Easement I can't understand

[Jimcam]

Negative easement 700119 reads, in full: "Customers travelling from Shelford via Royston to London Kings Cross, London St Pancras, Farringdon or via Farringdon, may not travel via Cambridge. This easement applies in both directions". How are passengers expected to get from Shelford onto the Royston - Kings Cross line without changing at Cambridge?

 

[Haywain]

Negative easement 700119 reads, in full: "Customers travelling from Shelford via Royston to London Kings Cross, London St Pancras, Farringdon or via Farringdon, may not travel via Cambridge. This easement applies in both directions". How are passengers expected to get from Shelford onto the Royston - Kings Cross line without changing at Cambridge?

They will need to buy more than one ticket. The easement is to prevent Shelford to London Terminals tickets being used on the Great Northern route.

 

[SargeNpton]

They will need to buy more than one ticket. The easement is to prevent Shelford to London Terminals tickets being used on the Great Northern route.

Does it also prevent Shelford-London tickets from being used by Cambridge passengers, if the Cambridge fare is more expensive? (Edit: wasn't this the subject of a thread on here recently?)

 

[greatkingrat]

Negative easement 700119 reads, in full: "Customers travelling from Shelford via Royston to London Kings Cross, London St Pancras, Farringdon or via Farringdon, may not travel via Cambridge. This easement applies in both directions". How are passengers expected to get from Shelford onto the Royston - Kings Cross line without changing at Cambridge?

I guess in theory they could walk from Hertford East to Hertford North, although I doubt anyone would do that in practice.

 

[jawr256]

They will need to buy more than one ticket. The easement is to prevent Shelford to London Terminals tickets being used on the Great Northern route.

I think the OP's problem is more that the easement seems tautologous - i.e. would either of the following changes to the wording actually make any difference?

• Customers travelling from Shelford via Royston to London Kings Cross, London St Pancras, Farringdon or via Farringdon, may not travel via Cambridge.
• Customers may not travel from Shelford via Royston to London Kings Cross, London St Pancras, Farringdon or via Farringdon, may not travel via Cambridge.

 

[Jimcam]

I think the OP's problem is more that the easement seems tautologous - i.e. would either of the following changes to the wording actually make any difference?

• Customers travelling from Shelford via Royston to London Kings Cross, London St Pancras, Farringdon or via Farringdon, may not travel via Cambridge.
• Customers may not travel from Shelford via Royston to London Kings Cross, London St Pancras, Farringdon or via Farringdon, may not travel via Cambridge.

You have completely understood my original post and your wordings are much better. It also seems curious to pick on Shelford: someone from (say) Whittlesford Parkway might want to do the same thing, for example to be able to travel to Gatwick or Brighton with just one change at Cambridge and avoiding the Underground. In fact my post arose from a friend wanting to travel from Shelford to Hove and not understanding what she was allowed to do.

 

[Haywain]

wasn't this the subject of a thread on here recently?)

You might be thinking of the person trying to use Royston to London via Cambridge.

 

[SargeNpton]

You have completely understood my original post and your wordings are much better. It also seems curious to pick on Shelford: someone from (say) Whittlesford Parkway might want to do the same thing, for example to be able to travel to Gatwick or Brighton with just one change at Cambridge and avoiding the Underground. In fact my post arose from a friend wanting to travel from Shelford to Hove and not understanding what she was allowed to do.

Wondering whether it's to do with the thing about longer routes being allowed if the distance is 3 miles or less (is that a thing or am I imaging it?). Shelford is around 3 miles from Cambridge but Whittlesford Parkway to Cambridge is over that distance.

 

[Haywain]

It was the case some years ago that there were some season ticket holders who used Shelford and Whittlesford to London seasons travelling to, or possibly via, Cambridge and took great exception when told they weren't valid. I wonder if that is why the easement was introduced? I get the feeling that Greater Anglia see travelling via Cambridge as acceptable on the West Anglia route.

 

[SargeNpton]

You might be thinking of the person trying to use Royston to London via Cambridge.

Probably. Just th4e same situation but in the reverse direction.

 

[Hadders]

Shelford to Cambridge is 3mi 16ch so without the negative easement journey planners would allow travel via Royston with a Shelford to London ticket.

 

[Jimcam]

It was the case some years ago that there were some season ticket holders who used Shelford and Whittlesford to London seasons travelling to, or possibly via, Cambridge and took great exception when told they weren't valid. I wonder if that is why the easement was introduced? I get the feeling that Greater Anglia see travelling via Cambridge as acceptable on the West Anglia route.

That's a can of slightly different worms. Negative easement 700120 reads: "Customers travelling from Shelford to London Liverpool Street via Audley End may not travel via Cambridge. This easement applies in both directions". Can of worms because (i) the NR journey planner shows journeys with this doubling back, and (ii) the easement cites only Liverpool St, not "stations between Liverpool St and X", implying you could board at Tottenham Hale, for example, and travel via Cambridge with impunity.

