Easements Updated (30/7/12)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
New Easements list here. Updated on July 30th according to the file name but uploaded on 2nd August.

Still going through it but I notice easements 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have been pulled from the old version (does anyone know a better way to see what's changed than manual checking? - diff doesn't work on binary files like pdfs)
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Oscar

Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Messages
1,129
Location
Switzerland
700285
Customers travelling from Shrewsbury to London Euston in possession of tickets routed "ATW and LM only" may not travel via Crewe. This easement applies in both directions.

Is this easement new?
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
Is this easement new?

Yes, that's a new one.

edit: the new ones shouldn't be hard to find, I'll add them

edit2: OK, there are a fair few new ones (assuming they're simply appended to the end of the old list) so I shan't post them in full but the first new one is 700227

700227
Customers travelling from Colne, Nelson, Brierfield, Burnley Central, Burnley
Barracks, Rose Grove, Hapton and Huncoat to Horwich Parkway in
possession of tickets routed 'Any Permitted' may not travel via Preston. This
easement applies in both directions.
 
Last edited:

philjo

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Messages
2,676
This one seems to make the journey impossible !

700119
Customers travelling from Shelford via Royston, may not travel via Cambridge. This easement applies in both directions.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
7,699
Location
Rail replacement bus cab
This one seems to make the journey impossible !

Given that Shelford is a TOPS reporting point, I still suspect that this is intended to prevent more significant abuse of map WA. Of course, the only available ticket for that flow is routed via Cambridge!
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,033
Location
Yorkshire
Given that Shelford is a TOPS reporting point, I still suspect that this is intended to prevent more significant abuse of map WA. Of course, the only available ticket for that flow is routed via Cambridge!

Indeed. And I believe that when we previously debated which comes first out of a 'route x' or an easement, the answer was the most favourable to the passenger.
 

maniacmartin

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 May 2012
Messages
5,216
Location
Croydon
I don't seem to be able to upload HTML files - so I've made a diff of the PDFs here
https://static.maniacmartin.com/temp/easements-diff.html

Some of the existing easements have had their wordings changed subtly - specifically "doubleback" now doesn't contain a space. Click the 'n' on the left to jump to the next thing that has been changed. Easements 2, 70 and 300444 appear to have been removed
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've just noticed that the "old" version I compared with must be newer than the old version SS4 used, given that 3,4,6,7 were already gone from my version (downloaded on 9th July 2012). If you want to send me your PDF I'll make a diff from it
 
Last edited:

Chapeltom

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
1,316
Location
Tainan, Taiwan.
Some of these are plain daft

Journeys from Stockport to Stalybridge may go via Manchester. Journeys via
Stockport and Stalybridge may go via Manchester. These easements apply in
both directions

If the easement didn't exist, the journey would be impossible 99.9% of the week.
 

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,050
700285
Customers travelling from Shrewsbury to London Euston in possession of tickets routed "ATW and LM only" may not travel via Crewe. This easement applies in both directions.

That's interesting. Easements can now apply to specific ticket types, can they?

(In any case, London Midland have a right cheek to introduce a negative easement after refusing a customer request to introduce fares between Shrewsbury and Crewe. :roll: If this is how they act with individual customers, imagine how much they must have complained to Virgin about the Railcard easement!)
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
I don't seem to be able to upload HTML files - so I've made a diff of the PDFs here
https://static.maniacmartin.com/temp/easements-diff.html

Some of the existing easements have had their wordings changed subtly - specifically "doubleback" now doesn't contain a space. Click the 'n' on the left to jump to the next thing that has been changed. Easements 2, 70 and 300444 appear to have been removed
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've just noticed that the "old" version I compared with must be newer than the old version SS4 used, given that 3,4,6,7 were already gone from my version (downloaded on 9th July 2012). If you want to send me your PDF I'll make a diff from it

Definitely possible, I was using an outdated version. Don't worry about the diff but thanks for the offer :)
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
11,825
Location
0036
Some of these are plain daft

Journeys from Stockport to Stalybridge may go via Manchester. Journeys via
Stockport and Stalybridge may go via Manchester. These easements apply in
both directions

If the easement didn't exist, the journey would be impossible 99.9% of the week.

