National Routeing Guide update

Fares from Bedford to ELy are priced on fare route VIA CAMBRIDGE. The following map sequence is therefore not required as it does not include Cambridge as a via Location

Click to expand...

Surely that means a new flow needs to be added to use maps MI+AB rather than change the NRG.
I am in discussion with the DfT & ORR about a similar situation to this and hope they are not going to remove permitted route for which tickets are not available rather than introduce new flows.

It's also faulty logic. A passenger could theoretically have a ticket from somewhere to Ely routed "VIA BEDFORD", for which Bedford didn't lie on a permitted route, so they would need to split the routeing check at Bedford. The fares available for a Bedford to Ely journey would be entirely irrelevant in this situation.

kieron said:

Journeys from Hull to Grimsby Town via Goole were reported failing in journey planning systems. A review found that a Manual Easement that would allow journeys to doubleback through Hatfield & Stainforth was not effective and a reoplacement doubleback easement was created to replace it.

Easement removed

000047: When changing between the Goole-Doncaster and Scunthorpe-Doncaster lines passengers may double back between Hatfield & Stainforth and Doncaster. This easement applies in both directions.

Easement added (note this addition reused number of a deleted dated easement)

700639: For journeys from or via Goole to destinations on the route between Doncaster, Scunthorpe and Cleethorpes may doubleback through Hatfield & Stainforth. This positive doubleback easement applies in both directions.​

There's probably a good reason why they reused 700639 rather than 47 for this.
The new easement is similar to the old one, except that it doesn't imply that anyone can double back through Kirk Sandall (the station between Doncaster and Hatfield & Stainforth), and that it makes it clear that it does not cover the Barton-on-Humber branch.

And then there's easement 700261:

Customers travelling from or via Thorne South to or via Thorne North may not travel via Kirk Sandall and/or Doncaster. This easement applies in both directions.​

I don't know what to think.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced the cause of the problem has been addressed here! Surely 700261 counteracts 700639 entirely? There being no way to travel "from or via Goole" without travelling "from or via Thorne [Stations]"....

CheapAndNerdy said:

Looking at the timetable, for much of the day when travelling from Thorne North to Thorne South, there's a 1 hour plus wait at Hatfield & Stainforth. All I can think is that passengers prefer to travel via Doncaster (although it's no quicker) in order to relieve the tedium of waiting for over an hour.

Click to expand...

I don't think many people would do that by train, as they're just over a mile apart. Having the Hull-Doncaster and Sheffield-Scunthorpe trains stop at Hatfield & Stainforth 3 or 4 minutes apart (with a 5 minute minimum interchange time) is rather unfortunate, though.

OwlMan said:

Surely that means a new flow needs to be added to use maps MI+AB rather than change the NRG.

Click to expand...

I think "needs" may be a bit too strong, but it would be useful to have the option when Bedford-Ely isn't too much slower via Oakham than via London, even with only 1 train an hour.

I have had a look at this in a '90s version of the routeing guide. It lists the route between Bedford and Ely via Leicester, but not via London. There were no passenger services via Corby at the time, of course.

In addition, the NFM64 list on data.atoc.org lists an "any permitted" Bedford-Ely fare but not a "via Cambridge" one. This suggests that that was the situation when the guide was written.

Based on this, I wouldn't say this would be a case of adding a new flow, but adding one which was available when the railways were privatised.

IanXC said:

I'm not convinced the cause of the problem has been addressed here! Surely 700261 counteracts 700639 entirely? There being no way to travel "from or via Goole" without travelling "from or via Thorne

Click to expand...

If you wished to travel from (say) Grimsby Town to Stalybridge, you could follow a route which takes you from Grimsby, through Doncaster and on to Wakefield, Goole, Gilberdyke and finally Stalybridge.

Easement 700639 allows you to double back through Hatfield & Stainforth as you are making a journey from a station on the specified line which goes through Goole. Easement 700621 is not invoked, as you do not pass through Thorne North.

As you only visit two stations which are next to Hatfield & Stainforth during this journey (and, indeed, during any journey for which easement 700639 has an effect), you can only double back through Hatfield & Stainforth if you also double back through a neighbouring station. How far you double back, or which direction this is in is something ATOC have left up to you. The easement merely gives permission to do it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A new version of the routeing guide was published yesterday. It has only made a few changes to easements.
The easement says Lancaster but the text above it says Carlisle. It may still work, though.

