£0.10 Anytime Day Single. Bargain!

[Nicholas43]

The routeing guide does inform you that via London is a permitted route. From the 'Routeing guide in detail' document, p F7:

"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. Also permitted is the route followed by direct trains to and from the common routeing point if the journey is made on those trains."

The example given is Stratford to Solihull, changing in Birmingham by using direct trains, while via Leamington is the shortest route. In this case, by analogy, direct trains to and from London would be permitted for Haddenham & TP to Wendover.

Gosh, thanks, no wonder only you gurus understand all this!

Chiltern still seems to be offering two anytime singles Haddenham to Wendover (or Stoke Mandeville), one 'not London' and one 'any permitted', both £8.00.

So am I right that an 'any permitted' Haddenham to Wendover, plus either sort of ticket Wendover to Haddenham, allows a remarkably cheap round trip, at peak times if you wish, Haddenham -> Marylebone -> Wendover via Amersham -> Aylesbury -> Princes R -> Haddenham ?

However, I assume an 'any permitted' Haddenham to Wendover (or vice versa) is not valid for, ahem, break of journey at Marylebone? I don't at the moment see exactly which rule prevents this, but I'm guessing the ticket won't open the gates at Marylebone, and might be, ahem, queried by staff.

 

[AlterEgo]

To be honest, I'm just waiting for the Daily Wail to report an 8,000% fares rise in Buckinghamshire. "Attack on Middle England" and all that garbage.

 

[Nicholas43]

To be honest, I'm just waiting for the Daily Wail to report an 8,000% fares rise in Buckinghamshire.

The rise is £7.90, which is only 7900%

 

[bnm]

£0.10 x 8000% = £8.00. So 8000% is the correct multiple for the rise.

 

[swt_passenger]

£0.10 x 8000% = £8.00. So 8000% is the correct multiple for the rise.

Surely 8000% is the 'new figure' expressed as a percentage of the old, but it isn't the rise.

Using your logic, someone awarding a pay rise of 10% would be able to claim the rise was 110% - which would be laughed at...

 

[richw]

Surely 8000% is the 'new figure' expressed as a percentage of the old, but it isn't the rise.

Using your logic, someone awarding a pay rise of 10% would be able to claim the rise was 110% - which would be laughed at...

a 10% payrise of say a original £10 an hour, would be an extra pound, 110% of £10 is £11 so either option is correct.

 

[swt_passenger]

a 10% payrise of say a original £10 an hour, would be an extra pound, 110% of £10 is £11 so either option is correct.

We'd normally describe that as a 10% rise. But we definitely wouldn't refer to it as a 110% rise - which is what BNM is suggesting.

In plain English there is a world of difference between a rise from [a figure] TO 110%, and a rise OF 110%.

 

[jon0844]

You're 101% correct there!