The traveller will have two tickets covering the whole journey, one of which is a season ticket. Under NRCoC 19(c) the train does not need to call at the station where the tickets join. A direct train via Colwich will not call at the station where the tickets join and therefore meets the requirements of the condition, being tickets which cover the whole journey. I am not aware of anything that says that the train must pass through the station where the tickets join, so don't see the problem....
There is no requirement to go via the mid-point station, that much is true, but the permitted routes for the tickets do have to meet at some point.
Each ticket has a set of permitted routes, the fact that the passenger holds two tickets for a longer journey does not mean that the permitted routes become that of the longer journey (though I can see how people might think that), in a similar way to that of a passenger holding a Nottingham-London ticket, but travelling (starting short) from Derby, they must use the permitted routes for Nottingham-London and not Derby-London, despite the latter being 'their journey'.
If the permitted routes for the tickets meet at a place that is not the split point then there is no need to go via that split point, provided that a break of journey is allowed (for example, Manchester-Warrington + Warrington-Liverpool would be Valid on any of the direct Manchester-Liverpool services regardless of which of the two routes they take - unless the permitted routes have changed recently).
....This works in the same way that an overdistance excess would, except that overdistance excesses are not available for season tickets....
An 'over-distance' excess is actually an 'Over-riding (travelling beyond the destination printed on the ticket)' excess and requires travel via the 'destination' station, 'deviation off route to a new destination' is not the same thing.
In the case of a passenger holding a Manchester-Stafford ticket, getting the train to London via Crewe (which would go via Stafford) would be 'Over-riding', but going on the direct train to London via Stoke (avoiding Stafford) would be 'Deviation off route to a new destination'.
....But, as I said, I know I hold what is very much the minority view and do not therefore expect anyone to agree with me.
Nothing wrong with having your own view point, and stating that it is your understanding is a positive thing in terms of forum use, but the rules on this are not the same as your view point and hence your view point is not correct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Interesting point there from Haywain. It agrees with what Old Timer has said previously on the forum about what was permitted in the 1970s and 80s, e.g. in the
discussion about a 19(c) combination at Northampton being valid on a non-stop train that avoids Northampton.
Old Timer mentions the concept of a "fare route", which seems to have been something that existed in BR days and meant that fares were considered equally valid along various different lines/paths that were close together. This may also be related to the season ticket interavailability along different lines in the Southern area south of London, which was
also discussed recently....
Certainly before Privatisation, it was 'reasonable routes' that held sway, but in 1996 it made way for 'permitted routes'.
....On the other hand the concept that an over-distance excess makes the excessed fare valid on all permitted routes to the destination has been well-codified; off the top of my head I remember that the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement refers to an excess as having the effect of converting a fare into another fare....
It has been mentioned by some forum members, but there is no agreement on what 'a fare' actually means. It is also established (by ATOC themselves) that the TSA can be interpreted in different ways by different people.
....But the process of combining a season ticket with a point-to-point ticket has on the other hand been codified differently (in NRCoC condition 19(c)). But I think it could possibly be argued that we have been taking the phrase "cover the entire journey" too literally, in terms of stretches of track, and maybe if the concept of equivalent "fare routes" are taken into account, it could have a different, more flexible, meaning?....
If you change the rules you will inevitably change the literal meaning of the rule. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not.
At some point a line must be drawn between what is allowed and what isn't, if a literal interpretation can be reached that must define what is and is not allowed by the rule(s).
)