National Routeing Guide update

[PermitToTravel]

Because heaven forbid passengers be allowed the flexibility to go out one way and come back another, or to have a season valid on whichever line isn't stuffed that particular day. It's nuts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because heaven forbid passengers be allowed the flexibility to go out one way and come back another, or to have a season valid on whichever line isn't stuffed that particular day. It's nuts.

Exactly. They're acting just like the stereotypical greasy cafe that sells one fixed breakfast with a sign saying "no item swaps". I don't expect extra services for free, but if there's a demand for them I do think a sensible and reasonable business will offer them at a fair price. (At present, a load of split singles for a return journey is not a fair price).

 

[LexyBoy]

Having only two route-specific fares will lead to disgruntlement from passengers that they can't have flexibility and/or are told or believe that a new ticket is needed to travel on the other route.

Meanwhile those "in the know" will know that the more expensive of those routes will be valid on either anyway.

It's all a bit sad that such useful infrastructure and service improvements get made, and then the industry undoes it all with the fares policy.

 

[infobleep]

Because heaven forbid passengers be allowed the flexibility to go out one way and come back another, or to have a season valid on whichever line isn't stuffed that particular day. It's nuts.

If the line is stuffed I'd hope they would allow you on the other operators service.

I guess this might not be allowed if there was a strike by staff but that aside I'd hope it would be.

They are totally separate lines so one could argue why offer season tickets to cover both. Only the destination station is the same and only then if it's Oxford.

I'd like to be able to buy advanced purchase tickets that encompass both South West Trains and Southern but they don't offer them so at times you have to full price singles even if you know weeks in advance when you'd like to travel. They also don't offer discounts for multi purchase of tickets either so no discounts if you travel regularly..

I suspect this is similar in that they see themselves as separate companies so they don't want to offer tickets that allow you to travel on both. They are offering you a choice. Travel with us or travel with them.

After all I don't believe you can get a ticket to Glasgow from London that allows travel on both Virgin Trains East Coast and Virgin Trains West Coast.

Would be useful but then the railway does have to fund itself and may be offering limited flexibility enables the railway to be maintained better as they get additional revenue that otherwise might be lost.

I'm trying here to see it from the other view. I personally would prefer the flexibility but as I mentioned above, I'd like multi buy tickets and advanced purchase tickets that encompass South West Trains and Southern and they are not going to happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having only two route-specific fares will lead to disgruntlement from passengers that they can't have flexibility and/or are told or believe that a new ticket is needed to travel on the other route.

Meanwhile those "in the know" will know that the more expensive of those routes will be valid on either anyway.

It's all a bit sad that such useful infrastructure and service improvements get made, and then the industry undoes it all with the fares policy.

But surely the same applies between London and Glasgow in that the more expensive ticket would be available on the cheaper service. Admittedly it's an expensive ticket but I doubt the railway companies care about how much it costs, just the principle.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

If the AP fare disappears and Oxford-London becomes "route Reading" at (say) £60 and "route High Wycombe" at (say) £58, presumably it'll be possible to zero-excess the Reading ticket to a HW one?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the AP fare disappears and Oxford-London becomes "route Reading" at (say) £60 and "route High Wycombe" at (say) £58, presumably it'll be possible to zero-excess the Reading ticket to a HW one?

It's de-facto valid anyway. Most TOCs will not issue zero-fare excesses, I've asked for them and been refused on a number of occasions.

 

[sheff1]

They are totally separate lines so one could argue why offer season tickets to cover both. Only the destination station is the same and only then if it's Oxford.

An 'any permitted' season from Banbury to London is valid to Marylebone and Paddington (and many other London Terminals). Why should one from Oxford be any different ?

 

[infobleep]

An 'any permitted' season from Banbury to London is valid to Marylebone and Paddington (and many other London Terminals). Why should one from Oxford be any different ?

