National Routeing Guide update

[Birmingham]

The route restrictions are, I suspect, intended to discourage people from using tickets with the various "via Honiton" route codes on the diverted trains.

I suppose that prohibits people from using ‘via Honiton’ tickets on what the railway would call ‘circuitous routes’, but a straightforward London to Exeter via Honiton ticket must be valid on the diverted trains from Paddington?

 

[Watershed]

I suppose that prohibits people from using ‘via Honiton’ tickets on what the railway would call ‘circuitous routes’, but a straightforward London to Exeter via Honiton ticket must be valid on the diverted trains from Paddington?

Indeed it would be.

 

[kieron]

Those easements gives extra permissions. They don't take away any you would normally have. In addition, the diverted trains count as through trains.

Looking a bit further into it, I notice that there are a couple of route codes which are valid on the diverted trains, but where web sites and apps are unlikely to show this because they follow extra restrictions which are not explained to the customer.

Tickets which are affected by this include a (00815) "via Honiton not London" ticket between Exeter and Reading (which is a through train), and a (00633) "via Honiton and London" ticket between Exeter and Corby (a through train to London, which is named on the ticket).

 

[KrozJr]

Two easements were added to the routeing guide this afternoon:

Changes from 02 Jul 2021 (343) to 06 Aug 2021 (344).​

​

Easement changes:​

​

Added:​

​

700951 (Circuitous Route) Journeys between Yeovil Junction and Yeovil Pen Mill are prohibited via Castle Cary due to the fares checking rules of the Routeing Guide. To prevent customers being misled by retail systems not applying this rule, this circuitous route easement has been published to confirm that journeys between the stations are not valid via Castle Cary.​

There are no NFM64 fares defined between Yeovil Junction and Yeovil Pen Mill, and I don't know when this would have been identified as a valid route.

700952 (Routeing Point) Customers travelling from Ockley or Holmwood (Surrey) to Rainham (Kent) may travel via Dorking (Main) This routeing point easement will overcome the fares checking rule of the Routeing Guide and will apply in both directions.​

This change addresses a problem which arises because there are no NFM64 fares between Ockley or Holmwood and Rainham, and the shortest route between them is rather slow. There should be more web sites which show Ockley-London-Rainham as a valid route.

The same problem affects journeys between those two stations and most of the stations in Kent, however.

This first easement, 700951, might *actually* be my fault. Two days prior to it being added, I travelled from Yeovil Pen Mill to Yeovil Junction on a train via CLC, WSB, and SAL; and then travelled back on a train via EXD and CLC. I bought the ticket online - note the mention of “customers being misled by journey planners not applying this rule” - the fare being the Yeovil-Yeovil fare of £5.80 (£2.90 with railcard discount of 50%). I travelled 215 miles for £2.90, and left a trail of bemused ticket inspectors in my wake. I even wound up printing off the booking email to act as confirmation that I had been sold this exact itinerary with these exact tickets for this exact price. Note also the use of the word “confirm”, which to me implies that this was already a rule but that they’ve recently discovered an issue with it.

I made a Twitter thread of the day out, if you want to see about it, it’s here.

I was planning some unrelated mischief - Pilning, this time (is this the only easement that allows crossing a country border?) - and was scanning the easement document. I saw this easement and did a double-take; looking for when it was published led to this thread and the conclusion that it might actually be my fault.

 

[Birmingham]

This first easement, 700951, might *actually* be my fault. Two days prior to it being added, I travelled from Yeovil Pen Mill to Yeovil Junction on a train via CLC, WSB, and SAL; and then travelled back on a train via EXD and CLC. I bought the ticket online - note the mention of “customers being misled by journey planners not applying this rule” - the fare being the Yeovil-Yeovil fare of £5.80 (£2.90 with railcard discount of 50%). I travelled 215 miles for £2.90, and left a trail of bemused ticket inspectors in my wake. I even wound up printing off the booking email to act as confirmation that I had been sold this exact itinerary with these exact tickets for this exact price. Note also the use of the word “confirm”, which to me implies that this was already a rule but that they’ve recently discovered an issue with it.

I made a Twitter thread of the day out, if you want to see about it, it’s here.