A number of easements are in the nature of "hacks" implemented to force routeing and booking engines to behave as we expect them to.
 

barrykas

Established Member
Joined
19 Sep 2006
Messages
1,579
700060 (Customers in possession of tickets routed LONDON may not travel via Ebbsfleet International) breaks fares from Chiltern's "Heartlands" area (essentially Denham to Haddenham and the branch to Aylesbury) to stations for which HS1 is perfectly legitimate, as they're routed via London, whereas other TOCs mostly use Any Permitted for such tickets.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
11,825
Location
0036
To be ultra-technical that easement is meaningless as there are no fares routed LONDON since last October, but that's probably not what they had in mind.
 

kieron

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2012
Messages
2,590
Location
Connah's Quay
I've had a look at these, and it seems like the TOCs have been fairly generous this month.

Easement 2 has been replaced with 700269, which appears just to replace "go" with "double back". Has this killed off the "any permitted" Lowestoft-Felixstowe tickets via Norwich and Ipswich, or have they just changed the number?

Easement 70 has been replaced with 700282, which restricts the valid start points at the Faygate end.

Easement 300444 has been replaced with 700272 and 700276. I don't know why they split it, other than to allow people to use Heathrow Express on a NOT LONDON ticket to Iver or Langley. I think 700272 could limit the appeal of tickets from Heathrow to Gloucester routed via Stroud.

Easement 700257 has had ONLY added. Does this affect anything?

Another 15 easements have been added, but only 700274, 700285 and 700287 are negative ones.

Is 700274 just a way to get the slow Southport-Chester trains out of the journey planners? It would seem a bit odd to focus on those two stations otherwise.
 

mullin

Member
Joined
18 Jan 2010
Messages
187
Is 700274 just a way to get the slow Southport-Chester trains out of the journey planners? It would seem a bit odd to focus on those two stations otherwise.

Nope, it is designed to screw me over. I used to buy tickets from SOP to CTR and start late / finish early at PBL on them if travelling on Sundays
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
Some of these are plain daft

Journeys from Stockport to Stalybridge may go via Manchester. Journeys via
Stockport and Stalybridge may go via Manchester. These easements apply in
both directions

If the easement didn't exist, the journey would be impossible 99.9% of the week.

Likewise, this one is similar:

ATOC said:
Customers travelling from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge and beyond may doubleback via Manchester Piccadilly. This easement applies in both directions.

And this one's common sense.

ATOC said:
Customers travelling from Frodsham or Helsby via Hooton may travel via Chester. This easement applies in both directions.

But then what's the point of this one:
ATOC said:
Customers travelling Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley, Heald Green to Manchester Piccadilly and beyond may not travel via Manchester Airport. This easement applies in both directions.

Why would anyone even think of travelling south of the Airport to go north to Manchester?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There's a lot referring to travelling between southern stations on the Manchester/Liverpool-Crewe lines and stations on the CLC line between Liverpool South Parkway and Manchester Oxford Rd. It seems they want to make you walk a mile across Warrington from Bank Quay to Central station and not change at Liverpool South Parkway.
 
Last edited:

barrykas

Established Member
Joined
19 Sep 2006
Messages
1,579
Why would anyone even think of travelling south of the Airport to go north to Manchester?

Due to the scheduling of the Airport line, it can sometimes be quicker to go via the Airport and then get an express back to Piccadilly.

On a Sunday, for example, there's a 13:03 or 13:57 from Heald Green to the Airport, then fast trains from the Airport to Piccadilly at 13:20, 13:30, 13:35, 13:55 and 14:00; but only a 13:12 or 14:12 from Heald Green to Piccadilly.

Cheers,

Barry
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
52,815
Location
Yorkshire
Nope, it is designed to screw me over. I used to buy tickets from SOP to CTR and start late / finish early at PBL on them if travelling on Sundays

The direct trains rule is in the NRCoC and is unaffected by anything in the Routeing Guide.

However I do not believe it is valid to take a route that is not in the Routeing Guide, and is not within 3 miles of the shortest, claiming you are on a direct train from origin to destination, and then not actually stay on the train to the destination, irrespective of whether or not there's a negative easement, in my opinion (some people disagree).

For example an Edinburgh to Dalgety Bay is valid on the 1708 loco hauled service as this is a direct train. But I do not believe a passenger would be valid to finish 'short' anywhere on the loop.

The direct trains rule is nothing to do with the RG.