You do have a good point there. I actually agree with you. I guess the next negative phased question might be why are season tickets from Banbury allowed to offer passengers the choice of multiple stations? Perhaps they should be amended to reflect Oxford.

In fact perhaps that should apply to every terminal station across the country. Would be unworkable and not popular but at least everywhere else would match Oxford to London.

A better solution as suggested would be to allow Oxford passengers a choice of routes. I suspect neither will happen.

 

[LexyBoy]

It's de-facto valid anyway. Most TOCs will not issue zero-fare excesses, I've asked for them and been refused on a number of occasions.

Doesn't stop them telling passengers it's not valid, and denying entry to the platforms (at Marleybone anyway).

Would be useful but then the railway does have to fund itself and may be offering limited flexibility enables the railway to be maintained better as they get additional revenue that otherwise might be lost.

I disagree. There's no additional revenue on a £60 Any Permitted ticket versus a £60 Via Reading - indeed if Via High Wycombe is £58 then I'd expect plenty of people to pay an extra £2 for extra flexibility.

Restricting flexibility might allow certain TOCs to gain revenue, but that comes out of the pockets of others - which in the end is going to be balanced out with increased subsidies or decreased premium payments. Overall the industry gains nothing whilst passengers get an increasingly fractured network with baffling fares.

After all I don't believe you can get a ticket to Glasgow from London that allows travel on both Virgin Trains East Coast and Virgin Trains West Coast.

A Glasgow-London Any Permitted fare is valid either way as far as I can see. Likewise Edinburgh-London - either route has been valid historically.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't have an issue with routeing becoming more prescriptive provided:

1. Excesses were more widely available and simpler - e.g. "insert your ticket at the TVM to exchange it for a different route". This would be easiest if we moved to single fare pricing - I think it would be a not unreasonable compromise that a return would be available only via one route, to give the time flexibility, but that two singles would cost the same as the return if flexibility of route is desired.

2. Tickets are available for any route a passenger may wish to take, however ridiculous, but at an appropriate price. If a passenger wished to take a route for which a through fare did not exist, the fare would be calculated as the sum of the fares to the chosen via point and from it, but issued on one ticket.

 

[infobleep]

Doesn't stop them telling passengers it's not valid, and denying entry to the platforms (at Marleybone anyway).



I disagree. There's no additional revenue on a £60 Any Permitted ticket versus a £60 Via Reading - indeed if Via High Wycombe is £58 then I'd expect plenty of people to pay an extra £2 for extra flexibility.

Restricting flexibility might allow certain TOCs to gain revenue, but that comes out of the pockets of others - which in the end is going to be balanced out with increased subsidies or decreased premium payments. Overall the industry gains nothing whilst passengers get an increasingly fractured network with baffling fares.



A Glasgow-London Any Permitted fare is valid either way as far as I can see. Likewise Edinburgh-London - either route has been valid historically.

OK I was wrong about Glasgow London.

Wonder how many people know about excessing tickets.

Will it be possible to excess these new tickets then or will they be operator restricted?

 

[bb21]

2. Tickets are available for any route a passenger may wish to take, however ridiculous, but at an appropriate price. If a passenger wished to take a route for which a through fare did not exist, the fare would be calculated as the sum of the fares to the chosen via point and from it, but issued on one ticket.

Unless the price is strictly mileage-based, that brings its own problems, in that which component fares do you derive the through fare from, but I'm digressing here.

 

[LexyBoy]

Will it be possible to excess these new tickets then or will they be operator restricted?

I'd like to know that too. The fares aren't loaded yet, but if you check NRE for Oxford Parkway-London it does show one fare, a Travelcard routed Via High Wycombe - I hope that this is indicative of what will come, but I'll hold my breath - I'd have expected Chiltern Only to be preferred.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd like to know that too. The fares aren't loaded yet, but if you check NRE for Oxford Parkway-London it does show one fare, a Travelcard routed Via High Wycombe - I hope that this is indicative of what will come, but I'll hold my breath - I'd have expected Chiltern Only to be preferred.