I haven't found any information outside the easement list to say which routes would normally be acceptable with a ticket to Douglas.
All I got from that was that a ticket with a "not via Reading" route is permitted via Reading during the specified period. It's only for 6 hours, anyway.

All out of date, as stated.

Some more changes were made on Wednesday.

This station was reopened a few days ago after a gap of 30 years. ATOC's routeing point calculator includes some "NFM64" fares to and from this station despite it not being included in the list of NFM64 fares on their web site. I haven't attempted to obtain a list of prices to or from Lea Bridge from the calculator.

No effect.

These changes largely achieve their purpose.

These remove the mapped routes via Doncaster and those via Manchester.
The only remaining mapped route, in each case, uses the shortest route between the routeing points.

This removes the mapped routes via Wakefield.
It adds some via Marple and Doncaster, and some via Doncaster and Retford.

This removes the mapped routes via Manchester, and those via Leicester.

This change has no effect on journeys via London.

It removes the mapped routes which do not go via London, but do go via Halifax, Selby, Sowerby Bridge or York.

It adds mapped routes (not via London):
which go via Fitzwilliam and Pontefract;
which go between Wakefield and Mirfield without passing through any other routeing points; and
which go between Doncaster and Pontefract in the same way.

This removes the mapped routes via Wilmslow and those via Stafford.

This removes mapped routes via Barnetby, via Barnsley, and via both Manchester and Worksop.

It adds mapped routes via both Manchester and Doncaster.

This removes mapped routes via Manchester.
This only leaves mapped routes which follow the shortest route to the destination routeing point from Wilmslow or Styal.

This removes mapped routes:
via Barnsley;
via Newark;
via Burnage and Chinley; and
via Manchester and Worksop.

It adds mapped routes which go via Manchester, Doncaster and Retford.

This removes mapped routes via Wakefield which also go via Crewe or Altrincham.
The remaining routes via Wakefield all go via Chester, Warrington and Manchester.
It adds routes which go via Bredbury and Doncaster, and

No effect.

This allows someone to change trains at Hatfield & Stainforth. It is less clear whether or not it allows people to travel via Doncaster, doubling back through Hatfield & Stainforth and Kirk Sandall.

The text aboves suggests that you can double back there, but the easements (easement 700261 in particular) suggest that this is not permitted. As for journey planners, some say that this is valid with a single ticket, and others say it isn't.

If you treat routes which from/via Goole to/via Scunthorpe as being valid that way, this change allows you to change at Hatfield & Stainforth on some tickets where it was not previously permitted.

If you also treat this permission to implicitly allow you to change at Hatfield & Stainforth (missing the double-back out altogether), it has no effect that I can think of at the moment.

If you do not treat the double-back as being permitted, this change adds a few extra routes as follows.

The following now have mapped routes via Scunthorpe and Goole:

Barnetby - Gilberdyke, Habrough - Gilberdyke, Barnetby - Hull and Habrough - Hull.

The following routes now have mapped routes via Barnetby:

Between Gilberdyke and:

Barnsley, Bedford, Bletchley, Cheadle Hulme, Chester, Chinley, Crewe, Doncaster, Guide Bridge, Hazel Grove, Hereford, Hooton, Hunts Cross, Huyton, Kettering, Leicester, Liverpool, Llandudno Junction, London, Loughborough, Manchester, Meadowhall, Melton Mowbray, Nottingham, Oakham, Runcorn, Sheffield, Shotton, Stockport, Stoke-On-Trent, Swinton (South Yorkshire), Warrington, West Hampstead Thameslink, Wilmslow and Wrexham;

Between Goole and:

Barnsley, Cheadle Hulme, Chester, Chinley, Doncaster, Guide Bridge, Hazel Grove, Llandudno Junction, Meadowhall, Sheffield, Shotton, Shrewsbury, Stafford, Stockport, Swinton (South Yorkshire), Wilmslow and Wrexham; and

Between Hull and:

Barnsley, Bedford, Bletchley, Cheadle Hulme, Chester, Chinley, Crewe, Doncaster, Guide Bridge, Hazel Grove, Hereford, Hooton, Hunts Cross, Huyton, Kettering, Leicester, Liverpool, Llandudno Junction, London, Loughborough, Manchester, Meadowhall, Melton Mowbray, Nottingham, Oakham, Runcorn, Sheffield, Shotton, Stockport, Stoke-On-Trent, Swinton (South Yorkshire), Warrington, West Hampstead Thameslink, Wilmslow and Wrexham.

