Ambiguity of "Any Permitted"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Not sure if you were responding to my post but, if you were, this is a red herring. The key to defining 'fastest' is the earliest time you can reach your destination. If a train has left before you reach the platform it is out of the equation.
You've misunderstood me; being as you're just repeating my point. You need to take into account station interchange times.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
4,686
Location
Sheffield
Are you suggesting an exact routeing should be decided in advance for every ticket, and an excess payable if the customer deviates from that?
This is basically the system in Germany, but the ticketing there is predicated on single tickets. There is no advantage in booking a return ticket as it would merely be twice the cost of the single. On your way back you make your routing choice and buy another single ticket depending on the circumstances prevailing at the time.


You've misunderstood me; being as you're just repeating my point. You need to take into account station interchange times.
I certainly have misunderstood you. Lets just say we agree.:D
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,610
Location
Yorkshire
This is basically the system in Germany, but the ticketing there is predicated on single tickets. There is no advantage in booking a return ticket as it would merely be twice the cost of the single. On your way back you make your routing choice and buy another single ticket depending on the circumstances prevailing at the time.
That is one thing that would be a genuine simplification: if singles were priced at half of the current cost of returns. However there is no chance of that happening as TOCs make too much money from people buying expensive singles or paying more to return at a later date.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Good try, but I regret that the suggestion of "Route: ANY VALID ROUTE" doesn't help us.

Why? Because it could only have a meaning, if ever, if the alternative meanings could apply.

They couldn't.
(Those meanings would have to include that in some journeys, tickets could be issued stating 'Route' "INCLUDING INVALID ROUTES".)
 

tony_mac

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2009
Messages
3,626
Location
Liverpool
I think 'SEE REVERSE' fits into 15 characters ;)

Now I see why they have cut down the text about the NRCoC - it's so that they can fit bigger adverts onto the back!

There must be a sign at every sales point that states:

RAIL TRAVEL

Travel on the Train Company(s) trains is subject to the National Conditions of Carriage. Unless otherwise stated, tickets may be used on any Train Company's services by any Permitted Route.

The names of the Train Companies, copies of the National Conditions of Carriage and details of the Permitted routes are available from this ticket office.
There isn't.
From my brief look around, Northern ticket offices have them - their TVMs do not. I have not seen any such notice at a Virgin ticket office or TVM.
They have many other notices, which would make one difficult to find, but I did spend some time looking (while trying not to spook the ticket office staff!).
 
Last edited:

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
The passenger is buiying ticket at/returing from station A. Their destination is station B. The fastest route at any given time is the one which gets the passenger to station B the soonest.

So if the trains are

1. Dep A 0800 arr B 1030
2. Dep A 0830 arr B 1015
3. Dep A 0845 arr B 1100
4. Dep A 0900 arr B 1055

For anyone at A before 0830, journey 2 is the fastest.
For anyone arriving at A after 0830, journey 4 is the fastest.

Equally definitive as the shortest route, and a lot simpler to calculate for both the passenger and the ticket seller/checker. I made these type of calculations when working at New St in the 1970s, well before any computerisation. Nowadays you would merely need to enter the origin and destination into a route planner which will do the work for you.
What happens if, at 0745, the 0830 train is advertised as being 25 minutes late?

What happens if, on a different day at 0805, the 0830 train is advertised as being 50 minutes late and the 0900 is advertised as being 'stuck behind it'?

Suppose you have a 'fastest route' involving a 45 minute suggested connection from say Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly which runs only every hour. What happens if you make that connection in 20 minutes and arrive at Piccadilly in time for a quicker train operated by a different TOC and running by a different route?

In these situations, the shortest route is still the shortest route.

....There isn't.
From my brief look around, Northern ticket offices have them - their TVMs do not. I have not seen any such notice at a Virgin ticket office or TVM.
They have many other notices, which would make one difficult to find, but I did spend some time looking (while trying not to spook the ticket office staff!).
Then that needs to be reported (makes me wonder about the auditing process they both have).
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
What happens if, at 0745, the 0830 train is advertised as being 25 minutes late?

What happens if, on a different day at 0805, the 0830 train is advertised as being 50 minutes late and the 0900 is advertised as being 'stuck behind it'?
The ticketing and routeing doesn't need to cover these eventualities. That's why we have station masters and guards. I've found that almost invariably, if there are delays or problems, railway staff are always incredibly accommodating and will advise on what you should do. A route which isn't permitted normally could very easily be permitted in extenuating circumstances.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
There needs to be a boundary where the rules say it is not okay. Right now we know that if we are not using a direct train and we are not on the shortest route and we are not on a route that is shown in the Routeing Guide, then, unless there is an easement, we are not on a "permitted route". A delay to one train won't alter that, regardless of how the staff react to the situation.

If you change that to, or add further routes because of, "the fastest route", then there needs to be a boundary for what is and is not allowed.
 

cuccir

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
3,337
There needs to be a boundary where the rules say it is not okay. Right now we know that if we are not using a direct train and we are not on the shortest route and we are not on a route that is shown in the Routeing Guide, then, unless there is an easement, we are not on a "permitted route". A delay to one train won't alter that, regardless of how the staff react to the situation.

If you change that to, or add further routes because of, "the fastest route", then there needs to be a boundary for what is and is not allowed.
Entirely agree. I'd keep the shortest/permitted route rule, but have fastest as an addition. Yes it would need refining, and decisions would have to be made re: delays, late trains, first/last trains of the day. In principle, though, it's a case of making a robust choice and sticking to it

One answer, which removes most of these questions, is: if in normal running circumstances (ie overlooking engineering works/cancellations/late trains/people interchanging faster than minimum recommended times) a route CAN be the quickest way between two stations, then it is ALWAYS valid, even at times when it is not the quickest. After this, all we need to do is to put in adequate caveats to deal with odd routings that occur overnight or on Sundays, and to maintain that doubling back is not permitted*, and we're away.