Is a TOC allowed to have "TOC Only" fares as the only valid regulated fare for a given flow? I doubt it - I'm not aware of any other cases.

 

[arb]

Are there rules over whether a particular ticket must have/can have/cannot have an "Any Permitted", a "via X" or a "TOC only" fare?

For example, I was looking at a day return from London (using a BZ6 ticket) to Havant recently. For variety, I was considering going out on South-West Trains and returning on Southern. But there's no ticket to allow that: there is only Via Guildford and Southern Only (with a 20p difference between the two!). And since one of those options is a TOC-specific ticket, I can't even excess between them in one direction only.

The next station along the line, Bedhampton, instead has Any Permitted and Southern Only (for the same price as the Via Guildford and Southern Only tickets to Havant). So for Bedhampton, I can have the flexibility of either route by buying the Any Permitted ticket (although I still can't buy the cheaper ticket and excess to the more expensive in one direction).

Look somewhere else completely, e.g. BZ6-Reading, and I can do it with excesses, because the tickets are routed Via Ascot and Via Slough, rather than being TOC-specific.

 

[Starmill]

For example, I was looking at a day return from London (using a BZ6 ticket) to Havant recently. For variety, I was considering going out on South-West Trains and returning on Southern. But there's no ticket to allow that: there is only Via Guildford and Southern Only (with a 20p difference between the two!). And since one of those options is a TOC-specific ticket, I can't even excess between them in one direction only.

1 You can excess from 'Via Guildford' to 'Southern Only' at least in so far that there is no rule against doing so

2 If you have a 'Via Guildford' ticket that costs more than a 'Southern Only' one, that's valid by proxy in lieu of a negative excess (or more rarely, with a zero excess) in the way that the latter would be
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What on earth is the sense in that? Why not simply add routes to the fares, and introduce some Route High Wycombe ones at a higher price? Are TOCs obsessed with banning people from doing things rather than allowing the passenger to do what they wish and charging a price appropriate to this?

I think this kind of thing has totally lost the plot.

With respect, it's not exactly new, is it? Two different companies fight over revenue, the passenger loses out. One of said companies openly stated recently that they want to end national ticketing because it costs them money. They weren't offering any passenger benefits in exchange for that, they just didn't want the cost. The industry approaches things by looking at where it can charge a premium. A big part of this is in preventing people from getting around the premium. Technically people can already do what you want - and all you need to do is buy 2 Anytime Singles! Mmmh - great value!

 

[arb]

1 You can excess from 'Via Guildford' to 'Southern Only' at least in so far that there is no rule against doing so

I thought excesses involving TOC-specific tickets weren't allowed. Or is the way round that you're excessing significant? A quick search now finds me lots of threads saying you can't excess *from* a TOC-only fare to something else, but are you allowed to excess from something else *to* a TOC-only ticket?

2 If you have a 'Via Guildford' ticket that costs more than a 'Southern Only' one, that's valid by proxy in lieu of a negative excess (or more rarely, with a zero excess) in the way that the latter would be

If the (zero) excess to the TOC-only fare is allowed, as per my question above, then this would appear to be a natural consequence of that. Or is this allowed through some other rule that's specific to the relative prices of differently routed tickets, ignoring the finer detail of TOC-only excesses?

 

[PermitToTravel]

It's fine to excess to a TOC specific fare (but rarely makes sense to)

 

[infobleep]

It's fine to excess to a TOC specific fare (but rarely makes sense to)

Interesting that there are times when it makes sense to do so. When excessing would the TOC only get sole revenue from the excess part?

 

[Starmill]

Consider the 1852 HT service from London to Doncaster. Valid with a Hull Trains Only Super Off-Peak Return but not with an Any Permitted Super Off-Peak Return. The latter is rather more expensive. What is the correct course of action for a passenger with an Any Permitted ticket who wants to travel on that train?

