glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
I didn't want to further hijack the Woking to Slough thread so have started a new one regarding a current FOI request with the DfT, which I need some help on.
The FOI request I originally placed with the DfT was for the following:
I am requesting for all instances ATOC has written to the DfT to request for changes to the National Routeing Guide (http://www.atoc.org/rsp/Routeing_Guide.asp). I would like copies of all correspondence between yourselves and ATOC related to this issue and all decisions ruled by yourselves on said changes. Lastly I am requesting for the criterion used by the DfT when making decisions on change approvals to the Routeing Guide.
This has since been narrowed on cost grounds to all changes to the Routeing Guide since 2005 and the criterion used when assessing decisions on change approvals.
The problem I currently have is this latest reply from the DfT:
Either the DfT are completely incompetent with regard to their functions with the Routeing Guide or they are deliberately trying to mislead myself.
So just to try to narrow some of the main points of the above:
1. The DfT have confirmed "all" changes to the routeing guide are subject to Secretary of State Approval: "The ATOC document, the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) allows changes to permitted routes to be made. The TSA requires ATOC to obtain approval from the Secretary of State for any changes"
2. The DfT claim that since 2005 (when the received responsibility for the routeing guide) there has been no requests from ATOC to the DfT for approval on changes to the Routeing Guide: "Since the Department for Transport have been responsible for the change approval process to the NRG no such requests have been received at all from ATOC."
3. The DfT claim the routeing guide functions using complex software despite the fact it is a group of PDF documents: "Moving on to address your general concerns regarding the integrity of the ATOC National Routeing guide I should point out that the guide on the internet functions on extremely complex software and is dynamic, being subject to routine maintenance by ATOC at the request of train operators and passengers."
4. They claim the apparent complex nature of the software makes in inevitable errors will appear within the guide. "Given the necessarily tortuous complexity of the suite of software architecture that supports the guide mistakes can be made and I am sure they would welcome your positive input."
5. It seems they wish for me to contact ATOC to highlight anomalies within the guide and so that they can correct these. "He is keen to ensure the continuing accuracy and integrity of the guide and has told me he would be prepared to examine any written specific station to station list of submissions from you regarding the accuracy of the guide. "
Now what I need help on, is from those on the forum who remember a specific change to the routeing guide occurring, I do have some RG copies dating back to 2005 and can therefore look these up, but don't want to spend hours searching for them.
Thanks in advance
glynn80
The FOI request I originally placed with the DfT was for the following:
I am requesting for all instances ATOC has written to the DfT to request for changes to the National Routeing Guide (http://www.atoc.org/rsp/Routeing_Guide.asp). I would like copies of all correspondence between yourselves and ATOC related to this issue and all decisions ruled by yourselves on said changes. Lastly I am requesting for the criterion used by the DfT when making decisions on change approvals to the Routeing Guide.
This has since been narrowed on cost grounds to all changes to the Routeing Guide since 2005 and the criterion used when assessing decisions on change approvals.
The problem I currently have is this latest reply from the DfT:
DfT said:Dear xx,
Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Firstly, I would like to address once more for clarity, the scope of the formal requests you have made relating to the ATOC National Routeing Guide under the FOI.
As explained in the initial letter to you changes to the NRG may be needed from time to time, if errors are discovered, new rail routes opened or reopened, additional routes are to be allowed, or train operators propose to disallow a route. The ATOC document, the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) allows changes to permitted routes to be made. The TSA requires ATOC to obtain approval from the Secretary of State for any changes, and that the SoS consults with Passenger Focus to ensure that passengers’ routing flexibility is preserved. Approximately 20,000 flows were amended in and around 2001/2 through this change process. These items would prove rather time consuming to retrieve and disseminate and there would be consequent costs.
Since the Department for Transport have been responsible for the change approval process to the NRG no such requests have been received at all from ATOC.
Moving on to address your general concerns regarding the integrity of the ATOC National Routeing guide I should point out that the guide on the internet functions on extremely complex software and is dynamic, being subject to routine maintenance by ATOC at the request of train operators and passengers. Many of these maintenance functions are driven by the need to make additional permissions for passengers, typically changes are made to allow additional routes during engineering blockades. Others involve the development of additional mapping to illustrate more clearly the actual routes which are permitted from one station to another. These routine functions do not require the use of the formal change process because they are either relaxations of restricted routes or clarifications of existing routes
As xx has explained to you, if you believe there have been substantive changes to the guide that has reduced passenger choice between two stations it really would be best to approach ATOC in the first instance providing them with the fullest details so that they can investigate. Given the necessarily tortuous complexity of the suite of software architecture that supports the guide mistakes can be made and I am sure they would welcome your positive input. If you are not satisfied with their response then a dispute on any flow and the permitted routes that remained outstanding would be formally referred to the Department by ATOC for a judgment to be made.
I have also spoken with xx at ATOC regarding this matter, he is the xx Manager, for National Rail Enquiries, 3rd Floor, 40 Bernard Street London, WC1N 1BY. He is keen to ensure the continuing accuracy and integrity of the guide and has told me he would be prepared to examine any written specific station to station list of submissions from you regarding the accuracy of the guide.
Yours sincerely
xx
Either the DfT are completely incompetent with regard to their functions with the Routeing Guide or they are deliberately trying to mislead myself.
So just to try to narrow some of the main points of the above:
1. The DfT have confirmed "all" changes to the routeing guide are subject to Secretary of State Approval: "The ATOC document, the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) allows changes to permitted routes to be made. The TSA requires ATOC to obtain approval from the Secretary of State for any changes"
2. The DfT claim that since 2005 (when the received responsibility for the routeing guide) there has been no requests from ATOC to the DfT for approval on changes to the Routeing Guide: "Since the Department for Transport have been responsible for the change approval process to the NRG no such requests have been received at all from ATOC."
3. The DfT claim the routeing guide functions using complex software despite the fact it is a group of PDF documents: "Moving on to address your general concerns regarding the integrity of the ATOC National Routeing guide I should point out that the guide on the internet functions on extremely complex software and is dynamic, being subject to routine maintenance by ATOC at the request of train operators and passengers."
4. They claim the apparent complex nature of the software makes in inevitable errors will appear within the guide. "Given the necessarily tortuous complexity of the suite of software architecture that supports the guide mistakes can be made and I am sure they would welcome your positive input."
5. It seems they wish for me to contact ATOC to highlight anomalies within the guide and so that they can correct these. "He is keen to ensure the continuing accuracy and integrity of the guide and has told me he would be prepared to examine any written specific station to station list of submissions from you regarding the accuracy of the guide. "
Now what I need help on, is from those on the forum who remember a specific change to the routeing guide occurring, I do have some RG copies dating back to 2005 and can therefore look these up, but don't want to spend hours searching for them.
Thanks in advance
glynn80
Last edited: