National Routeing Guide update

Andrew1395 said:

Most people would not want to spend more than 3 hours on a train journey between Milton Keynes and Leicester via Bedford. I don't know the bus services between the two, but if I was going by train I would go via Nuneaton and save a couple of hours on the journey.

Click to expand...

Could be the connections aren't good at a weekend; not sure where you're getting those times from but it looks to me like only 28 minutes' difference with a journey opportunity every hour via Bedford; really very reasonable:
http://www.fastjp.com/#journeys?orig=MKC&dest=LEI&odate=20151102&otime=1000

True I looked at today's journeys. I see there is a week day service taking 2 hours via Bedford. I must admit I always looked for quickest journeys and would only consider a 33% increase in journey time if there was a significant cash saving. Maybe MKC is at the breakpoint, Northampton definitely would not go via Bedford, Bletchley of course is a genuine option that way. Maybe Milton Keynes is an option that some would consider.

Andrew1395 said:

I don't think there are any permitted fares from Oxford Parkway, and of course there are no through trains from Oxford at the moment to Marylebone. But it is interesting to see what happens with the Islip and Bicester Town Any Permitted fares to London Terminals. I suspect Great Western may not want to share the Oxford London any permitted revenue with Chiltern and next May, when the new through trains run to Marylebone, all those flow will get repriced.

Click to expand...

Having checked the mileages against the NRT, the only station where Paddington gives a shorter distance than Marylebone is Oxford itself.

As such, the only way for Chiltern to achieve the desired effect would be to set the "via High Wycombe" fares at a higher level that the Any Permitted ones; or for Chiltern to take over the Any Permitted flows and Great Western to introduce cheaper "via Didcot" flows.

Some more updates have been made to the routeing guide.
These were either published on Thursday or Friday, but I'm not sure which off-hand.

These adds mapped routes via Gloucester, where the journeys have previously only had mapped routes via Bristol and the Severn Tunnel on the SB map.

This removes mapped routes via Corby.
It adds ones via London (for those not using "Not via London" tickets).

The routes on EM+EN are completely different to those on MI+BP+WM, but this has no effect on ticket validity.
There are two stations associated with Kettering (Corby and Market Harborough) and two with Northampton (Long Buckby and Wolverton).
All tickets between these stations are routed "via Bedford".
EM+EN contains routes via Leicester, but none go via Bedford.
MI+BP+WM contains a route via Bedford, but this follows the shortest route to Kettering (or its associated stations) from Northampton or Long Buckby.
Northampton fails the fare check for Wolverton-Kettering and Wolverton-Market Harborough.
No fare check can be completed for Wolverton-Corby as there is no fare data for the route in ATOC's NFM64 file. I have not yet been able to find out how to determine which routeing points are valid in this situation, but ATOC's routeing point calculator claims Northampton is not a valid routeing point anyway.

In summary, it removes mapped routes which were already invalid, and adds one which was already valid. I do find it easier to calculate mapped routes than the shortest route, though.

This removes a mapped route via Corby.

This adds a route via Bedworth.
It also makes the shortest route from Kettering to Rugby a mapped route. This goes via Leicester and Nuneaton.

This adds mapped routes via Bedford.

This removes the direct line from Rugby to Coventry as an option for a "not via London" ticket.

Oddly enough, the change list includes the old version of the easement rather than the new one. The new one is:
The main changes from this are that it comes into effect sooner, and only affects journeys from, to or via Oxford.

The previous version of the second sentence called it a "positive doubleback easement".

The second sentence is new. I'm not sure that it means someone with (say) an Appleby-Hindley ticket with route "Not Preston/Liverpool" is unable to travel via Hellifield, is unable to travel via Carlisle and Hellifield, or is unable to travel via Carlisle and Hellifield on a route which would not be allowed without this easement.

kieron said:

I do find it easier to calculate mapped routes than the shortest route

Click to expand...

Try http://www.bukitlawang.com/routes/routes.aspx

kieron said:

It adds ones via London (for those not using "Not via London" tickets).

Click to expand...

Not Via London is the only routeing on all fares between these two places so god knows what they were thinking.

bb21 said:

Not Via London is the only routeing on all fares between these two places so god knows what they were thinking.

Click to expand...