As Gilberdyke-London and Hull-London tickets now have routes via Barnetby, so do tickets to various other places via London. I have not attempted to count these.

I think the easiest way to explain this is to split it up a bit.

• ... Journeys that would normally be routed via Oxford
• on tickets routed (00000) ANY PERMITTED, (00433) AP EVESHAM, (00799) LONDON EVESHAM, (00803) EVESHAM STROUD, (00805) VIA EVESHAM and (00807) VIA STROUD
• may travel via Oxford Parkway for onward travel with Chiltern Railways
• travel via Swindon to London (Paddington)
• travel via Birmingham New Street to London (Euston) and beyond is also permitted within this easement
• ... this easement will only
• allow travel via Leamington Spa from Warwick Parkway and intermediate stations towards London Marylebone
• from 08 August to 14 August 2016 inclusive.

I still don't understand what the last bit allows. Does "intermediate stations" mean "stations between Leamington Spa and Warwick Parkway" (i.e. Warwick) or ones southeast of Warwick Parkway?
This has had a date restriction added to accommodate easement 700642 above.

There are quite a few easements which prevent travel via Manchester, most of which have no effect. I don't know if this one ever did.

Some more changes were made on Wednesday, and some on Thursday.
First, Wednesday's changes:
This removes all of the mapped routes via Leeds (which all happened to either go via Manchester or via Denton).

This removes all mapped routes:
via Sutton (including the ones via Epsom);
via North Dulwich, Balham and Crystal Palace;
via North Dulwich, Herne Hill and Crystal Palace; and
via North Dulwich, Herne Hill and Streatham.
It also removes routes which go via North Dulwich but not London. There are routes via Herne Hill, but only if you go from Peckham Rye to Herne Hill via Crystal Palace.

No effect, as indicated.

This removes the mapped routes via Hazel Grove, and adds some via Stoke.

One thing I noticed was that the routes via Hazel Grove all involved going via Chinley and Marple. While you had been permitted to change in Chinley, you weren't allowed to change in New Mills instead.

You could have, following a route on the map, catch a train to New Mills Newtown, cross the river to New Mills Central, and then catch a train to Chinley. Having done this, however, you couldn't go back towards Marple and Manchester as that would involve going through New Mills Central again.

While someone in that situation may wish to catch a train from New Mills Central towards Manchester instead of Chinley, and the tickets available allowed you to break your journey as you wish, you could only do this on a route which would have been valid had you followed it in its entirety.

As nothing I can see gave the traveller with a Crewe-Stalybridge ticket a right to go through New Mills Central twice, nothing gave the same traveller a right to go through New Mills Central once, and Chinley not at all.

It was quite a slow way to travel from Crewe to Stalybridge anyway.

No effect. Unsurprisingly, there's still no routes via Stafford or Banbury.

There were already some routes from Craven Arms to Havant via Banbury, Basingstoke, Winchester, Botley and Havant. This adds some via Basingstoke and Southampton to go with them.

You can now use a Crosscountry train from Birmingham to Southampton with a Craven Arms-Havant (or -Chichester) ticket, but anyone going via Stafford would pretty much have to use the WCML between there and Nuneaton.

These changes add mapped routes via Basingstoke.

If anybody was wondering, Chichester-Stafford was already valid via Basingstoke. Chichester-Carstairs was and is not.

I can't tell if this means that you'd be allowed to allowed to use "via Oxford" tickets via London or Stroud or wherever, or if it just means that you'll be allowed to use the rail replacement buses.

Thursday's changes were as follows:

This removes mapped routes via Stockport.

No effect.

These remove mapped routes via wilmslow.

These removes mapped routes via Hazel Grove.

These remove mapped routes via Manchester.

This removes mapped routes via Crewe, and ones via Wilmslow and Guide Bridge.

This removes the mapped routes via Stoke which were added on Wednesday.