 

[arb]

Consider the 1852 HT service from London to Doncaster. Valid with a Hull Trains Only Super Off-Peak Return but not with an Any Permitted Super Off-Peak Return. The latter is rather more expensive. What is the correct course of action for a passenger with an Any Permitted ticket who wants to travel on that train?

Testing out my new piece of knowledge that excessing to a TOC-only fare is allowed, then presumably the correct thing is a zero-fare excess to the cheaper Hull Trains Only ticket?

(If the Hull Trains Only ticket was more expensive, would the excess to a TOC-only fare still count as a change of route excess in one direction, at a cost of half the price difference between the tickets? Or is it some other kind of excess requiring the full price difference to be paid?)

 

[kieron]

There was another update released yesterday.

New dataset RJRG0381 published 16 October 2015

To remove unintended circuitous routes via West Yorkshire between Bletchley and Newark Group (G47) routeing points; resulted in a wider review of permissions and has led to the publication of the following changes (removing circuitous routes, reducing the range of maps used to create permissions).

Map sequence added

Bedford (BDM) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - added sequence 'EN'
Bedford (BDM) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - added sequence 'EN'


Map sequence removed

Bedford (BDM) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'LM'
Bedford (BDM) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'LM'​

No effect.

Bletchley (BLY) and DERBY GROUP (G09) - added sequence 'EN+EM'
Bletchley (BLY) and DERBY GROUP (G09) - removed sequence 'TV+EM'
DERBY GROUP (G09) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - added sequence 'EM+EN'
DERBY GROUP (G09) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'​

These remove mapped routes via Narborough and via Stoke-on-Trent.

Bletchley (BLY) and Kettering (KET) - added sequence 'EN+EM'
Bletchley (BLY) and Kettering (KET) - removed sequence 'EN+MM'
Kettering (KET) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - added sequence 'EM+EN'
Kettering (KET) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'MM+EN'​

These remove mapped routes via London, to leave only the shortest route between each set of routeing points.

Bletchley (BLY) and Oakham (OKM) - added sequence 'EN+EM'
Bletchley (BLY) and Oakham (OKM) - added sequence 'TV+BP'
Bletchley (BLY) and Oakham (OKM) - removed sequence 'EB+BP'​

This removes mapped routes via Birmingham.
It adds mapped routes via Bedford and via Bedworth.

Grantham (GRA) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - added sequence 'EM+EN'
Grantham (GRA) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'​

This removes mapped routes via both Narborough and Melton Mowbray, and also ones via Stoke-on-Trent.

Grantham (GRA) and Northampton (NMP) - added sequence 'BG+TL'
Grantham (GRA) and Northampton (NMP) - added sequence 'BG+WM'
Grantham (GRA) and Northampton (NMP) - added sequence 'EM+EN'
Grantham (GRA) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'BG+TV'
Grantham (GRA) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'DL+CE+TV'
Grantham (GRA) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'​

This removes mapped routes via Bedworth and ones via Lichfield.
It also removes mapped routes via Rugby which also pass through Melton Mowbray or Milton Keynes.
It adds some mapped routes via Birmingham and Leicester.

Melton Mowbray (MMO) and Northampton (NMP) - added sequence 'BP+WM'​

This adds a mapped route via Birmingham.

Milton Keynes Central (MKC) and Oakham (OKM) - added sequence 'TV+BP'
Milton Keynes Central (MKC) and Oakham (OKM) - removed sequence 'EB+BP'​

This removes mapped routes via Birmingham.
It adds mapped routes via Bedworth.

Northampton (NMP) and Oakham (OKM) - added sequence 'WM+BP'
Northampton (NMP) and Oakham (OKM) - removed sequence 'EB+BP'​

This removes mapped routes via Milton Keynes.