"London" and "Not Via London" are not mutually exclusive (see the amazing routing question Q5)

I am aware of Clive's letters but I fail to see any relevance. In this particular case, there is no LONDON route code and a route avoiding London is clearly already mapped.

bb21 said:

I am aware of Clive's letters but I fail to see any relevance. In this particular case, there is no LONDON route code and a route avoiding London is clearly already mapped.

Click to expand...

I guess if there's mapped routes not via London then it makes no difference.

Good thing I'm not travelling via Stalybrdge any time soon then isn't it,They really could do with someone to proof read this. But.

kieron said:

700598: Following the introduction of the Chiltern services from Oxford to London Marylebone; tickets on Fare route 00000 Any Permitted from or via Oxford, Oxford Parkway, Islip or Bicester Village to London or beyond will not be valid on the new services via High Wycombe and will remain valid only via Oxford. this negative circuitous route easement will apply in both directions.

Click to expand...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

furlong said:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

Click to expand...

So woking to bicester village +any permitted isn't valid via high Wycombe despite it being the shortest route, the obvious route and the route all journey planners offer by default unless you put in via Oxford?

embers25 said:

So woking to bicester village +any permitted isn't valid via high Wycombe despite it being the shortest route, the obvious route and the route all journey planners offer by default unless you put in via Oxford?

Click to expand...

Of course it is... the shortest route is always valid, is it not?

As are direct trains, so using a London Terminals to Oxford ticket routed "Any Permitted" on one of the new Chiltern services between Marylebone and Oxford (when they start) would be entirely valid ... so exactly what purpose does this easement actually serve?

crehld said:

Of course it is... the shortest route is always valid, is it not?

As are direct trains, so using a London Terminals to Oxford ticket routed "Any Permitted" on one of the new Chiltern services between Marylebone and Oxford (when they start) would be entirely valid ... so exactly what purpose does this easement actually serve?

Click to expand...

Well technically as I read the words, it actually prohibits the High Wycombe route, even though its the shortest. However as NatRail still says it's ok and therefore that makes it valid I am at a loss!

The new wording for 700598 (the bit above not in bold) includes the wording 'and until Chiltern operate direct through services, etc'.

So it is probably going to change, as I'd expect. Is the current easement really there to avoid overloading the temporary bus service with people who'd be far better off with the traditional service?

The easement above is a result of ATOC either not realising or not caring the shortest route for some journeys is via High Wycombe. Or maybe the person who writes these things is just high. Either way, it has no effect on the validity of the shortest route, at least unless they change the NRCoC to make 13a ii) a conditional rather than unconditional statement.

Looks like the routes from MKC to the MML removed in the previous instalment have been reinstated. Good.

The wording for 700598 in the PDF is the "correct" version, given that Marylebone - Haddenham & Thame - Bicester Village/Islip/Oxford Parkway is the shortest route (and now has direct trains). Marylebone - Haddenham - Oxford is further than Paddington - Reading - Oxford, hence the barring.

CyrusWuff said:

The wording for 700598 in the PDF is the "correct" version, given that Marylebone - Haddenham & Thame - Bicester Village/Islip/Oxford Parkway is the shortest route (and now has direct trains). Marylebone - Haddenham - Oxford is further than Paddington - Reading - Oxford, hence the barring.

Click to expand...

There really need to be tickets valid both ways once the line opens to Oxford, even if they are more expensive. Then, rather than pratting about with the Routeing Guide, existing fares should have a fare route Reading or High Wycombe added. (Though I guess the more expensive of the two will end up valid via the other route...)

300234: Customers travelling from Appleby or Kirkby Stephen to Penrith and beyond may travel via Carlisle. But they may not travel on journeys that include any of the following locations, Hellifield; Blackburn; Bolton; Salford; Manchester or Stalybrdge,This easement applies in both directions.[/b][/indent]
The second sentence is new. I'm not sure that it means someone with (say) an Appleby-Hindley ticket with route "Not Preston/Liverpool" is unable to travel via Hellifield, is unable to travel via Carlisle and Hellifield, or is unable to travel via Carlisle and Hellifield on a route which would not be allowed without this easement.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand this either. what is meant by 'location'? Does this mean destination or station or something else? And why should I have to work this out or take the risk of being on an invalid ticket?