Firstly, many thanks kieron for the work you do in keeping this forum up to date with NRG changes. We very much appreciate it.

kieron said:

These changes add mapped routes via Basingstoke.

If anybody was wondering, Chichester-Stafford was already valid via Basingstoke. Chichester-Carstairs was and is not.

Click to expand...

At 474 miles, Chichester - Carstairs via Basingstoke is the (equal) shortest route, and is therefore a Permitted Route. See http://bukitlawang.com/routes/routes.aspx. The route via Basingstoke is also the (equal) shortest route between Chichester and Stafford, WCML stations Crewe - Lockerbie and most other stations in Scotland.

I notice that distances from stations in Wales or most of England to Carstairs are now measured via Motherwell. Presumably this is due to a lack of direct passenger services between Carlisle/Lockerbie and Carstairs.

Some more updates were released yesterday, but I won't have time to look at them properly until the weekend. I've quoted ATOC's summary below.

Some updates were released on Wednesday.
It's associated with Bradford, Hellifield and Leeds, although there are no fares in the NFM64 list for it. I looked at a couple of possible tickets from there on the routeing point calculator. These gave the same fares as from Leeds, but I don't know if that's generally the case.

Kirkstall Forge does have distances listed in the National Rail Timetable, though (4.25 miles from Leeds, 3.5 from Apperley Bridge, 6.5 from Shipley and 6 from Guiseley in each direction), so there will be some valid routes to almost everywhere once it opens.

This change removes all of the routes via Penistone which didn't also go via Chapeltown.
It removes the mapped routes via Leeds and Penistone (as mentioned above).
It removes the mapped routes which go neither via Leeds nor via Penistone.
It adds mapped routes via Dewsbury, some of which also go via Pontefract.

This adds mapped routes via Pontefract.
The XL map (which was already available for this route) includes links between Pontefract and both Swinton and Doncaster, but I don't think these can be used as they require a walk between Pontefract Baghill and another station in the town, and I can't find any indication that this is considered a valid transfer.

This adds routes via Gospel Oak.

No effect - the routes this could provide were already covered by SU+WX.

These engineering works mean that nothing will be going through Chippenham that day. This is also happening this weekend, as it happens.

All of the Bromsgrove-Cheltenham tickets currently available are "any permitted" ones.

When this takes effect, a passenger will be able to double back via University using a ticket:
from Barnt Green to or via Cheltenham (700331);
from Barnt Green or Longbridge via Worcester (700474);
from Bournville to Worcester (700128);
from Redditch or Alvechurch to or via Bromsgrove using "not Birmingham" tickets (700445)*;
from Bromsgrove via Severn Tunnel Junction (700330); and
from Bromsgrove to Cheltenham (700645).

I don't know if there's any pattern to this.

* I think "not via Birmingham" tickets from Redditch or Alvechurch are only available to Bromsgrove, Droitwich and Worcester.

Journeys between Huddersfield and Chesterfield are something I have complained about and have an interest in, so although I'm certainly not as good as kieron I'll have a look at this.

kieron said:

Amended map sequences from Chesterfield

Map sequence added

Chesterfield (CHD) and HUDDERSFIELD GROUP (G40) - added sequence 'BH'
Chesterfield (CHD) and HUDDERSFIELD GROUP (G40) - added sequence 'NB+NP'
Chesterfield (CHD) and LEEDS GROUP (G16) - added sequence 'CE'​

Click to expand...

I don't think the mapped route changes are at all relevant. A fare from Chesterfield to Huddersfield on a fare routed Leeds, means you journey split at leeds. Therefore you look at the mapped routes from Chesterfield to Leeds and then the mapped routes from Leeds to Huddersfield. With the Penistone fare this is a bit more obscure as Penistone is not a Routeing Point, but the principal still stands, you start with the permitted routes from Chesterfield to Penistone and then the ones from Penistone to Huddersfield.

Andrew1395 said:

I don't think the mapped route changes are at all relevant. A fare from Chesterfield to Huddersfield on a fare routed Leeds, means you journey split at leeds. Therefore you look at the mapped routes from Chesterfield to Leeds and then the mapped routes from Leeds to Huddersfield. With the Penistone fare this is a bit more obscure as Penistone is not a Routeing Point, but the principal still stands, you start with the permitted routes from Chesterfield to Penistone and then the ones from Penistone to Huddersfield.