I was planning some unrelated mischief - Pilning, this time (is this the only easement that allows crossing a country border?) - and was scanning the easement document. I saw this easement and did a double-take; looking for when it was published led to this thread and the conclusion that it might actually be my fault.

I enjoyed your thread but I hope that, for the benefit of yourself and others, should you find a useful routeing in the future that’s not quite so ludicrous, you don’t publicise it in the same way.

 

[KrozJr]

I enjoyed your thread but I hope that, for the benefit of yourself and others, should you find a useful routeing in the future that’s not quite so ludicrous, you don’t publicise it in the same way.

Yeah. Probably not worth highlighting as such. But to be fair, the guy on the barrier at Exeter Central was NOT happy with it (let me out and I was lucky that he wasn’t there when I came in again), and the guy on the train EXD-CLC asked to take a photo of it. I was like “yes, officer; absolutely, officer; whatever you say, officer”, not wanting to get issued with a penalty fare or get booted off a train miles from home.

Yes, they were anytime tickets. Yes, I broke my journey.

 

[infobleep]

This first easement, 700951, might *actually* be my fault. Two days prior to it being added, I travelled from Yeovil Pen Mill to Yeovil Junction on a train via CLC, WSB, and SAL; and then travelled back on a train via EXD and CLC. I bought the ticket online - note the mention of “customers being misled by journey planners not applying this rule” - the fare being the Yeovil-Yeovil fare of £5.80 (£2.90 with railcard discount of 50%). I travelled 215 miles for £2.90, and left a trail of bemused ticket inspectors in my wake. I even wound up printing off the booking email to act as confirmation that I had been sold this exact itinerary with these exact tickets for this exact price. Note also the use of the word “confirm”, which to me implies that this was already a rule but that they’ve recently discovered an issue with it.

I made a Twitter thread of the day out, if you want to see about it, it’s here.

I was planning some unrelated mischief - Pilning, this time (is this the only easement that allows crossing a country border?) - and was scanning the easement document. I saw this easement and did a double-take; looking for when it was published led to this thread and the conclusion that it might actually be my fault.

That's great. Looks like you had a such a fun day out.

I take it that would have been classed as a booking engine error rather than the routing guide being generous?

 

[Paul Kelly]

I take it that would have been classed as a booking engine error rather than the routing guide being generous?

Grey area but I would tend towards calling it a problem with the routeing guide. As the easement implies, it depends on how you perform the fares check to check routeing point validity, and the situation where no fares existed in NFM64 (e.g. between Yeovil Pen Mill and Castle Cary) is not handled well by the routeing guide and is arguably open to interpretation. I think previously there may have been no fares between the two Yeovil stations, so it wouldn't have come up.

 

[Kite159]

It's only in the last 7 or so years there has been a regular train service between the two Yeovil stations, previously that chord was only used for engineering works (both with SWR when Salisbury - Yeovil via Gillingham closed and GWR when Taunton/ Tiverton has been closed).

 

[Paul Kelly]

Yes - the interesting thing here is that it's not a local journey - YVP and YVJ have no routeing points in common, so the journey is open to the full application of the RG involving origin and destination routeing points and mapped routes...

 

[KrozJr]

Grey area but I would tend towards calling it a problem with the routeing guide. As the easement implies, it depends on how you perform the fares check to check routeing point validity, and the situation where no fares existed in NFM64 (e.g. between Yeovil Pen Mill and Castle Cary) is not handled well by the routeing guide and is arguably open to interpretation. I think previously there may have been no fares between the two Yeovil stations, so it wouldn't have come up.

My guess at the time was that there’s some reasonable route that would allow you to go via Salisbury. Let’s say you’re going from Bristol Temple Meads to Yeovil Junction. There’s a direct train from BTM to YVP and you could get the train from YVP to YVJ after that. However, those trains are infrequent, so presumably you’re allowed to travel via Salisbury instead, even though you’re heading east to go west. That’s reasonable to me. My guess is that it was being overzealously applied and they had a grey area where “Yeovil to Yeovil via Salisbury” was being allowed even when it shouldn’t be. The Exeter leg is harder to explain - Weymouth to Torquay would conventionally be WEY-CLC-TQY but could be done WEY-YVP-YVJ-EXD-TQY? That was my best effort at working it out at the time, but I have no evidence to confirm/deny whether that’s what’s going on or not. Again, I think that “reasonable route between the two via” somewhere was being applied weirdly and a blanket “not via CLC” nips that one in the bud while still allowing the reasonable cases.

