Birmingham to Stoke-on-Trent via Nuneaton *and* Crewe (+ Rant)

[T8KE0FF]

I asked NRE if I could go via Nuneaton *and* Crewe on a Birmingham Stns - Stoke-on-Trent off-peak return ticket (route would be BHM-NUN-CRE-SOT) and they said it 'should' be okay but to check with station staff.

Firstly - and most importantly, would this be okay?

Secondly, why is there such an air of mystery over things such as ticket validity? It seems to be that there is rarely just one definitive yes or no answer when it comes to this sort of thing. This is when the argument start with the "well the man on the platform said I could get this train" "I asked your TOC's Twitter and they said it would be okay" etc.

 

[Eagle]

Firstly - and most importantly, would this be okay?

Yes. This route is permitted by the Routeing Guide, using maps BP+TV.

 

[Polarbear]

In answer to the OP's question about the "air of mystery", it boils down to several factors - many of which have been discussed on other threads.

Reasons include;

• Lack of training
• Lack of understanding of permitted routes
• Lack of geographical knowledge of the UK rail network
• TOC's being protective of their revenue streams

It isn't just national enquiries either. Recent threads regarding East Midland Trains & South Eastern show a worrying lack of knowledge by a small number of front line staff that are starting to bring their employers into disrepute (in my opinion anyway).

Climbs off soapbox...

 

[T8KE0FF]

Yes. This route is permitted by the Routeing Guide, using maps BP+TV.

Thanks!

Reasons include;

• Lack of geographical knowledge of the UK rail network

Funny you mention this, I asked at Stoke station yesterday when I bought the tickets if it would be okay and the chap on the desk said "No way! Nuneaton is about FORTY miles south of Birmingham!" Now we all know, Nuneaton is in fact ~25 miles east of Birmingham. I would maybe let someone at a ticket office on the other end of the country on a different route off, but Stoke-on-Trent has an hourly LM service to Nuneaton and a couple of peak VT services stopping at Nuneaton so you really would think the chap would have a better idea than that. It also grinds me gears how he didn't even check on his computer or anything, just took a look at my tickets and made his mind up like that.

 

[embers25]

Yes. This route is permitted by the Routeing Guide, using maps BP+TV.

But does the easement "700347 Negative Map Easement. Stoke On Trent to Stafford via Crewe" mean it isn't valid?? Does anyone know what negative easements are actually in this context as there's a whole raft around Crewe?

 

[maniacmartin]

Does anyone know what negative easements are actually?

This may be best in it's own thread as it's another of those long stories.

When the Routeing Guide was created, there were some routes they wanted to be allowed that were slightly odd and couldn't be described using the rules that were codified. The easements PDF described easements thus:

Easements are relaxations of Routeing Guide rules to allow journeys that strict adherence to the rules would forbid. Some previously published easements are no longer exceptions to Routeing Guide rules and have therefore been deleted as unnecessary.

This makes it clear that easements were originally intended to allow extra routes, not to disallow routes that would otherwise be valid in the Routeing Guide. Originally there were just 8 easements. Now there are 33 pages worth.

Over time, many more have been added, for a variety of reasons.

• To fix bugs in the bookings engines' interpretations of the Routeing Guide, by allowing or disallowing certain routes. (There is an electronic version of each easement which the booking engines can understand). Some of these only really make sense to computers, and are non-sensical when read by humans.
• To allow or disallow routes without the the staff having to understand the Routeing Guide, or introduce unintended consequences to other journeys by changing the Routeing Guide

Thus, the concept of a 'negative' easement was born. This is an easement that removes validity on routes that would otherwise be permitted.

However, there are some people who argue that negative easements are unenforceable. For through trains and the shortest route, the NRCoC makes it clear you don't even need to consult the Routeing Guide. If you find a mapped route, the introduction text of the easements file states it only allows extra routes, so why would you bother reading past that?

If you believe negative easements are enforceable, then I hope you read all 33 pages of this document before you embark on any new rail journey.

 

[embers25]

This may be best in it's own thread as it's another of those long stories.

When the Routeing Guide was created, there were some routes they wanted to be allowed that were slightly odd and couldn't be described using the rules that were codified. The easements PDF described easements thus:


This makes it clear that easements were originally intended to allow extra routes, not to disallow routes that would otherwise be valid in the Routeing Guide. Originally there were just 8 easements. Now there are 33 pages worth.

Over time, many more have been added, for a variety of reasons.