Click to expand...

That's incorrect when the via point is already on a permitted route, as is the case in the vast majority of situations.

furlong said:

That's incorrect when the via point is already on a permitted route, as is the case in the vast majority of situations.

Click to expand...

There must be a glitch then in Journey Planners as they will offer Chesterfield to Huddersfield via Doncaster with the via Leeds fare. There are no permitted routes from Chesterfield to Huddersfield via Doncaster. But there are permitted routes from Chesterfield to Leeds via Doncaster.

The problem for journey planners is that there is no easy way to determine in the general case whether a given via station lies on a permitted route, when there can potentially be hundreds of thousands of different permitted routes. So the best they can do is that if a given itinerary is not permitted (for any reason), but it does go through the via station on the fare, make a guess that the via station lies on the "off-route part" and do a split routeing check there. This seems to be what is happening here.

John @ home said:

Firstly, many thanks kieron for the work you do in keeping this forum up to date with NRG changes. We very much appreciate it.

Click to expand...

No problem.

John @ home said:

At 474 miles, Chichester - Carstairs via Basingstoke is the (equal) shortest route, and is therefore a Permitted Route.

Click to expand...

The shortest route appears to go via Basingstoke, I agree. I was trying to make a more general point, though. The text for these changes talked about routes via Banbury, Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton and Havant.

Almost all of the routes changed by this set of changes now have routes via Basingstoke and Southampton. Some also have new routes via Basingstoke and Botley. The route via Botley is shorter, so the shortest route doesn't offer the same type of opportunity as the one created by the map changes.

I wasn't even thinking specifically of Carstairs here. They seem to have added routes between Havant and almost every station in Northern England (amongst others), but haven't made any changes north of the border.

There are other things they could have done but haven't (for instance, you can't go via Basingstoke to Portsmouth from many places), but I thought it was interesting that they decided to stop just there.

Starmill said:

Journeys between Huddersfield and Chesterfield are something I have complained about and have an interest in, so although I'm certainly not as good as kieron I'll have a look at this.

Click to expand...

I've added some commentary for it now.

Starmill said:

SY didn't appear to offer anything but Chesterfield - Sheffield - Barnsley - Penistone - Huddersfield

Click to expand...

BH only offers that much, but there's a bit more on SY. You can go from Sheffield to Barnsley via Chapeltown or via Wakefield. If you go via Wakefield, you can also go via Leeds.

A map of the local rail network showing where almost all of the trains go is quite helpful in finding things like this.

Starmill said:

WK offered
Chesterfield - Sheffield - Swinton - Pontefract - Wakefield - Huddersfield

Click to expand...

I didn't include this particular route as I don't know if you're allowed to walk from Pontefract Baghill to Monkhill, and there's no other way to make a journey on this route.

Starmill said:

If I focus on Chesterfield to Huddersfield, how accurate would I be to say that what's happened is mapped routes have been added via Pontefract and Leeds but removed via Osset (between Wakefield Kirkgate and Mirfield).

Click to expand...

It's certainly done all that. Overall, I think these changes have made the Chesterfield-Huddersfield and Chesterfield-Mirfield tickets less crazy than they were before, but the lack of "not via Leeds" tickets is annoying. The effect on tickets to other places which use those routeing points is more mixed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some more changes were published yesterday. They only affect easements.
Gobowen/Chirk-Hull/Hessle are dearer than Wrexham-Hull/Hessle, but are listed as being cheaper than fares from either Wrexham or Shrewsbury in the NFM64 file. In each case, the shortest route goes via Chester and Knottingley.

This previously only affected any permitted tickets. Some routes (such as Redditch-Truro) only have "via Bristol" and "XC & Connections" tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some more easements were created yesterday:
Some "not via Leicester" fares were added in January, but Leicester was not a valid routeing point for the journey.

This change brings fares to Nottingham in line with ones to Derby, Long Eaton and Sponden, which already had "not via Leicester" fares and "any permitted" fares valid via Leicester (owing to easement 700545).