 

[Kilopylae]

That's a can of slightly different worms. Negative easement 700120 reads: "Customers travelling from Shelford to London Liverpool Street via Audley End may not travel via Cambridge. This easement applies in both directions". Can of worms because (i) the NR journey planner shows journeys with this doubling back, and (ii) the easement cites only Liverpool St, not "stations between Liverpool St and X", implying you could board at Tottenham Hale, for example, and travel via Cambridge with impunity.

Is the season ticket issued to London Liverpool Street or London Terminals?

 

[kieron]

It also seems curious to pick on Shelford: someone from (say) Whittlesford Parkway might want to do the same thing

The difference is in the "fare check". For a Shelford-London journey, Cambridge is a valid routeing point for Shelford. If there were no easements, this means that Shelford-Cambridge-Kings Cross would be a valid route with an "any permitted" ticket. This isn't the case with Whittlesford, so there may not need to be an easement to stop it from being valid.

 

[Jimcam]

The difference is in the "fare check". For a Shelford-London journey, Cambridge is a valid routeing point for Shelford. If there were no easements, this means that Shelford-Cambridge-Kings Cross would be a valid route with an "any permitted" ticket. This isn't the case with Whittlesford, so there may not need to be an easement to stop it from being valid.

Apologies for my ignorance, but what does being a valid routeing point mean? How does it relate to negative easement 700120 quoted above?

 

[Alex365Dash]

Apologies for my ignorance, but what does being a valid routeing point mean?

It passes the fares check, so it can be used to refer to the Yellow Pages (the Permitted Route Identifier, not the telephone directory!) to find the route to the destination’s Routeing Point.

This would mean travelling from the origin, in this case Shelford, to the valid Routeing Point associated with the origin, Cambridge, then following the mapped route to London, travelling via Cambridge to get from Shelford to London.

How does it relate to negative easement 700120 quoted above?

The Routeing Guide has easements to help passengers make journeys that are reasonable but would otherwise not be permitted for whatever reason. This was fine until the Rail Delivery Group (then still ATOC) had the bright idea of making negative easements (yes, that’s an oxymoron!) to prevent passengers making journeys it deemed unreasonable that were permitted by the Routeing Guide. A negative easement can prevent an otherwise valid journey from being valid by a certain route.

Back to the easement! Negative easement 700120 as stated above effectively prevents you from using a Shelford to London ticket to go via Cambridge, but only if you then go back on the West Anglia Main Line (WAML) to Liverpool Street. If you get off earlier, say at Tottenham Hale, the easement also doesn’t apply. Travel via the East Coast Main Line (ECML) is covered by a different easement, which you’ve already spotted!

 

[Jimcam]

It passes the fares check, so it can be used to refer to the Yellow Pages (the Permitted Route Identifier, not the telephone directory!) to find the route to the destination’s Routeing Point.

This would mean travelling from the origin, in this case Shelford, to the valid Routeing Point associated with the origin, Cambridge, then following the mapped route to London, travelling via Cambridge to get from Shelford to London.

The Routeing Guide has easements to help passengers make journeys that are reasonable but would otherwise not be permitted for whatever reason. This was fine until the Rail Delivery Group (then still ATOC) had the bright idea of making negative easements (yes, that’s an oxymoron!) to prevent passengers making journeys it deemed unreasonable that were permitted by the Routeing Guide. A negative easement can prevent an otherwise valid journey from being valid by a certain route.

Back to the easement! Negative easement 700120 as stated above effectively prevents you from using a Shelford to London ticket to go via Cambridge, but only if you then go back on the West Anglia Main Line (WAML) to Liverpool Street. If you get off earlier, say at Tottenham Hale, the easement also doesn’t apply. Travel via the East Coast Main Line (ECML) is covered by a different easement, which you’ve already spotted!

Many thanks for this. The final - I hope - complication is that a Cambridge to Liverpool St Off-Peak Day Return is cheaper than the Shelford to Liverpool St OPDR. So you could buy the Cambridge to Liverpool St ticket but board and/or alight intermediately at Shelford. Indeed it's been explained in the Shelford village newsletter and on the local Facebook page that this is both legitimate and money-saving, so it's now common practice. But presumably you can't double-back on the Shelford to Cambridge part of the journey with that ticket, because you'd then be using parts of the outward and return journeys in the wrong order - am I right? And I guess this leads to under-estimation of the entries and exits at Shelford: there is no gateline and from their purchases the passengers will appear to have been travelling to and from Cambridge.

 

[Alex365Dash]

But presumably you can't double-back on the Shelford to Cambridge part of the journey with that ticket, because you'd then be using parts of the outward and return journeys in the wrong order - am I right?

That’s right - starting the Shelford to Cambridge leg on your outbound journey would entail using the end of the return portion of the ticket, invalidating the outward portion to actually get to London.

Similarly, the Cambridge to Shelford leg you’d do last when returning to Shelford is on the outward portion of your ticket, which you can’t use in the wrong order.

