-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
National Routeing Guide update
- Thread starter RJ
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Anyone....Bueller
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I just want to know if the ATOC has followed the correct procedure for the negative easement?
Surely the three mile rule over rules?
The correspondence here means little to me but happy to be corrected.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I just want to know if the ATOC has followed the correct procedure for the negative easement?
Surely the three mile rule over rules?
The correspondence here means little to me but happy to be corrected.
fireftrm
Member
I tried to use this to work out if Doncaster to Malton has via Leeds as a valid route, but it seems that, while the Scarborough group allows an option including Leeds, that there is a gap in the map, one has as far NW as Pontefract and the other has south to Wakefield, but the two routes don't join. Doncaster ticket office said no, East Coast guard on Leeds departure and TPE guard at Leeds to Scarborough train both said yes, who is right? I will often have to use Don to Mlt and there are surprisingly few Don to York direct services.....
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
Guards will often go by what is reasonable because finding out for definite could be a pain in the rear. Ticket offices can use a journey planner.
fireftrm
Member
The ticket office staff member just said no, without looking at anything. Routes DO (ECML via York) or MN+DW, but these two don't seem to join?
Ideas/answers please!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Out of interest Scarborough Group to London includes
AY (east Anglia to York, which has Doncaster - Leeds - York - Malton as valid),
EY (East Miods to York), same as above
KY (Kings Cross to York), also Don-Leeds valid
So I am fairly sure (99.9%) that Doncaster to Malton is route valid via Leeds, so who was right among those railway officers?
Ideas/answers please!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Out of interest Scarborough Group to London includes
AY (east Anglia to York, which has Doncaster - Leeds - York - Malton as valid),
EY (East Miods to York), same as above
KY (Kings Cross to York), also Don-Leeds valid
So I am fairly sure (99.9%) that Doncaster to Malton is route valid via Leeds, so who was right among those railway officers?
RJ
Established Member
I'm selling tickets again today 
. It takes about 10 seconds to look this kind of thing up.
RJIS Journey Planner - if the ticket isn't valid for the journey planner, there'll be a cross in a red circle in that row. Hovering over it will explain why. If it is valid, there'll be a tick in a green circle.
NRE Journey Planner - no problem there either.
The culture for staff in some quarters is to either ask somebody else or guess. The practice of thoroughly checking things for yourself before giving out advice or taking action is not exercised as much as it should be unfortunately.
. It takes about 10 seconds to look this kind of thing up.RJIS Journey Planner - if the ticket isn't valid for the journey planner, there'll be a cross in a red circle in that row. Hovering over it will explain why. If it is valid, there'll be a tick in a green circle.
NRE Journey Planner - no problem there either.
The culture for staff in some quarters is to either ask somebody else or guess. The practice of thoroughly checking things for yourself before giving out advice or taking action is not exercised as much as it should be unfortunately.
Last edited:
CheapAndNerdy
Member
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 341
The Scarborough routeing point fails the fares check so it can't be used, but the York routeing point shows a valid route to Doncaster via Leeds (map AA).
And as RJ has pointed out, NRE is quite happy with that route.
And as RJ has pointed out, NRE is quite happy with that route.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Can you explain the NRE qualification.
Surely it will show you a price for any journey?
Strangely enough it shows my Theobalds to Liv St via Cheshunt as cheaper £6:30 than direct to Liv St at £6:80
Surely it will show you a price for any journey?
Strangely enough it shows my Theobalds to Liv St via Cheshunt as cheaper £6:30 than direct to Liv St at £6:80
RJ
Established Member
It will show a price for any journey. If it shows that your chosen itinerary can be done with one ticket, it means the ticket is valid by that route.
If it says that more than one ticket is required, it means that the ticket that corresponds to your journey isn't valid by the route you've chosen.
I can't reproduce your £6.30 quote for Theobalds Grove to Liverpool Street via Cheshunt. It shows as £9.60 for me.
fireftrm
Member
Cheers RJ, actually using a ticket sales site to check the route hadn't occurred to me, actually having bought the ticket from EastCoast's site! Nice to know that the train staff wwere the right ones, but the ticket office statement caused me to miss one train and arrive at Malton an hour later than I could have. I then asked the next East Coast Leeds service guard, after having gone online to look up the routing guides. I will now use the 'travel via' links to check - much quicker and easier!
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Attachments
Last edited:
It only shows the number of tickets on the desktop website (oops NRE)
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Thank god for that. I thought I had been going mad for a long time
RJ
Established Member
That's a £2.30 SDS from Theobalds Grove to Cheshunt, then Oyster Pay As You Go to Liverpool Street which is £4 off peak.
You might as well use Oyster PAYG for the whole journey, still £4 and valid via Cheshunt. NRE says it would cost £5.20 using Oyster PAYG - NRE are suggesting you can split Oyster fares :?
PermitToTravel
Established Member
Yet another change!
To summarise:
http://www.atoc.org/about-atoc/rail-settlement-plan/routeing-guide/ said:
To summarise:
- Travel from loads of places to Salisbury is now valid via the Reading to Basingstoke line.
