National Routeing Guide update

[Baxenden Bank]

Remember that to have station to station maps would produce over three million maps if my maths is right, which even if they only needed a check would still be a massive task.

It's not about maps - maps are merely the way of displaying the information. It's about valid routes between two fixed points.

Road journey planners would produce a gazillion to the factor of a gazillion maps if they were required to produce a paper map (or an electronic equivalent) for each possible combination. They don't and they work (generally speaking). They even manage to shows routes which match with roads on the ground rather than straight lines across Morecambe Bay, which is strange given that railways lines are tagged on geographic data much like roads are. Someone being lazy there (or not being paid sufficiently to allow the job to be done properly)?

Its about the underlying rules i.e. shortest or quickest route, motorway or non motorway, low bridge or no low bridge. In railway terms the complicating factor is the allocation of revenue, precedence / historic rights and not wishing to upset the status quo (commercial agreements between DFT and TOCS etc).

From a general passenger perspective it is about being allowed to take what appears to be a sensible route - rather than being forced to take a route that a someone has decided you should use purely as a result of revenue allocation mechanisms. At the extreme, the current maps are riddled with anomolies allowing bargain travel (according to examples discussed on other threads), buts that's why maps are the wrong answer to the valid route question. Any map based solution should merely represent the results of the application of the rules not be the rules themselves.

 

[PermitToTravel]

They even manage to shows routes which match with roads on the ground rather than straight lines across Morecambe Bay, which is strange given that railways lines are tagged on geographic data much like roads are. Someone being lazy there (or not being paid sufficiently to allow the job to be done properly)?

It's pretty difficult (but not impossible) to do this with Google Maps, which isn't really geared up for drawing on railway lines rather than roads - even Google's own interface represents train journeys as straight lines between interchanges! It would have been easier if they picked a more appropriate tool than Google Maps, e.g. OpenStreetMap

 

[RJ]

So this is the third (at least) version of the routing guide to be in use in well under a year. I don't see how this helps passengers get a 'reliable' train service (since the permissions can and do vary). I also don't see how staff are supposed to keep up, or how it helps to have to revise front line staff training so often. And if training isn't given, that's just more confusion and problems isn't it?

Quite simply, many don't. The consequence being that staff give out wrong advice and create problems (sometimes serious) for passengers who know more than them about their ticket, because they consulted the NRG. Many staff are of the understanding that permitted routes comprise only the shortest route and routes used by direct trains between the stations shown on the ticket. Or the entrenched who go on about "any reasonable route," something which ceased when privatisation came in!

The industry isn't doing enough to educate ticket inspection staff that permitted routes are not based on the whim of the person who is inspecting it. It's one of those things that will most likely be left as it is until it made apparent that problems are of a scale that warrant addressing. I've got a funny feeling that things will start kicking off in the near future!

 

[redbutton]

I think it's ridiculous to change from a printable PDF to this Google Maps nonsense. How are staff or passengers aboard a train supposed to use this without an Internet connection or even an electronic device?

 

[PermitToTravel]

I'd be surprised if more than 5 conductors/RPIs in the whole country carry around a printed copy of the NRG maps.

 

[button_boxer]

I'd be surprised if more than 5 conductors/RPIs in the whole country carry around a printed copy of the NRG maps.

No, but at least with PDFs it's possible to keep a copy locally on your phone/tablet for reference when you don't have a signal (which doesn't mean the middle of nowhere - my phone drops out completely for significant stretches between Sheffield and Derby). With a Google map overlay you can't consult the maps at all without a live internet connection.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....(which doesn't mean the middle of nowhere - my phone drops out completely for significant stretches between Sheffield and Derby)....

You think that's bad, my mobile phone only gets a signal at Stoke and Stafford when I go on Cross Country from Manchester to Oxford, and even then it's only when the train is stationary and the phone is not in my trouser pocket.

And to make matters slightly worse, the new map page doesn't work on the internet provided by my STAR machine (I'm not a technowiz so I can't explain it, I just know it doesn't work!).....

 

[Merseysider]

You think that's bad, my mobile phone only gets a signal at Stoke and Stafford when I go on Cross Country from Manchester to Oxford, and even then it's only when the train is stationary and the phone is not in my trouser pocket.