Also note that the language implies that it shouldn’t have been allowed previously but that they’re essentially clarifying that it isn’t allowed. That to me implies that there was some sort of grey area that led to me being offered the absurd fare - you see it, you have to do it, don’t you? - but that shouldn’t have happened.

 

[akm]

Also note that the language implies that it shouldn’t have been allowed previously but that they’re essentially clarifying that it isn’t allowed. That to me implies that there was some sort of grey area that led to me being offered the absurd fare - you see it, you have to do it, don’t you? - but that shouldn’t have happened.

When I read the text "Journeys between Yeovil Junction and Yeovil Pen Mill are prohibited via Castle Cary due to the fares checking rules of the Routeing Guide. To prevent customers being misled by retail systems not applying this rule, this circuitous route easement has been published to confirm that journeys between the stations are not valid via Castle Cary." , I very much hear a software person somewhat petulantly complaining that other people's software isn't doing what is 'obviously' meant, but isn't actually written down anywher...

If "the fares checking rules of the Routeing Guide" as written worked properly as intended, they wouldn't need to add this easement!

 

[Watershed]

When I read the text "Journeys between Yeovil Junction and Yeovil Pen Mill are prohibited via Castle Cary due to the fares checking rules of the Routeing Guide. To prevent customers being misled by retail systems not applying this rule, this circuitous route easement has been published to confirm that journeys between the stations are not valid via Castle Cary." , I very much hear a software person somewhat petulantly complaining that other people's software isn't doing what is 'obviously' meant, but isn't actually written down anywher...

If "the fares checking rules of the Routeing Guide" as written worked properly as intended, they wouldn't need to add this easement!

Indeed. The claim that "journeys ... are prohibited via Castle Cary due to the fares checking rules of the Routeing Guide" is simply wrong. There are no NFM64 fares to compare to, so there is nothing to indicate to journey planners that this is effectively a loophole fare.

It's also wrong to suggest that "customers [are] being misled by retail systems not applying this rule" - as above, there isn't anything they can apply. Even if there were, customers are always entitled to rely on the itinerary provided by their retailer; this itinerary is contractually valid. Therefore it isn't a case of customers being misled, but rather of customers being sold itineraries which the rail industry doesn't want them to be offered.

The wording "to confirm that journeys between the stations are not valid via Castle Cary" again wrongly suggests that the tickets already weren't valid, and that the booking engines had made a mistake.

Overall, it's clear that whoever wrote this easement doesn't have a clue about contractual validity or consumer law, and is purely approaching things from their own narrow mindset of "this is what we want to be valid".

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes - the interesting thing here is that it's not a local journey - YVP and YVJ have no routeing points in common, so the journey is open to the full application of the RG involving origin and destination routeing points and mapped routes...

IIRC when SWT started the limited service round the chord there were also numerous issues with missing through fares, as though they’d completely ignored the need for a review in establishing the new service. (Not uncommon I believe.) I think the only available Waterloo to Pen Mill Fare assumed a journey via Westbury and was set by FGW or GWR, and was significantly higher than Waterloo to Yeovil Junction plus Junction to Pen Mill, so weren’t people advised to use split tickets?

 

[miklcct]

My guess at the time was that there’s some reasonable route that would allow you to go via Salisbury. Let’s say you’re going from Bristol Temple Meads to Yeovil Junction. There’s a direct train from BTM to YVP and you could get the train from YVP to YVJ after that. However, those trains are infrequent, so presumably you’re allowed to travel via Salisbury instead, even though you’re heading east to go west. That’s reasonable to me. My guess is that it was being overzealously applied and they had a grey area where “Yeovil to Yeovil via Salisbury” was being allowed even when it shouldn’t be. The Exeter leg is harder to explain - Weymouth to Torquay would conventionally be WEY-CLC-TQY but could be done WEY-YVP-YVJ-EXD-TQY? That was my best effort at working it out at the time, but I have no evidence to confirm/deny whether that’s what’s going on or not. Again, I think that “reasonable route between the two via” somewhere was being applied weirdly and a blanket “not via CLC” nips that one in the bud while still allowing the reasonable cases.