- Doubling back between Hitchin and Stevenage is now permitted in more cases.
- Travel between Eastbourne and (more of) SE London is now permitted via Tunbridge Wells.
- Bedford to Portsmouth is now valid via the Brighton line.
- Journey planners can now apply the NRG to journeys south from Market Rasen
kieron
Established Member
There were more changes yesterday:
I am happy to see some of the routes from Salisbury which were missed out last time, though, such as Salford, Stafford, Shotton and Wolverhampton.
I should point out that there were mapped routes via Basingstoke and Reading before this (I think, to all of the places affected), but ones via London rather than Cholsey. And that the shortest route from Salisbury to Birmingham (for one) is via Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford and Leamington anyway. Even there, there was a new route via Leamington and Coventry avoiding London.
In any case, I'm sure it will help sell a few XC & CONNECTIONS tickets.
I haven't really looked at this, so I don't know how the easement in the bottom is supposed to restrict when the temporary map combinations advertised can be used.
I am happy to see some of the routes from Salisbury which were missed out last time, though, such as Salford, Stafford, Shotton and Wolverhampton.
I should point out that there were mapped routes via Basingstoke and Reading before this (I think, to all of the places affected), but ones via London rather than Cholsey. And that the shortest route from Salisbury to Birmingham (for one) is via Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford and Leamington anyway. Even there, there was a new route via Leamington and Coventry avoiding London.
In any case, I'm sure it will help sell a few XC & CONNECTIONS tickets.
Last edited:
Some more changes today too
VauxhallandI
Established Member
It would seem at some point I have offended everyone!
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
I wouldn't worry about it. Chances are that no one knows the answer.
Negative easements are not enforceable in my opinion.
However, even if they were, they are part of the Routeing Guide. And that is only one of the options that a route may be valid. If a ticket is valid as per the NRCoC under the shortest route rule then it doesn't matter what anything in the Routeing Guide says!
And no, I don't expect everyone who updates the Routeing Guide to know this.
ATOC asked the DfT for permission to remove Darton to Doncaster validity via the shortest route. The DfT rightly refused.
However, even if they were, they are part of the Routeing Guide. And that is only one of the options that a route may be valid. If a ticket is valid as per the NRCoC under the shortest route rule then it doesn't matter what anything in the Routeing Guide says!
And no, I don't expect everyone who updates the Routeing Guide to know this.
ATOC asked the DfT for permission to remove Darton to Doncaster validity via the shortest route. The DfT rightly refused.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Did anyone understand the response from my FOIA request? To me it was just gobbledygook
kieron
Established Member
In the first meeting, they seem to have agreed that the DfT will look into the route. In the second, they asked someone from AGA to do this.
They haven't attached any information from the investigations the people mentioned. I don't know much about FOI requests, so I don't know how likely you are to ever get anything.
You do know that AGA are the people who applied for the route to be changed, though.
kieron
Established Member
There were lots of changes on Friday, not all of which were recorded correctly on the summary on the ATOC web site. I've included a copy below, with a few comments:
There are a few map changes in the above list which have had no effect on permitted routes. These are between:
Brockenhurst (BCU) and Kingston (KNG)
Motspur Park (MOT) and Woking (WOK)
New Malden (NEM) and Woking (WOK)
Raynes Park (RAY) and Woking (WOK)
Surbiton (SUR) and Woking (WOK)
Wimbledon (WIM) and Woking (WOK)
"Grantham (GRA) and Loughborough (Leics) (LBO)" is now valid via Peterborough.
"Milton Keynes Central (MKC) and Melton Mowbray (MMO)" is now valid via Bedford, although no longer via Birmingham.
"Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC)" is as well.
I don't know what a timing link is, or what it has to do with route validity, but the published maps have not changed at all. G82 is Weybridge, though, and WOK Woking.
The sequence 'WX+SU' has been removed from each of these, but hasn't been mentioned below.
As well as 'BI+RB+WX+SU' and 'EB+SU' (noted below), this has lost 'BI+RB+EU' and 'BI+RB+WV' as options, to leave only ''EB+WX' and (via London) 'LM+SU'. This means you can't go via Coventry or Nuneaton now, but have to go along the WCML at least as far as Watford Junction.
There are a few map changes in the above list which have had no effect on permitted routes. These are between:
Brockenhurst (BCU) and Kingston (KNG)
Motspur Park (MOT) and Woking (WOK)
New Malden (NEM) and Woking (WOK)
Raynes Park (RAY) and Woking (WOK)
Surbiton (SUR) and Woking (WOK)
Wimbledon (WIM) and Woking (WOK)
These are largely negative, but a few routes have had significant options added.
"Grantham (GRA) and Loughborough (Leics) (LBO)" is now valid via Peterborough.
"Milton Keynes Central (MKC) and Melton Mowbray (MMO)" is now valid via Bedford, although no longer via Birmingham.
"Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC)" is as well.
More specifically, these add routes via Sheffield and Manchester, where the choice was previously between avoiding Manchester or travelling via Stoke. Cromford is associated with Derby, for anyone who was wondering.
It was only on a mapped route via Clapham Junction before this.