I don't think I've ever got internet signal on a Virgin service Manchester - London after Stockport.

Manchester - Liverpool is even worse.

 

[OwlMan]

It's pretty difficult (but not impossible) to do this with Google Maps, which isn't really geared up for drawing on railway lines rather than roads - even Google's own interface represents train journeys as straight lines between interchanges! It would have been easier if they picked a more appropriate tool than Google Maps, e.g. OpenStreetMap

ArcGIS Explorer available as a free download from http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/explorer/download enables viewing of kml files offline.

THe.kml files are available from the URL below , substituting the map code required for ##. (Use copy and paste to copy the url into your browser)

https://iblocks-rg-publication.s3.amazonaws.com/map_##.kml

 

[PermitToTravel]

As does Google Earth

Might be good for anyone wanting to print an NRG map!

 

[kieron]

Map ML no longer shows Liverpool - Kirkby - Wigan or Liverpool - Huyton - Earlestown - Manchester. Have these routes been moved to a different map?

They seem to be progressively getting rid of ML. It was in lots of routes before the new maps came in. It was used for 802 routes in September, 23 in December and now only 4: Crewe<->Shotton and Runcorn<->Stalybridge.

It was a lot easier to understand what has changed when they only altered the easements, though.

THe.kml files are available from the URL below , substituting the map code required for ##. (Use copy and paste to copy the url into your browser)

https://iblocks-rg-publication.s3.amazonaws.com/map_##.kml

I don't know how convenient it is for people, but I've attached a spreadsheet with links the the map files. It is a shame that ATOC didn't include an archive of these on their own web site.

Each line on the map has a label on it such as "Aberdeen - Inverness", which should make it a bit easier to work out what it represents. You'd have to zoom in a long way to check on the map whether someone going from Manchester to Wigan using a map can go via Salford Crescent, via Golborne or both.

Reducing the number of ways in which the data NRE use can be different to the data published on the ATOC site is a good thing, though.

 

[higthomas]

Just browsing the maps, I had a look ay map YY. What on earth would lead someone to use this map?

 

[bb21]

I am just quietly waiting for the moment the Routeing Guide implodes on itself. It won't be far.

No staff really refers to the Routeing Guide anyway. It is a handy tool for us. Most staff will accept anything that is remotely sensible, as long as one does not take the pee (definition varies from person to person).

Just browsing the maps, I had a look ay map YY. What on earth would lead someone to use this map?

It could be a journey planner hack. The routeing permissions are not coded one-by-one but most likely in groups of routes so this could be a hack for a group of similar routeing points (perhaps derived from a single routeing point in the previous incarnation).

 

[Muzer]

I don't see why some people are so confused by these maps. Assuming the instructions haven't changed (I haven't checked), they're used in exactly the same way as the old maps - as far as I can tell the fact that actual lines are also shown is just for convenience. When there is a red line between two routeing points, as previously any route between them that doesn't double back that doesn't pass through any routeing points should be valid.

Also, what's an interchange in this context?!

The same thing as the dashes on the lines in the old PDF maps.

You are lead to only assume where the routing points are on the map, and which specific lines are being refered to, since there are no physical labels (i.e. like on the PDFs).

Click on the points to see the labels.


That being said, I agree with the sentiment that being able to print/store them is significantly better.

 

[kieron]

I'm not sure how useful it is by itself, but I've attached a list of the changes to the easement list.

It's still growing, despite the changes to the rest of the guide.

I have noticed this addition, though:

700495 Customers travelling from Waltham Cross or Theobalds Grove to or via London Liverpool Street may not travel via Cheshunt. This easement applies in both directions.

 

[RJ]

I'm not sure how useful it is by itself, but I've attached a list of the changes to the easement list.

It's still growing, despite the changes to the rest of the guide.

I have noticed this addition, though:

700495 Customers travelling from Waltham Cross or Theobalds Grove to or via London Liverpool Street may not travel via Cheshunt. This easement applies in both directions.

Thanks for the list.

The easement you've highlighted contravenes the T&Cs of Oyster PAYG - there ought to be an exception for holders of POP and PAP type fares.