Also note that the language implies that it shouldn’t have been allowed previously but that they’re essentially clarifying that it isn’t allowed. That to me implies that there was some sort of grey area that led to me being offered the absurd fare - you see it, you have to do it, don’t you? - but that shouldn’t have happened.

Why does the inexistence of the fare will lead to a failure of fare check, rather than a pass as a benefit of doubt?

Before the direct train service exists, how did people travel from YVP to YVJ on a through ticket?

 

[Dai Corner]

Indeed. The claim that "journeys ... are prohibited via Castle Cary due to the fares checking rules of the Routeing Guide" is simply wrong. There are no NFM64 fares to compare to, so there is nothing to indicate to journey planners that this is effectively a loophole fare.

Putting in some dummy fare data might have been a better fix?

 

[Paul Kelly]

Why does the inexistence of the fare will lead to a failure of fare check, rather than a pass as a benefit of doubt?

That is indeed the key point - there are differing interpretations as to how to handle the situation; it's not clearly defined.

Before the direct train service exists, how did people travel from YVP to YVJ on a through ticket?

There were no through tickets either.

Putting in some dummy fare data might have been a better fix?

NFM64 fares are not part of the normal fares data feeds - it is a static set of data that can basically never be changed...

 

[Watershed]

Putting in some dummy fare data might have been a better fix?

That wouldn't be correct though. The whole point of using the original NFM64 data was supposed to be that it protected routes that were historically valid. Of course the advent of easements that are introduced on a whim puts paid to that...

 

[infobleep]

IIRC when SWT started the limited service round the chord there were also numerous issues with missing through fares, as though they’d completely ignored the need for a review in establishing the new service. (Not uncommon I believe.) I think the only available Waterloo to Pen Mill Fare assumed a journey via Westbury and was set by FGW or GWR, and was significantly higher than Waterloo to Yeovil Junction plus Junction to Pen Mill, so weren’t people advised to use split tickets?

I'm not surprised by this. People don't always consider the legal aspects to what they do. Not just on the railways.

 

[kieron]

Two easements were added to the routeing guide on Tuesday.

Changes from 05 Jan 2023 (418) to 10 Jan 2023 (419).

Easement changes:

Added:

701055 (Routeing Point) Due to engineering works, between the 13 and 16 January 2023, customers travelling from Elsenham (Essex), Newport (Essex), Audley End, Great Chesterford, Whittlesford Parkway and Shelford (Cambs) to central London or via central London may travel to London Kings Cross via Cambridge and Hitchin. This routeing point easement applies in both directions​

There are buses between Bishops Stortford and Waltham Cross over the weekend.

This easement makes Cambridge a valid routeing point for stations between there and Stansted for journeys from or to one of them.

It doesn't override easement 700119 (or, at least, not if you use nre.co.uk's interpretation of it), so doesn't affect journeys between Shelford and London Kings Cross, London St Pancras or anywere beyond London St Pancras.

701056 (Map) Due to engineering works, between the 13 and 16 January 2023, customers travelling from Stansted Airport to central London or via central London may travel to London Kings Cross via Cambridge and Hitchin. This map easement applies in both directions​

This one adds Stansted-Cambridge-London Kings Cross (but not -Moorgate by train) to mapped routes, including the ones between Stansted Airport and London.

 

[kieron]

Some more changes were published in the routeing guide yesterday.

Changes from 10 Jan 2023 (419) to 18 Jan 2023 (420).​

​

Easement changes:​

​

Added:​

​

701057 (Fare route) During Engineering works on the 04 and 05 February 2023, customers travelling on tickets priced on route (00264) CHALFONT & LATIMER will be valid on journeys via Amersham. This fare route easement applies in both directions.​

The railway between Aylesbury Vale Parkway and London Marylebone is closed, as is the London Underground Metropolitan line (which shares the route).

This easement means that you can use the rail replacement bus to West Ruislip with a "via Chalfont & Latimer" ticket. You may need to specify "via West Ruislip" for this to work, as rail web sites may use data which assumes London Underground is still running to Amersham.

In addition, some more Lumo-related route codes have been added, such as "Lumo & GTR". None of the new ones are in use yet.

---

The following post was created on 20 January 2023.

---

Some easements were removed from the routeing guide this afternoon.