• To fix bugs in the bookings engines' interpretations of the Routeing Guide, by allowing or disallowing certain routes. (There is an electronic version of each easement which the booking engines can understand). Some of these only really ake sense to computers, and are non-sensical when read by humans.
• To allow or disallow routes without the the staff having to understand the Routeing Guide, or introduce unintended consequences to other journeys by changing the Routeing Guide

Thus, the concept of a 'negative' easement was born. This is an easement that removes validity on routes that would otherwise be permitted.

However, there are some people who argue that negative easements are unenforceable. For through trains and the shortest route, the NRCoC makes it clear you don't even need to consult the Routeing Guide. If you find a mapped route, the introduction text of the easements file states it only allows extra routes, so why would you bother reading past that?

If you believe negative easements are enforceable, then I hope you read all 33 pages of this document before you embark on any new rail journey.

Trust me I have read all 33 pages many times and again ready for my trip tomorrow from Guildford to Upton which will not only be in peak with an off peak ticket but also be by a route they will assume is invalid but will be completely legal by the routeing guide. Thats how the Crewe negative easement stuck in my mind. Surely this negative easement does prevent this ticket from being used in this case tho.

 

[bb21]

Thats how the Crewe negative easement stuck in my mind. Surely this negative easement does prevent this ticket from being used in this case tho.

But what does it mean?

The easement comprises two phrases, neither of which, nor when they are read in conjunction with each other, form a complete sentence.

 

[Eagle]

I agree that nonsensical easements are unenforceable. Because you don't actually know what exactly they're trying to enforce.

 

[All Line Rover]

Surely this negative easement does prevent this ticket from being used in this case tho.

Err... no.

It is 'clear' that this easement is intended to prevent journey planners routeing Stoke to Stafford itineraries via Crewe (which isn't a mapped route). Not that anyone needs to know that.

On a more general note, when I read in the Routeing Guide instructions (Sections A) "unless an easement allows a longer alternative route;" "whether easements would allow doubling back;" "where there are local journey easements, these may permit use of a longer route to and from the routeing points", and read in the Easements list (Section E) "Easements are relaxations of Routeing Guide rules to allow journeys that strict adherence to the rules would forbid", I am quite satisfied that there is no need for a member of the travelling public to take any notice of negative easements.

 

[embers25]

Err... no.

It is 'clear' that this easement is intended to prevent journey planners routeing Stoke to Stafford itineraries via Crewe (which isn't a mapped route). Not that anyone needs to know that.

On a more general note, when I read in the Routeing Guide instructions (Sections A) "unless an easement allows a longer alternative route;" "whether easements would allow doubling back;" "where there are local journey easements, these may permit use of a longer route to and from the routeing points", and read in the Easements list (Section E) "Easements are relaxations of Routeing Guide rules to allow journeys that strict adherence to the rules would forbid", I am quite satisfied that there is no need for a member of the travelling public to take any notice of negative easements.

I'd tend to agree but good to know others view it the same way. I also agree the wording of this Crewe group of negative easements makes them unenforceable in theory although I'm sure Virgin will beg to differ!

 

[yorkie]

I wonder how many guards and passengers alike have read all 33 pages of the Easements, and can say they fully understand, and will remember, each one?

I think they are, more than anything, used to manipulate the booking engines in a way that the TOCs want. Though sometimes they don't go to plan.

 

[embers25]

Trust me I have read all 33 pages many times and again ready for my trip tomorrow from Guildford to Upton which will not only be in peak with an off peak ticket but also be by a route they will assume is invalid but will be completely legal by the routeing guide. Thats how the Crewe negative easement stuck in my mind. Surely this negative easement does prevent this ticket from being used in this case tho.

Guard on 0636 checked my ticket before boarding and initially rejected it. All I had to say was that it took restriction 2T and he accepted it no problem. Credit too to the guard on the 0808 from Crewe to Shrewsbury which I managed to catch as he questioned where I was going with my Guildford to Upton ticket and I said via Shrewsbury, Wrexham and Shotton as per the relevant maps and he smiled and said fine. So 2 for 2. Good show!

 

[sheff1]

Funny you mention this, I asked at Stoke station yesterday when I bought the tickets if it would be okay and the chap on the desk said "No way! Nuneaton is about FORTY miles south of Birmingham!" Now we all know, Nuneaton is in fact ~25 miles east of Birmingham.

And, of course, even if Nuneaton actually was 40 miles south of Birmingham, that would be totally irrelevant when determing valid routings for the ticket.