Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fares Advice & Policy' started by BOBmcbob, 17 Jun 2010.
I agree with you on that Peter.
I am not disputing that point, but merely trying to prove that negative easements are unenforcable as someone travelling on an advertised through train (as the RG says it is only a permitted route for "that journey") would have no reason to be aware of any negative easements existing.
It was the man from the DfT that says they can!
The 'easements' thing is quite frankly ridiculous. In theory every time you board a train you should look through the list of 3 or 4 hundred easements to check if any of them apply.
It is ridiculous, who's going to bother doing that in the real world?! The whole concept of negative easements is absurd, and could only have been thought up by DfT!
Couple of things...
First, it's definitely the case, i.e. I'm just agreeing with what others have said, that negative easements don't apply to through trains or the shortest route. The RG makes it clear that easements apply to use of the maps to find a route; if you're on a through train or the shortest route then you don't actually get to that stage, so it doesn't apply.
Second, I just wish they'd call them what they are, i.e. 'Restrictions'! To my simple mind, an EASement makes something EASy (or EASier, I guess), not hard. Alternatively, just call them all 'exceptions' or something similar.
I sometimes wonder if they should look at routeing the fares a bit more appropriately, rather than using easements. E.g. (I think this one is still true) Carlisel has two lots of fares to London: route any permitted and route Newcastle, where Newcastle is not a permitted route. The easement says that route Newcastle tickets are also valid via any permitted route, which all makes good sense. Instead, why not make via Newcastle a permitted route between Carlisle and London and (still) have two fares: route any permitted and route not Newcastle. The fares are same but different, with the loss of an easement. (At least it's better than it used to be, when the fares were route Newcastle and 'route Direct', which has never been defined...)
It all just goes to show what a nightmare the whole system is. When rail staff, enthusiasts and people with an interest in fares and routes find different interpretations, what hoep has the average traveller got?!
well the obvious assumption is that it is not valid. I think its possibly valid due to this statement in the NRG Instructions:
"Most customers wish to make journeys by through trains or by the shortest route. In both cases they will be travelling on a permitted route, provided the correct fare has been paid to reflect any routeing indicated by the fares manual."
At the risk of going round in circles, the interpretation that I prefer is that it may be valid between London Terminals and Clapham junction all the way around the loop, but not at intermediate stations.
The fact that we are having this debate, though, shows how the whole system, not just this particular case, is fraught with ambiguities and complexities.
I quite agree that easements, negative or postive, do not apply to passengers travelling on through trains or by the shortest route, as they are valid by clause 13 of the conditions of carriage and hence need not consult the routeing guide, let alone the easements.
I also believe that negative easements in general are unenforcable as the routeing guides instructions do not allow for them. The only mention of easements in the instructions is to allow long routes where both the origin and destination have a common routeing point, and also to allow doubling back where it would not normally be permitted. Thus if a passenger, following the instructions of the routeing guide, finds that their intended route would appear to be permitted, they would have no reason to check the list of easements. A passenger would only ever look at the easements as a last resort if the other rules deem there intended route invalid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Michael, I obviously do believe that breaking a journey does involve a change of trains. My reasoning that a break of journey is valid on such a journey as Peterborough-Liverpool St via Ipswich is that the break of journey is a result of a choice made by the passenger, hence the change of trains is an optional choice by the passenger, hence the change of trains is not neccessary as it would be possible to complete the journey on one advertised through train. The use of the word may in this part of the routeing guide does not in any way influence my thinking.
Also, note the use of the plural in the line:
"Most customers wish to make journeys by through trains or by the
shortest route. In both cases they will be travelling on a permitted route,"
thus implying that it is possible to travel on more than only one through train, which is only possible if a break of journey is made.
On a similar note, I do concede that the conditions of carriage state that "a through train", ie only one, may be used, but this doesn't matter because you then refer to the routeing guide as per clause 13.a.iii and such a break of journey on a through train is permitted.
Thanks for the replies - seems this is a far from clear area! There's seemingly so many ambiguities and contradictions in the conditions... I have little doubt that if someone ever went to court over this it would fall foul of unfair contract terms and bits of the UTCC regs.
Is there not some organisation that can get the terms (conditions of carriage) brought into line with current legislation without someone having to take them down the legal route?