In case anyone's wondering, this easement is exactly the same as when it was introduced in May.
Last edited:
OwlMan
Established Member
More changes yesterday (12/9)
kieron
Established Member
A new update was released yesterday, although the summary has today's date.
They've reverted a few negative changes from last week, and a few routes to Trent Valley stations are now valid along the TV, but most of the changes restricts route validity.
I've included a (somewhat rearranged) copy of the summary below:
Quite a lot of routes have been added by this change, but apart from Ascot-Surbiton (which has a route created last week via Ash Vale), everything else here is now the same as it was before then.
As well as publishing this summary of this week's changes, they've also added this note to last week's changes to clarify why they've done some things:
They've reverted a few negative changes from last week, and a few routes to Trent Valley stations are now valid along the TV, but most of the changes restricts route validity.
I've included a (somewhat rearranged) copy of the summary below:
Back to being valid via Birmingham.
Not valid via Kettering again.
Not valid via Melton Mowbray again, but only Nottingham.
These revert changes made last week which didn't make the summary.
Quite a lot of routes have been added by this change, but apart from Ascot-Surbiton (which has a route created last week via Ash Vale), everything else here is now the same as it was before then.
And so the shortest route is now mapped.
Was valid via Tamworth, Birmingham or Warrington. Now only mapped via Sandbach.
No longer valid via Birmingham. Now mapped via Rugeley instead.
Valid on the TV from Stoke or Stafford to Rugeley. No longer valid via Walsall or Uttoxeter.
Now valid on the TV from Stoke or Stafford and Tamworth.
No longer valid via Tamworth, Birmingham or Warrington.
No longer valid via Birmingham.
No longer valid via Coventry, Walsall, Nuneaton, Wolverhampton or Rugby. Only valid via Birmingham on a route via Burton-on-Trent.
No longer valid via Birmingham or Derby.
No longer valid via Birmingham, Derby or Warrington.
London-Shoreham and London-Eynsford pass the fare check anyway. I don't know if there are routes where this matters at the moment.
And so the easement list has a few fewer obscure codes in it.
The published versions haven't changed at all.
As well as publishing this summary of this week's changes, they've also added this note to last week's changes to clarify why they've done some things:
That sounds like the direct link most of the maps with Long Buckby on them have between Northampton and Rugby, and not at all like a desire to prevent people from (say) Leatherhead to Surbiton via Woking. Which is comforting, I suppose.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
I've had a response to my FOI request.
I had asked questions that are not relevant to an FOI.
I have however requested answers on this matter from AToC and DfT.
I have also contacted Passenger Focus and London Travelwatch.
I was under the impression that ATOC, DfT and Passenger Focus have to discuss these changes.
Greater Anglia have done it directly and with no involvement of Passenger Focus.
The reasoning behind the change seems to be dressed up in the TfL take over of the Southbury Loop line.
Firstly this doesn't happen until mid 2015 so how is it relevant from March 2014?
Secondly they seem to separating TfL season tickets from National Rail ones by saying the route is over different conditions. Is this them thinking they are not a TOC and follow the NRCOC.
I had asked questions that are not relevant to an FOI.
I have however requested answers on this matter from AToC and DfT.
I have also contacted Passenger Focus and London Travelwatch.
I was under the impression that ATOC, DfT and Passenger Focus have to discuss these changes.
Greater Anglia have done it directly and with no involvement of Passenger Focus.
The reasoning behind the change seems to be dressed up in the TfL take over of the Southbury Loop line.
Firstly this doesn't happen until mid 2015 so how is it relevant from March 2014?
Secondly they seem to separating TfL season tickets from National Rail ones by saying the route is over different conditions. Is this them thinking they are not a TOC and follow the NRCOC.
Paul Kelly
Verified Rep - BR Fares
Reading between the lines, it seems to me that they might be supportive if you invoke the "Disputed Routeing Procedure" with Greater Anglia - this would seem to be a priority for you now, I think. Have you contacted Greater Anglia about it? I would write to them and make it very clear that you wish to invoke the Disputed Routeing Procedure, as defined in the National Routeing Guide, regarding your inability to travel from Theobalds Grove to Liverpool Street via Cheshunt, which was a permitted route until recently. Perhaps mention also that the DfT have confirmed that the correct procedure was not followed in the introduction of the negative easement (i.e. they weren't consulted), and say that you are requesting a full investigation into the disputed routeing.
I feel slightly responsible for this as I was one of the people who suggested the ticket Johngill100 is (was?) using. 
Whilst I'd agree that the disputed routeing procedure is, on the face of it, the way to go, has anyone ever actually had a result with it? In fact, has anyone even ever tried it? It gets mentioned every so often on this forum but I've never seen anything to say it's been wielded successfully. Although of course I've only been here for a couple of years and don't read every thread!
Whilst I'd agree that the disputed routeing procedure is, on the face of it, the way to go, has anyone ever actually had a result with it? In fact, has anyone even ever tried it? It gets mentioned every so often on this forum but I've never seen anything to say it's been wielded successfully. Although of course I've only been here for a couple of years and don't read every thread!