Oakham (OKM) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - added sequence 'BP+TV'
Oakham (OKM) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - added sequence 'EM+EN'
Oakham (OKM) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'BP+EB'​

This removes mapped routes via Birmingham.
It adds mapped routes via Bedworth, and via Bedford St. Johns.

Bletchley (BLY) and Grantham (GRA) - removed sequence 'TV+EM'
Grantham (GRA) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'​

These remove mapped routes via Stoke-on-Trent, and also via both Rugby and Melton Mowbray.

Bletchley (BLY) and NEWARK GROUP (G47) - removed sequence 'TV+CE+DG'
Bletchley (BLY) and NEWARK GROUP (G47) - removed sequence 'TV+EM'
Lincoln (LCN) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'SH+CE+TV'
NEWARK GROUP (G47) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TV'
NEWARK GROUP (G47) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'
NEWARK GROUP (G47) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TV'
NEWARK GROUP (G47) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'​

These remove mapped routes via Sheffield, via Lichfield and via both Rugby and Melton Mowbray.

Leicester (LEI) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'EM+EN'​

This removes mapped routes via Bedford.

Lincoln (LCN) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'BG+EB'​

This removes mapped routes via Birmingham.

Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'AB+TL'​

This removes mapped routes via Melton Mowbray.

Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'BG+TV'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Watford Junction (WFJ) - removed sequence 'EM+CE+TV'​

This removes mapped routes via Derby.

For the new Chiltern Services from Oxford Parkway the following easement has been published to expand journey opportunities to/from Islip.

Easements added

700600: Customers from Islip travelling to or via Haddenham & Thame Parkway may doubleback between Islip and Oxford Parkway. This positive doubleback easement applies in both directions.​

As some trains from Oxford Parkway aren't scheduled to stop in Islip, this could be useful. It doesn't appear to have been implemented in any journey planners yet, though.

Electronic data for the use of journey planning systems as has been amended for one easement. No change to public text.

700598: Following the introduction of the Chiltern services from Oxford to London Marylebone; tickets on Fare route 00000 Any Permitted from or via Oxford, Oxford Parkway, Islip or Bicester Village to London or beyond will not be valid on the new services via High Wycombe and will remain valid only via Oxford. this negative circuitous route easement will apply in both directions.​

No change to the text, as mentioned.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sorry...MKC to Leicester not valid via Bedford? That is nonsensical, it is an obvious route.

 

[Merseysider]

I'm sorry...MKC to Leicester not valid via Bedford? That is nonsensical, it is an obvious route.

Agreed. VT set the fares so presumably expect you to travel via Nuneaton and don't want to share revenue with EMT. Either that or the people at ATOC making these decisions never paid attention in geography class.

 

[CyrusWuff]

700598: Following the introduction of the Chiltern services from Oxford to London Marylebone; tickets on Fare route 00000 Any Permitted from or via Oxford, Oxford Parkway, Islip or Bicester Village to London or beyond will not be valid on the new services via High Wycombe and will remain valid only via Oxford. this negative circuitous route easement will apply in both directions.[/b][/indent]
No change to the text, as mentioned.

Ho hum...Someone needs to be "educated" about the direct trains rule, though it's currently a moot point as the initial "via High Wycombe" fares have been set lower than the "Any Permitted" ones.

 

[Andrew1395]

Agreed. VT set the fares so presumably expect you to travel via Nuneaton and don't want to share revenue with EMT. Either that or the people at ATOC making these decisions never paid attention in geography class.

Most people would not want to spend more than 3 hours on a train journey between Milton Keynes and Leicester via Bedford. I don't know the bus services between the two, but if I was going by train I would go via Nuneaton and save a couple of hours on the journey.

 

[bb21]

I'm sorry...MKC to Leicester not valid via Bedford? That is nonsensical, it is an obvious route.

Nothing new. It is of course not about passenger choice, only about what the TOCs want.

I think Liz Kendall will be getting some enquiries from me.