I can see the rule being clarified to say that you cannot board/alight at intermediate stations. But, sadly, I suspect some people within ATOC would rather the rule was got rid of completely. Scotrail don't seem to tell some of their guards that the rule even exists, they obviously wish it didn't. But it does, and if there are any plans to remove it, we need to campaign against that.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
Due to the scheduling of the Airport line, it can sometimes be quicker to go via the Airport and then get an express back to Piccadilly.

On a Sunday, for example, there's a 13:03 or 13:57 from Heald Green to the Airport, then fast trains from the Airport to Piccadilly at 13:20, 13:30, 13:35, 13:55 and 14:00; but only a 13:12 or 14:12 from Heald Green to Piccadilly.

Cheers,

Barry

I actually misread that one so it does make sense on re-reading.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Is 700274 just a way to get the slow Southport-Chester trains out of the journey planners? It would seem a bit odd to focus on those two stations otherwise.

Nope, it is designed to screw me over. I used to buy tickets from SOP to CTR and start late / finish early at PBL on them if travelling on Sundays

It is only for Southport or Meols Cop to Chester. It doesn't apply, for instance, for Mouldsworth to Southport where on a Sunday it would be faster via Manchester and a break of journey would be permitted.

Merseyrail did do a promotional fare of £2 for Chester-Southport on Sundays last summer, maybe too many people tried to use them on the Northern services.

For CTR to PBL you can split at Frodsham to save over paying the CTR to PBL fare.
 

dvboy

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
Birmingham
700275 Customers travelling from Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell, Hampton-In-Arden,
Birmingham International, Marston Green, Lea Hall and Stechford to Aston in
possession of tickets routed "Any Permitted" may travel via Birmingham New
Street. This easement applies in both directions.

This one seems entirely pointless.
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,337
The "not Liverpool South Parkway" ones are extremely annoying. Do they also apply to people who can't walk? Why spend £32 million on an interchange and prevent people using it?
 

OwlMan

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2008
Messages
3,206
Location
Bedworth, Warwickshire
dvboyQuote:
700275 Customers travelling from Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell, Hampton-In-Arden,
Birmingham International, Marston Green, Lea Hall and Stechford to Aston in
possession of tickets routed "Any Permitted" may travel via Birmingham New
Street. This easement applies in both directions.
This one seems entirely pointless.

Response deleted as easement was misread.
 
Last edited:

dvboy

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
Birmingham
Why? Birmingham does not pass the fares rule for some journeys from these stations meaning that without this easement you have to travel via Coventry. (e.g. XC stations towards Southampton or via Nuneaton) This easement allows travel via Birmingham.
Is it the way I am interpreting the easement then, as it is quite specific in which stations it applies to - you wouldn't go via Coventry to get from Canley to Aston for example.
 

OwlMan

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2008
Messages
3,206
Location
Bedworth, Warwickshire
Is it the way I am interpreting the easement then, as it is quite specific in which stations it applies to - you wouldn't go via Coventry to get from Canley to Aston for example.

Sorry I misread the easement, I assume that the on-line booking sites have the Stechford - Aston direct line as the shortest route (it is the booked route of some sleepers)
 

SickyNicky

Verified Rep - TrainSplit.com
Joined
8 Sep 2010
Messages
2,552
Location
Ledbury
Sorry I misread the easement, I assume that the on-line booking sites have the Stechford - Aston direct line as the shortest route (it is the booked route of some sleepers)

Yes - I can confirm that the direct line is considered the shortest route in the booking engine's data. The route via Birmingham would fail without an easement because it's more than 3 miles over this "shortest route".

However, I suggest that the easement should read "to or via Aston" since "to Aston" still leaves no permitted route for the booking engines to stations past Aston.

Having said that, the booking engines (at least WebTIS) currently allow these journeys via New Street, presumably via a patch or a less strict implementation of the shortest route + 3 rule.
 
Last edited:

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
4,931
Location
Sheffield
The "not Liverpool South Parkway" ones are extremely annoying. Do they also apply to people who can't walk? Why spend £32 million on an interchange and prevent people using it?

The question of walking has been debated many times, but without a consensus being reached.

I use tickets based on my belief that the NRCoC wording means that a walk between stations cannot be mandated by the RG. Others disagree.

I have never actually had need to outline my reasoning to a ticket checker as all my tickets have been accepted without query.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top