 

[Haywain]

And I guess this leads to under-estimation of the entries and exits at Shelford:

It would be insufficient, by a large margin, to lead to closure of the station or downgrading of services. Even if it is relatively well publicised, there will still be plenty of people buying Shelford to London tickets and vice versa, and it will have no impact on tickets to/from other locations including Cambridge which is likely to be the most popular destination from Shelford.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Shelford to Cambridge is 3mi 16ch so without the negative easement journey planners would allow travel via Royston with a Shelford to London ticket.

It will be interesting when Cambridge South opens, which is less than 1.5 miles from Shelford but beyond Shepreth Branch Junction whether the easement will be applied there too. One assumes so.

 

[cornishjohn]

The difference is in the "fare check". For a Shelford-London journey, Cambridge is a valid routeing point for Shelford. If there were no easements, this means that Shelford-Cambridge-Kings Cross would be a valid route with an "any permitted" ticket. This isn't the case with Whittlesford, so there may not need to be an easement to stop it from being valid.

I still haven't quite grasped the point here. Why do we need to specify "via Royston" in the negative easement? Is greatkingrat onto something with the 'via Hertfords' suggestion?
Hackney Central/Highbury & Islington/Finsbury Park?

 

[Watershed]

I still haven't quite grasped the point here. Why do we need to specify "via Royston" in the negative easement? Is greatkingrat onto something with the 'via Hertfords' suggestion?
Hackney Central/Highbury & Islington/Finsbury Park?

It seems like negative easements are created first and foremost from the perspective of what needs to be done in the restriction data to "fix" the loophole in booking engines, and then the accompanying text is written afterwards.

As @RJ and latterly @kieron have diligently documented over many years on the National Routeing Guide update thread, the text is full of errors and omissions, and sometimes doesn't even make sense or reflect what the effect the data actually have.

The problem is that the whole process is treated as a "data" or technical problem, rather than something that involves the customer. The RDG (perhaps not entirely wrongly!) feels that almost no-one is realistically speaking going to read through all of the easements, so it can be as rubbish as they can get away with.

 

[infobleep]

It seems like negative easements are created first and foremost from the perspective of what needs to be done in the restriction data to "fix" the loophole in booking engines, and then the accompanying text is written afterwards.

As @RJ and latterly @kieron have diligently documented over many years on the National Routeing Guide update thread, the text is full of errors and omissions, and sometimes doesn't even make sense or reflect what the effect the data actually have.

The problem is that the whole process is treated as a "data" or technical problem, rather than something that involves the customer. The RDG (perhaps not entirely wrongly!) feels that almost no-one is realistically speaking going to read through all of the easements, so it can be as rubbish as they can get away with.

Thankfully there are people here who do read it and publicise the changes. Many thanks for their effort and work.

 

[kieron]

I still haven't quite grasped the point here. Why do we need to specify "via Royston" in the negative easement?

Easement 700119 was created by FCC. They (I presume) didn't want people catching their Cambridge-London trains (which all went via Royston) with a Shelford-London ticket. As the easement says "via Royston", it discouraged people from using those trains without interfering too much with how they used anyone else's.

At the same time, easement 700120 was created by NXEA to discourage people from travelling between Cambridge and London on their trains without paying for a Cambridge-London ticket.

 

[Mirrie]

In fact my post arose from a friend wanting to travel from Shelford to Hove and not understanding what she was allowed to do.

Hello, everyone. I am @Jimcam's friend who raised this with him. I'll be travelling to Brighton again in early October, and potentially more often in the future, so this ticket restriction is still a matter of great interest to me.

I've popped by here to let you know (since I thought you'd be interested?) that last weekend I raised a formal complaint [with RDG initially and then also directly with Thameslink since RDG bounced me onto them] about the effect of this Easement 700119 on customers wishing to travel from Shelford to Brighton (and/or any other station south of London on that line or linking to it) and requested that they at least amend, or preferably abolish this Easement in order to create a simpler, better railway for residents of the Shelford area.

- you will note that I quote directly from RDG's own boldly proclaimed mission statement in that last phrase!

Included in my long complaint, I have pointed out the Equality Act 2010 breach because of accessibility issues with the forced routing of passengers from Shelford via multiple difficult London/tube changes, compared to those from Waterbeach. [Waterbeach to Brighton, with one change at Cambridge, is the same price as Cambridge to Brighton; Shelford to Brighton, with one change at Cambridge costs 18% more than that, when buying an Off-Peak Period Return with a Network Railcard.]

Thameslink were very helpful on the phone when I spoke to them on Monday; I've since had an auto-reply to my email to them containing the full complaint, and have my fingers crossed for a full response from them within their '10 working days' target timeframe. RDG by contrast were completely useless with their replies so far: initially just directing me to contact Thameslink "for more information about the availability of fares"; and then after I'd pointed out that they'd missed the point, their second reply just told me I couldn't buy a direct ticket because of the easement, and would have to buy the extra singles from Shelford - which of course was the whole point of my complaint in the first place! In my third email to RDG, I re-stated the core complaint and asked them to treat it as a formal complaint and stop brushing me off. Since when they've not replied again.

I'll report back as and when I get any outcome.