Leicester to Bletchley is of course shortest via Bedford, and if I wish to make a journey to MKC these days, I take the direct bus. Leicester to MKC is 3.25 miles longer via Bedford, but it has been a permitted route for as long as I can remember.

I rarely comment on NRG changes these days but quite a few ridiculous ones in this batch.

 

[Andrew1395]

Ho hum...Someone needs to be "educated" about the direct trains rule, though it's currently a moot point as the initial "via High Wycombe" fares have been set lower than the "Any Permitted" ones.

I don't think there are any permitted fares from Oxford Parkway, and of course there are no through trains from Oxford at the moment to Marylebone. But it is interesting to see what happens with the Islip and Bicester Town Any Permitted fares to London Terminals. I suspect Great Western may not want to share the Oxford London any permitted revenue with Chiltern and next May, when the new through trains run to Marylebone, all those flow will get repriced.

 

[bb21]

Agreed. VT set the fares so presumably expect you to travel via Nuneaton and don't want to share revenue with EMT. Either that or the people at ATOC making these decisions never paid attention in geography class.

So the net result of this is that EMT will lose out, not that they get much ORCATS revenue to start with I'd imagine, and it will just generate more income for LM in the case of people who wishes to travel via Bedford both ways as you buy an additional Bletchley to Bedford ticket on top.

 

[Starmill]

Testing out my new piece of knowledge that excessing to a TOC-only fare is allowed, then presumably the correct thing is a zero-fare excess to the cheaper Hull Trains Only ticket?

(If the Hull Trains Only ticket was more expensive, would the excess to a TOC-only fare still count as a change of route excess in one direction, at a cost of half the price difference between the tickets? Or is it some other kind of excess requiring the full price difference to be paid?)

Although this might be the outcome, and it's the one I'd like to see, if you used any TOC other than HT on the other portion of the ticket. Otherwise it's quite permitted to excess to a TOC ONLY fare, or from one for reasons other than to change the TOC restriction.

You may be required to excess up (at the full price, i.e. for both directions) to the cheapest valid ticket, which may be the Off-Peak Return.

Ho hum...Someone needs to be "educated" about the direct trains rule, though it's currently a moot point as the initial "via High Wycombe" fares have been set lower than the "Any Permitted" ones.

If Chiltern want to price more cheaply on Via High Wycombe, why even expend all of this energy trying to stop people doing things with easements that neither make sense nor have the desired effects?

What exactly are we dealing with here...?

Lastly what is the fetish with removing routes to Milton Keynes via Birmingham for? Has anybody working on this actually looked at a timetable? How do you get to the East Midlands from Milton Keynes without going via Birmingham? Oh yeah, by taking the one train an hour to Nuneaton or Tamworth and spending half an hour admiring one or the other of those while waiting for a very short full and slow Turbostar to take you eastwards. This rather than taking any of the faster trains to Birmingham and then picking up a faster train from there? Honestly.

e.g Milton Keynes to Lincoln you pay £60 for the privilege of an Off-Peak Return, fewer than one journey opportunity an hour because of shockingly poor connections and it takes usually more than four hours to comply with the permitted routes?

This demonstrates shockingly poor understanding of what's actually going on on the ground. The LM Trent valley service is not run by inter-city stock, it's a commuter EMU, and what's more it's full of people going from London to Stoke-on-Trent despite there being a relatively empty 11-car Pendolino doing that non-stop but costing 3 times as much. It's also far too infrequent and connects to services at Tamworth High Level that are too slow to make this a sensible proposition. Someone going from Milton Keynes to the East Midlands has the tenacity to want to use the fastest service between Birmingham and Derby? Good, they can buy 2 tickets! I guess it keeps their revenue allocation neat, and people shoving wads of cash in their underwear somewhere along the line looking at the prices of both of them.

Fantastic customer focus there guys. Well done. You nailed it. I'm alternating between wondering whether we are dealing with crooks, or just genuine actual monkeys.