 

[Muzer]

020004 Passengers for Exeter, Newton Abbot and Totnes are permitted to alight from the sleeper at Plymouth and double back to their destination in the morning.

Why on earth was THAT removed? Sounds like some very old rights have gone...

 

[TEW]

I believe it was originally intended to be used when the sleeper detached a sleeper carriage at Plymouth, but it's still useful nowadays. It's especially harsh on people travelling to Totnes. The down sleeper does not call at Totnes, the connection time at Newton Abbot is nearly two hours, not arriving until 0708. Circulating via Plymouth allows an arrival 20 minutes earlier at 0649, without waiting around on a cold platform for 2 hours.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I'd be pretty surprised if any staff in the area know about the removal of this easement, let alone start enforcing it.

 

[higthomas]

Another odd thing that I have noticed in the routing guide is this easement

000068 Tickets routed Any Permitted for journeys Lincoln-London and Saxilby-London are not valid
via Retford. This prohibition applies in both directions. (Not implemented or tested yet. To go
live on 23rd May 2004)

Does anyone ever proof read is thing?

Also this one:

030046 Journeys from Totnes, Paignton, Torquay, Torre, Newton Abbot, Teignmouth, Dawlish,
Dawlish Warren and Starcross to stations north of Tiverton Parkway may travel via Exeter St
Davids. This easement applies in both directions.

What else can one do?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

.....
What else can one do?

It's a bug fix and there are many more. The easements in the Online Routeing Guide are text versions of computer code.

 

[adrock1976]

I am slightly puzzled by a couple of easements below

"000042 Journeys from or via London to Bicester North may not go via Bicester Town and journeys
from or via London to Bicester Town may not go via Bicester North. This prohibition applies in
both directions."

I believe that this one will be obsolete soon when Marylebone - Oxford services start running.

"000044 Journeys from or via London and via Crayford and Slade Green, Slade Green and Barnehurst
or Barnehurst and Crayford are not valid. This applies in both directions"

These are within Zones 1-6, with one day travelcards and Oyster accepted. Could somebody explain?

 

[maniacmartin]

000042 is to stop you using the walking interchange in Bicester when starting or ending your journey in Bicester - ie you must use the London Terminal that they deem relevant. (Marylebone vs Paddington)

000044 is trying to stop you going the long way around the loop - ie you cannot go via both Crayford AND Slade Green in a single journey, etc.

Regarding Oyster, many people believe that as Oyster is zonal, the Routeing Guide (and thus easements) do not apply, and the only stipulation is that you stay within the zones.

 

[WelshBluebird]

As a software developer, I would love to see what the electronic routing guide looks like from a code perspective! Although I do not envy those who have to work on it!

 

[TEW]

I'd be pretty surprised if any staff in the area know about the removal of this easement, let alone start enforcing it.

The problem is the only time I've heard of someone using that easement the staff didn't know that it existed. So if staff didn't know that it existed in the first place you might have problems using it now.

 

[Be3G]

I have noticed this addition, though:

700495 Customers travelling from Waltham Cross or Theobalds Grove to or via London Liverpool Street may not travel via Cheshunt. This easement applies in both directions.

I wonder what prompted that.

 

[Hadders]

Surely this is unenforceable as Waltham Cross or Theobalds Grove to London Liverpool Street via Cheshunt is less than 3 miles further than the shortest route by rail.

I thought the shortest route by rail (or routes within 3 miles of the shortest route) was always valid.

 

[OwlMan]

Surely this is unenforceable as Waltham Cross or Theobalds Grove to London Liverpool Street via Cheshunt is less than 3 miles further than the shortest route by rail.

I thought the shortest route by rail (or routes within 3 miles of the shortest route) was always valid.

The shortest route is - routes within 3 miles thereof is debateable.

 

[MikeWh]

The shortest route is - routes within 3 miles thereof is debateable.

We had a thread a while back where a passenger was using a Slade Green to Denmark Hill season to travel from Dartford. After getting and appealing a PF, Southeastern reluctantly agreed that the ticket was in fact valid via Dartford.

 

[andythebrave]

The shortest route is - routes within 3 miles thereof is debateable.

This seems clear

"Journeys on direct trains or taking the route of shortest distance or a distance longer by no more than 3 miles are always following a permitted route."