The point of the easement was to acknowledge the highly limited service on Carlisle -settle route of typically 7 trains per day. Travelling to Manchester via Leeds is therefore a limited opportunity so it is/was often quicker to go via Carlisle. There are all sorts of combinations of trains (direct and often change at Preston) between Carlisle and Manchester and of course twice the number of trains from Appleby (because there are seen north as well as seven south). So the same ticket now has about half the opportunity for the same price. Poor effort.
Of course, I can still make the journey via Carlisle but on two separate tickets and guess what? Significantly higher price........

How does one object to this?

Regarding the fare structure for London - Oxford, I believe it should be just the one fare that can be used on either route.

After all, the High Wycombe route was originally constructed by the Great Western Railway in partnership with the Great Central Railway as an alternative to the GCR's joint route with the Metropolitan Railway when relations soured, and also for the GWR to have a shorter route to Birmingham as well.

Is it clear that the easement is not necessary be referring to the route guide instructions? I think this is the relevant bit "WHEN TO USE THE NATIONAL ROUTEING GUIDE
Most customers wish to make journeys by through trains or by the shortest route. In both cases they will be travelling on a permitted route, provided the correct fare has been paid to reflect any routeing restrictions indicated by the fares data" As far as I can see the any permitted fare Oxford to London Terminals is not valid via High Wycombe as it is not the shortest route nor are there any map permissions that allow it. Therefore it is not valid via High Wycombe and the only through fares that are are the ones routed High Wycombe. Or have I missed something!

Contrary to the instructions for humans, I believe most journey planning software always consults the easements though.

Oddly there still doesn't seem to be a Bicester Stations group, so anyone going from Marylebone to Bicester and back is still tied to returning from the same station in Bicester.

Ralph Ayres said:

Oddly there still doesn't seem to be a Bicester Stations group, so anyone going from Marylebone to Bicester and back is still tied to returning from the same station in Bicester.

Click to expand...

Is that any different to, say, Waterloo to North Camp or Ash Vale? (two stations very close to each other, but on different lines with different fares)

Ralph Ayres said:

Oddly there still doesn't seem to be a Bicester Stations group, so anyone going from Marylebone to Bicester and back is still tied to returning from the same station in Bicester.

Click to expand...

Informed sources tell me Chiltern are working on it, but there are issues surrounding ownership of the relevant flows. In the interim, tickets to either Bicester station from/to/via Marylebone are being treated as interavailable.

Tickets to Bicester North or Bicester Village aren't valid on the shuttle bus. Passengers wishing to use it still need to buy a separate ticket to/from "Bicester Village Bus".

BRFares doesn't seem to be up to date with the fares, but lists a "Bicester Nth/Vil" pseudo-station.

FenMan said:

Is that any different to, say, Waterloo to North Camp or Ash Vale? (two stations very close to each other, but on different lines with different fares)

Click to expand...

I'd say so - both Bicester stations are served by the same company's trains going to the same terminus on the same line. Helensburgh would be a closer comparison.

LexyBoy said:

BRFares doesn't seem to be up to date with the fares, but lists a "Bicester Nth/Vil" pseudo-station.



I'd say so - both Bicester stations are served by the same company's trains going to the same terminus on the same line. Helensburgh would be a closer comparison.

Click to expand...

I think BR Fares relies on the free open access fares database which only updates 3 times a year.

CyrusWuff said:

Informed sources tell me Chiltern are working on it, but there are issues surrounding ownership of the relevant flows. In the interim, tickets to either Bicester station from/to/via Marylebone are being treated as interavailable.

Tickets to Bicester North or Bicester Village aren't valid on the shuttle bus. Passengers wishing to use it still need to buy a separate ticket to/from "Bicester Village Bus".

Click to expand...

Do does Bicester offer plus bus ticketing options?

infobleep said:

Do does Bicester offer plus bus ticketing options?

Click to expand...

There isn't a "PlusBus" zone that covers Bicester, no. Instead, you've got two main add-ons:

• Bicester Village Bus (NLC H921) - This is the shuttle bus linking Bicester North station and Bicester Village outlet. Prices are £2.25 Single and £4.50 Return (50% Child discount)
• Bicester Taxibus (NLC J701) - This is the "commuter" bus link from Bicester North to the surrounding villages. £2.30 Single and £3.50 Return.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the line, Oxford Parkway is within the Oxford PlusBus area....