*Except where it is ;)
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
4,686
Location
Sheffield
The ticketing and routeing doesn't need to cover these eventualities. That's why we have station masters and guards. I've found that almost invariably, if there are delays or problems, railway staff are always incredibly accommodating and will advise on what you should do. A route which isn't permitted normally could very easily be permitted in extenuating circumstances.
Exactly. Routing, of whatever sort, is based on timetabled trains. If there are disturbances to the timetable on any particular day, staff are able to advise and assist.
 

MarkyMarkD

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2009
Messages
504
Location
Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
I posted this earlier but it didn't appear because I am away from home in a hotel with an abysmal wifi connection!

I don't think it is necessary to revise the NRCOC wording to allow "fastest route" instead of "shortest route". Instead, the allowed routeing guide routes - or maps - ought to always permit the fastest route.

I think the problem with the present routeing guide is that it seeks to "get away" with far too few maps, whereas a greater number of maps, but more discernment of which map is truly appropriate to a particular journey, will produce the best outcome for the vast majority of customers.

As others have posted, generally speaking the ability for a ticket from A to Z to allow travel via A, B, C, Z and also A, B, D, M, N, Z is rather less important than providing for every reasonable route between A and Z being permitted.

As things stand, the status quo favours the rare few who understand the routeing guide, at the expense of the vast majority who do not.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
4,686
Location
Sheffield
I think the problem with the present routeing guide is that it seeks to "get away" with far too few maps, whereas a greater number of maps, but more discernment of which map is truly appropriate to a particular journey, will produce the best outcome for the vast majority of customers.
I would argue the complete opposite. The 1997 version of the RG contained 26 maps, the current version has 125. I know which one was easier to use (and needed far less 'easements').

It is this proliferation which, in my view, leads to :

As things stand, the status quo favours the rare few who understand the routeing guide, at the expense of the vast majority who do not.
 
Last edited:

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,031
Location
Yorkshire
Yes it does.

If you bought the Banbury Off Peak Return ticket, you could return via London on payment of an excess of £1.10, providing you depart St Pancras at a time between 1026 & 1515 (inc) or at or after 1859 or depart Kings Cross at a time between 0906 & 1457 (inc) or at or after 1859 (1815 on Fridays).
Indeed. Converseley if he bought the more expensive route (via London in this case) his ticket would be valid on the cheaper route aswell (please will someone validate for me that this is correct in most circumstances).
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
Indeed. Converseley if he bought the more expensive route (via London in this case) his ticket would be valid on the cheaper route aswell (please will someone validate for me that this is correct in most circumstances).
At the very least, you would be able to excess a "+London" ticket to a "Not London" one for no charge. I've excessed tickets both ways round travelling between Southampton and Crewe.
 

bb21

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
23,790
At the very least, you would be able to excess a "+London" ticket to a "Not London" one for no charge. I've excessed tickets both ways round travelling between Southampton and Crewe.
This is correct, officially, however sometimes guards don't really want to faff about with the hassle of paperwork associated with the issue of a zero-excess.
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
This is correct, officially, however sometimes guards don't really want to faff about with the hassle of paperwork associated with the issue of a zero-excess.
In this instance, a "Not London" fare is set by CrossCountry and the "+London" one is set by Virgin. I'd have thought there'd be a revenue incentive for a guard on XC to issue a zero-excess re-routing? Or does it not work like that? :)
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
In this instance, a "Not London" fare is set by CrossCountry and the "+London" one is set by Virgin. I'd have thought there'd be a revenue incentive for a guard on XC to issue a zero-excess re-routing? Or does it not work like that? :)
The excess fare has no value so no revenue is given for it, hence some guards don't bother
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
Sorry, I mean that by excessing from London to Not London, I'm not paying any extra, but presumably ORCATS would allocate the existing ticket fare to XC instead of VT?
I am of the understanding that the ORCATs revenue from the original ticket would be untouched and the revenue from a zero fare excess would be zero. Maybe someone else knows better.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
That is my understanding too. But the ORCATS model of disribution is something of a secret, so I do not really know.

However, this question raises the broader suggestion that somehow the issue of an excess can affect how the revenue from the original ticket is distributed, and that was not a process which I understood could be applied.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
The only thing that links an excess to another ticket is a five digit number that could potentially come from any ticket machine in the country and with the only clue being the reason for the excess (which isn't very descriptive) I'm not sure how easy it would be to re-distribute the original money anyway.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,610
Location
Yorkshire
My understanding is that, when an excess is issued, the revenue for the original ticket is not re-allocated. It would be difficult to see how the revenue could be re-allocated anyway. But it is important to remember that revenue never determines validity. It is a limitation of the software & procedures used by the rail industry that this revenue is not re-allocated.

If single tickets were priced at half the cost of return tickets, there would be much less need for excess fares to be issued. However the TOCs choose not to make that change, for various reasons (that have been discussed elsewhere and are beyond the scope of this thread).

Today two forum members attempted to obtain straightforward excess fares at a major London terminal. One was issued immediately and correctly by a knowledgeable member of staff, but a few ticket windows along, and the discussion lasted over 10 minutes as the member of staff did not know how to issue it, but even when instructions from a colleague were forthcoming the transaction was ultimately refused (so a complaint will be made to the TOC concerned). The customer chose to travel via a different route as he had run out of time to 'shop around' and ask at the other counter.

Obtaining excesses is often a lottery. In some cases the customer must (attempt) to purchase the excess before boarding, in other cases that is not necessary, depending on the reason for/type of excess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top