd person realising such a ban is unenforceable is not worth bothering with, perhaps letting them off with "a gesture of goodwill" each time they use it.

 

[sheff1]

If you agree that they are instructions to software writers and you agree that they will not be applied to a passenger while travelling, then we can also agree with this:

But if we don't accept both of these propositions (e.g. you believe that Negative Easements must be considered while buying tickets and while travelling), then the Negative Easements will have to be in the Public Domain, and, in my view, ought to be written in a form which is clear, unambiguous, readily available, and are the result only of proper consultation; as a Restriction should be.

I agree with your analysis. I wasn't suggesting 'Negative Easements' should not be in the public domain. I was referring to those 'easements' which 'allow' things which are already allowed by the RG anyway, e.g
Easement 700217: Customers travelling from Burton On Trent via Chesterfield may travel via Derby. This easement applies in both directions.

 

[yorkie]

That would make the easement banning travel from london via two or more of Slade Green, Crayford, and Barnehurst (in practice stopping people going the "long way" around the Dartford loop services) meaningless though.

I don't think the easement has much of a purpose, as providing people remain on the train they are valid. I guess it's designed to prevent people claiming break of journey to start/finish short, although it could be argued that break of journey is not allowed by the existing rules, there is not universal agreement over that.

 

[exile]

An interesting consequence of the "direct train" rule is that any journey on a circular route is valid, so long as you don't get off anywhere but your destination.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

An interesting consequence of the "direct train" rule is that any journey on a circular route is valid, so long as you don't get off anywhere but your destination.

Certainly that is one interpretation.

 

[PavlosA]

That would make the easement banning travel from london via two or more of Slade Green, Crayford, and Barnehurst (in practice stopping people going the "long way" around the Dartford loop services) meaningless though.

I have no clue about easements. Could someone explain if this particular negative easement means I could not travel eg from London to Slade Green, via Barnehurst of Crayford?

My ticket is a London to Gravesend annual season and I use it on all three routes regularly. Should I also not be doing this?

Ta

 

[MikeWh]

My reading of it is that you can go to one of the end stations but no further back up a different line to the one you came down. There are a number of services in the peaks which terminate at one of the three stations after calling at another and these would be a bit pointless if you couldn't use them.

 

[island]

I agree with MikeWh. You may travel from London via A to B, but not from London via A and B to C, where A and B are two of Slade Green, Barnehurst, and Crayford, and C is anywhere else on the lines from London to Dartford via Greenwich, Bexleyheath, and Sidcup.

This does not apply with a season, which allows you unlimited travel in either direction on the route covered. So if you want to travel from London Cannon Street to Woolwich Dockyard the long way around via Sidcup, knock yourself out.

Confused yet?

 

[PavlosA]

I agree with MikeWh. You may travel from London via A to B, but not from London via A and B to C, where A and B are two of Slade Green, Barnehurst, and Crayford, and C is anywhere else on the lines from London to Dartford via Greenwich, Bexleyheath, and Sidcup.

This does not apply with a season, which allows you unlimited travel in either direction on the route covered. So if you want to travel from London Cannon Street to Woolwich Dockyard the long way around via Sidcup, knock yourself out.

Confused yet?

Actually, no, and this makes perfect sense. This is what I assumed. The one thing I'm concerned with is that I have a Gravesend ticket. I understand I can use all three routes, but taking a journey such as London to Slade Green via Barnehurst (or Crayford) takes me onto track that I would never touch with London to Gravesend routes...

 

[island]

Actually, no, and this makes perfect sense. This is what I assumed. The one thing I'm concerned with is that I have a Gravesend ticket. I understand I can use all three routes, but taking a journey such as London to Slade Green via Barnehurst (or Crayford) takes me onto track that I would never touch with London to Gravesend routes...

A season ticket is valid for all intermediate journeys between stations at which it is valid. Even eccentric ones. The validity on a Tulse Hill to London Terminals season is pretty astounding!

Put another way, no SET RPI is going to bat an eyelid!

 

[LexyBoy]

A season ticket is valid for all intermediate journeys between stations at which it is valid.

For clarity, only journeys on Permitted Routes between the stations on the ticket, not between the intermediate stations (sorry if I'm adding to the confusion, only sometimes there is a difference!).