An "any permitted" ticket from Sileby or Barrow upon Soar to Attenborough or Beeston is not valid via Leicester, though. I'm sure it's easier to do this than to have "via Leicester" fares which don't require you to travel via Leicester.
I don't know how old the "via Nottingham" fares are here, but there are quite a few in the area. The only similar easement I can see is 700214, for journeys to or via London.

On a related topic, I notice that some journey planners do not show a journey from Alfreton to Derby as being valid via Chesterfield, despite this being the shortest route between the stations (as per table 53 in the national timetable).

There are no "via Nottingham" fares between Alfreton and Derby, though.
I don't know if this is for when the line through Chippenham is closed, or for something else. As per easement 700644, this ability to travel via Reading and Newbury is extended to "not via Reading" tickets on Sunday.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some more easements were added to the routeing guide today.
A couple of easements for engineering work which hasn't yet made in onto nationalrail.co.uk's engineering work page. All I can say at the moment is that there are some attractively priced tickets to and from South Wales, even ignoring the off-peak returns.

Some more changes were made to the routeing guide yesterday.
No effect.

These add mapped routes via Botley.

These remove mapped routes via Southampton which were only available when trains were diverted to use the line between Basingstoke and Romsey which went through Salisbury, but without going through Salisbury station.

These remove mapped routes via Dorchester.

All gone now.

I today recieved an email from Rebecca Houlden, acting on behalf of NXET Trains Limited (t/a c2c) who made the following claim with regard to upcoming changes to the routeing guide permissions that affect journeys between Rochford and Upminster:

Rebbecca Houldon said:

The ticket you purchased on 18 November 2014 to travel between Rochford and London Zones 1-6 (the "Rochford Ticket'), is still showing as valid on the National Rail Journey Planner (the "Journey Planner") for a journey via Southend.

As explained in the apology letter and other correspondence surrounding the November 2014 Issue, while you should have been permitted to use the Rochford Ticket on that occasion, this is an error in the Journey Planner as the route should not appear as valid.

The reason it is still mistakenly showing as valid is because the necessary changes have not yet been implemented by Greater Anglia and also need to be approved by the Department for Transport. NXET is currently working with Greater Anglia to make the required changes.

We anticipate that this error will be rectified and the route will no longer show as valid on the Journey Planner from either September 2016 or alternatively January 2017 onwards (being the dates on which all such changes to the Journey Planner will be implemented by Greater Anglia).

Click to expand...

I do not know what changes they are intent on making. As far as I can see, they would actually have to reword the National Rail Conditions of Carriage as, as things stand, the Rochford - London Zones 1-6 Route ANY PERMITTED ticket is valid via Southend because it is the shortest route (or is shorter than the shortest route).

Can anyone shed any light onto what these changes may be?

Of course, I am assuming that when she waffles on about the journey planner, she is indeed referring to the routing guide. If indeed the changes are only going to be made to the journey planner is that lawful? [rhetorical question]

[Also, I dont accept that it is a mistake for the journey planner to be showing that ticket as valid, or anything else she says about it being a mistake for the ticket to be regarded as valid. In my view, it is a mistake for NXET not to accept that ticket as valid].

319321 said:

Can anyone shed any light onto what these changes may be?

Click to expand...

The normal technique is to increase the fare for the ANY PERMITTED ticket to reflect "better" the additional journey opportunities it offers, and to introduce a routed ticket at the existing fare VIA somewhere (or restricted to one operator outside the zonal area) that prevents you from using it for the now-more-expensive journey.

Yes the timings (September and January) are in line with the fare change cycle.

furlong said:

The normal technique is to increase the fare for the ANY PERMITTED ticket to reflect "better" the additional journey opportunities it offers, and to introduce a routed ticket at the existing fare VIA somewhere (or restricted to one operator outside the zonal area) that prevents you from using it for the now-more-expensive journey.

Click to expand...

Can you give an example of where this has happened before?

furlong said:

The normal technique is to increase the fare for the ANY PERMITTED ticket to reflect "better" the additional journey opportunities it offers, and to introduce a routed ticket at the existing fare VIA somewhere (or restricted to one operator outside the zonal area) that prevents you from using it for the now-more-expensive journey.

Click to expand...

Another "technique" can apply in and around PTE areas. St Helens Central to Southport used to only have fares routed ANY PERMITTED and which were set by Merseytravel, perhaps to be expected as both origin and destination are in the Merseytravel area. The shortest route is via Wigan but such a journey is mostly outside the Merseytravel area. A wholly Merseytravel route is available via Liverpool.

Eventually someone obviously twigged that Merseytravel were effectively setting a fare for a journey largely outside their jurisdiction, though of course there are many similar examples around the country involving fares set by TOCs. So now St Helens Central to Southport has no ANY PERMITTED fares but two specifically routed fares. The cheapest fares are still set by Merseytravel and are routed VIA LIVERPOOL but the shortest route is significantly more expensive, is routed VIA WIGAN and is set by Northern. If Rail North ever gets real teeth I daresay this situation will change further.

As regards the "Rochford ticket" I fully expect the method outlined by furlong will duly come into play. It has also occurred to me, a long time ago, that many more such situations could be dealt with in a similar way potentially leading to a massive reduction in the number of ANY PERMITTED flows. If I have thought of this then you may be sure that so have the TOC Pricing Managers. I suspect that it's only due to the fact that so few passengers are affected by "Rochford ticket" type situations that so few changes of this type have happened. And at some point in the, probably distant, future the use of smartcards and other forms of paperless tickets may very well allow the Routeing Guide to abolished completely.

furlong said:

The normal technique is to increase the fare for the ANY PERMITTED ticket to reflect "better" the additional journey opportunities it offers, and to introduce a routed ticket at the existing fare VIA somewhere (or restricted to one operator outside the zonal area) that prevents you from using it for the now-more-expensive journey.

Click to expand...

Greater Anglia price the Any Permitted Rochford to London Zones 1-6 ticket. Now let's say they increase the price of this and c2c introduce a Rochford - London Zones 1-6 Travelcard 'route:via Pitsea' at the current price of the Any Permitted fare. This would solve the problem but I doubt Rochford passengers would be happy to see a hike in the fares for the sake of closing a little used loophole. Other fares on the Greater Anglia route would need to be increased as well to prevent other anomalies.

In theory Greater Anglia could introduce a 'via Shenfield' travelcard at a cheaper price than the Any Permitted fare but they won't want to take the revenue loss. Also, I don't think they can do this anyway as I don't think a TOC can introduce promotional fares where they set the Any Permitted fare.

The Any Permitted fare could be kept the same and c2c introduce a cheaper 'via Pitsea' fare. It would need to be pitched at a higher price than the Southend Central Travelcard but less then the Rochford one. Although the Any Permitted ticket would still be valid via Southend a 'via Pitsea' fare would be advantageous to c2c as they would then get the majority of the revenue for this flow.

There is potentially another way the TOCs could withdraw the validity but I'm not going to post it here as I don't want to give them ideas!

319321 said:

Can you give an example of where this has happened before?

Click to expand...

Hadders said:

In theory Greater Anglia could introduce a 'via Shenfield' travelcard at a cheaper price than the Any Permitted fare but they won't want to take the revenue loss. Also, I don't think they can do this anyway as I don't think a TOC can introduce promotional fares where they set the Any Permitted fare.

Click to expand...

Rugby to Birmingham, LM introduced a "via Coventry" fare at the same price and increased the "any permitted" fare

see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rugby_birmingham_any_permitted_f#incoming-427771

OwlMan said:

Rugby to Birmingham, LM introduced a "via Coventry" fare at the same price and increased the "any permitted" fare

see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rugby_birmingham_any_permitted_f#incoming-427771

Click to expand...

That's interesting. I knew Milton Keynes to London was an anomaly where there are 'LM only' fares despite them being the lead operator.

Maybe it's just 'TOC only' fares that a lead operator cannot introduce, rather than geographically restricted ones unless Rugby to Birmingham is another exception.

So far as I know it's just TOC Only fares.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

furlong said:

The normal technique is to increase the fare for the ANY PERMITTED ticket to reflect "better" the additional journey opportunities it offers, and to introduce a routed ticket at the existing fare VIA somewhere (or restricted to one operator outside the zonal area) that prevents you from using it for the now-more-expensive journey.

Click to expand...

That's certainly one way to deal with this sort of situation. It's one which would require agreement from the DfT, though, as the route 319321 mentioned includes some regulated fares.