 

[island]

Fair point. I was going to say it probably wouldn't make a difference, but that would just be a challenge to people to find one!

 

[MarkyMarkD]

-- post deleted --

 

[RJ]

-----

 

[bnm]

Expect a negative easement, or series thereof to appear soon. Some of us actually make use of these kind of things on a daily basis without the need to shout the details from the rooftops! Unlike the terms of the NRCoC or law, we all know that easements can be introduced and maps changed very easily to prevent this sort of thing, which is much more likely if some knowitall wise cracker decides accelerate the process by pointlessly informing the masses.

Aww, diddums. Nothing I like less than folk being able to save money by dint of some secret knowledge they have. It sticks in my craw that I too sometimes think twice about sharing fares loopholes. Why? Not because I worry about the loophole being closed, but because of responses like the one above.

Can't have the masses making savings can we? That would be unfair on the little club of people passing round the gen privately. I really do hate the, "I know something you don't", attitude.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Tbf, it's not specific to railways, it is a philosophy that has made the world the place it is today.

I don't blame people for not shouting about it, some people have taken a fair amount of time trying to find these loopholes and they don't particularly want them closed, but I do agree about the type of response mentioned, there is no need for that really.

 

[RJ]

Aww, diddums. Nothing I like less than folk being able to save money by dint of some secret knowledge they have. It sticks in my craw that I too sometimes think twice about sharing fares loopholes. Why? Not because I worry about the loophole being closed, but because of responses like the one above.

Can't have the masses making savings can we? That would be unfair on the little club of people passing round the gen privately. I really do hate the, "I know something you don't", attitude.

The point is, the masses don't make savings. As soon as it becomes common knowledge, the loophole is closed. So by your way of thinking, it's better that no-one saves rather than a few who have done their homework?

I live in South London and have a long term season ticket, I take full advantage of the validity which goes completely undetected. I don't see the point in frivolously listing workarounds in public, as it only takes one person with a vested interest to get them shut down. I could quite easily publish some loopholes which allow major savings on long distance travel. I'm unlikely to ever use them, but I won't share them in public because it ruins it for others who've done their homework. Likewise with travel around London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tbf, it's not specific to railways, it is a philosophy that has made the world the place it is today.

I don't blame people for not shouting about it, some people have taken a fair amount of time trying to find these loopholes and they don't particularly want them closed, but I do agree about the type of response mentioned, there is no need for that really.

To be honest, I don't think there's any need to publicise the kind of information that is likely to lead to everyone who already knows it losing out.

I personally think those who work to be rewarded with benefits and wish to keep it quiet are far less selfish than those with the line of thought that "everyone must know that I can't keep a lid on the details of what I've found" or the "if I can't benefit, then nobody can" attitude that have become apparent in this and other threads.

I'm pretty sure that likeminded people discuss some of the best loopholes, but they keep it hush. There's a reason why. I'm not going to throw a tantrum as seen a couple of posts above because people don't want to share/spoonfeed. Instead, I do my own research specific to the journeys I have a need to make. When I find things, I don't have a compulsion to disclose the details in public. I find things, make use of them and share it with people who I can trust.


Some loopholes are executed more discretely than others and some do have a shelf life before they're they're inevitably closed. Hey, I am (or was) being watched by a certain TOC who've been known to email me soon after I've gotten off a train, just to tell me they know what I did and have taken steps to close the loop although to be fair, that particular one was already well in the process of being closed before they even knew about it :P. I've now gone under the radar by paying less outlandish, yet cheaper still fares. But why accelerate the process of getting loopholes closed by putting the details out in public?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

As I said, I understand the wanting to keep it quiet if you have worked it out, but there are nicer ways to inform people that "shouting it from the rooftops" is not appreciated. It is rather amusing that by quoting it you have left it there for all to see.

 

[34D]

A season ticket is valid for all intermediate journeys between stations at which it is valid. Even eccentric ones. The validity on a Tulse Hill to London Terminals season is pretty astounding!

Put another way, no SET RPI is going to bat an eyelid!

For clarity, only journeys on Permitted Routes between the stations on the ticket, not between the intermediate stations (sorry if I'm adding to the confusion, only sometimes there is a difference!).

I agree with lexy rather than island here. Too late at night to find an example, but the sort of thing might be a direct train, with a break point that is only valid because a direct train happens to call there.