Hadders said:

Greater Anglia price the Any Permitted Rochford to London Zones 1-6 ticket. Now let's say they increase the price of this and c2c introduce a Rochford - London Zones 1-6 Travelcard 'route:via Pitsea' at the current price of the Any Permitted fare. This would solve the problem but I doubt Rochford passengers would be happy to see a hike in the fares for the sake of closing a little used loophole. Other fares on the Greater Anglia route would need to be increased as well to prevent other anomalies.

In theory Greater Anglia could introduce a 'via Shenfield' travelcard at a cheaper price than the Any Permitted fare but they won't want to take the revenue loss. Also, I don't think they can do this anyway as I don't think a TOC can introduce promotional fares where they set the Any Permitted fare.

The Any Permitted fare could be kept the same and c2c introduce a cheaper 'via Pitsea' fare. It would need to be pitched at a higher price than the Southend Central Travelcard but less then the Rochford one. Although the Any Permitted ticket would still be valid via Southend a 'via Pitsea' fare would be advantageous to c2c as they would then get the majority of the revenue for this flow.

There is potentially another way the TOCs could withdraw the validity but I'm not going to post it here as I don't want to give them ideas!

Click to expand...

The current fare can be rerouted "Via Shenfield" or such like, and a more expensive "Any Permitted" fare introduced to allow travel on C2C.

It has certainly happened before, and Passenger Focus argued that it would offer customers more choices, and the DfT subsequently approved of such changes.

It's interesting that nearly every time kieron lists a load of changes it includes long distance routes to the south coast.

I was wondering what the key event was that triggered all these alterations and can't help wondering whether the initial issue was the chap who insisted on travelling from Basingstoke to Fareham via Salisbury.

IIRC SWT reacted to that by removing a particular map which allowed what was deemed to be excessive coverage, and over the intervening period all the knock on effects are still being found and are having to be put right one by one as they are reported?

I'm not sure, but I think Basingstoke-Fareham via Salisbury went when the number of maps went from 120-something to 340-something in 2013. I don't know how that tallies with anything, though.

A couple of new easements were published yesterday.
A temporary diversion. It only refers to services between Bristol and Birmingham. I don't know if this means that people with shorter distance tickets would have to go by road.


Easement 700198 says

This means that the additional benefits for the new easement are for people travelling to and from West Ruislip, Denham and Denham Golf Club, and to those going via London Paddington (or some other interchange point) instead of Marylebone.

While it involves one of the above stations, I don't know what exactly this means for a St. Margarets-West Ruislip ticket. You can use South Ruislip as a routeing point for West Ruislip, which is all well and good, but can you now does it mean you are free to choose either routeing point for St. Margarets?

A return from St. Margarets to West Ruislip currently costs exactly the same as a day travelcard, so there may not be many takers for this ticket.

Some more updates were published yesterday.
Each of these adds mapped routes via Clapham and Lancaster. The other routeing points on the WCML between Lancaster and Stafford already included routes that way.

There are mapped routes between (say) London and Exeter via Honiton, but there are none via Castle Cary and Honiton.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules on what would count as a connecting service here.

Easement 700465 was added in 2013. No indication was given of its purpose at that time. There have been a number of easements over the years which allowed travel via Newport with a variety of tickets (some of which are still there), so I don't know if this is associated with any of them in particular.

kieron said:

Some more updates were published yesterday.

New dataset IBRG0419 published 22 July 2016

To create permitted routes via Lancaster from Hellifield in line with permissions that exist between Hellifield and Crewe Routeing Points the following additions have been made.

Map sequence added

HELLIFIELD GROUP (G53) and EARLESTOWN GROUP (G78) - added sequence 'XY+WG'
HELLIFIELD GROUP (G53) and STAFFORD GROUP (G65) - added sequence 'XY+WG+MC'
WARRINGTON GROUP (G31) and HELLIFIELD GROUP (G53) - added sequence 'WG+XY'
WIGAN GROUP (G34) and HELLIFIELD GROUP (G53) - added sequence 'WG+XY'​

Each of these adds mapped routes via Clapham and Lancaster. The other routeing points on the WCML between Lancaster and Stafford already included routes that way.

Click to expand...

Clearly in response to this thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=132675

Glad they've fixed it, and I'm sure Virgin will be very happy I can now spend my money with them. And it goes to show not all changes are negative.