Changes from 18 Jan 2023 (420) to 20 Jan 2023 (421).​

​

Easement changes:​

​

Removed:​

701039 (Map) During engineering works impacting travel into London Kings Cross on the 07 and 08 January 2023, customers will need to travel by bus from St Neots to Bedford and to continue their journeys by train to London St Pancras. Customers with tickets to London Kings Cross on routes (00000) ANY PERMITTED and (00430) LNER & CONNECTIONS, will be permitted to travel to London St Pancras. This map easement applies in both directions.​

​

701040 (Fare route) During engineering works impacting travel into London Kings Cross on the 07 and 08 January 2023, customers will need to travel by bus from St Neots to Bedford and to continue their journeys by train to London St Pancras on either East Midlands or Thameslink services. Customers with tickets to London Kings Cross on route (00430) LNER & CONNECTIONS, will be permitted to travel to London St Pancras. This fare route easement applies in both directions.​

​

701048 (Fare route) Due to engineering work on the 07, 08 and 15 January 2023. Tickets priced on (00635) VIA WOKING will be valid on journeys via Guildford. this fare route easement applies in both directions.​

​

701055 (Routeing Point) Due to engineering works, between the 13 and 16 January 2023, customers travelling from Elsenham (Essex), Newport (Essex), Audley End, Great Chesterford, Whittlesford Parkway and Shelford (Cambs) to central London or via central London may travel to London Kings Cross via Cambridge and Hitchin. This routeing point easement applies in both directions​

​

701056 (Map) Due to engineering works, between the 13 and 16 January 2023, customers travelling from Stansted Airport to central London or via central London may travel to London Kings Cross via Cambridge and Hitchin. This map easement applies in both directions​

There were all temporary easements for which the dates have passed.

701052 (Fare route) During engineering works between 20 and 23 February 2023, tickets priced on routes (00799) LONDON EVESHAM, (00433) AP EVESHAM and (00805) VIA EVESHAM from Stations between Ledbury and Worcester Shrub Hill to Didcot Parkway and beyond will be valid for travel via Stroud or Cam & Dursley. This fare route easement will apply in both directions.​

The line through Evesham is still scheduled to close on those date, so I don't know the reason for removing this one.

 

[kieron]

Some changes were published in the routeing guide yesterday.

Changes from 20 Jan 2023 (421) to 27 Jan 2023 (422).

Permitted Route changes:

Leeds Group (G16) to Manchester Group (G20) gain SL+MR​

This adds mapped routes via Wakefield, all of which go via Stalybridge.

Easement changes:

Removed:
700698 (Routeing Point) To allow journeys on Saturdays to Pilning from Bristol Temple Meads to travel via Newport South Wales, this routeing point easement will override fares checking in journey planners.

700772 (Routeing Point) To allow journeys on Saturdays from Severn Beach, St Andrews Road, Avonmouth, Shirehampton, Sea Mills, Clifton Downs, Redland and Montpelier to Pilning via Newport (South Wales) this routeing point easement will override fares checking.​

These were routeing point easements. As they only applied for journeys between station with which Bristol Group was associated, I don't know if they ever had any effect.

Changed (added sections in red, removed ones in green):

700695 (Local) To facilitate journeys to Pilning station on Saturdays from Bristol Temple Meads, this local easement will allow the journey to be valid via Newport South WalesSevern Tunnel Junction.

700765 (Local) To allow journeys from Severn Beach, St Andrews Road, Avonmouth, Shirehampton, Sea Mills, Clifton Down, Redland, Stapleton Road, Montpelier, Lawrence Hill, Filton Abbey Wood and Bristol Parkway to Pilning via Newport (South Wales)Severn Tunnel Junction, this local easement will apply on Saturdays.​

These easements no longer permit travel via Newport. The data for each easement is unchanged.

The new text says that they permit travel via Severn Tunnel Junction. When I looked on nre.co.uk, I was only able to find an itinerary on this route for Bristol Temple Meads (which benefits from easement 700742).

I don't think you need any of these easements to make a flexible ticket to Pilning via Severn Tunnel Junction valid. While Pilning no longer appears in the distance table in the National Rail Timetable, the shortest route is via Severn Tunnel Junction as that's the only route you can ever take by train.

You need to use a computer system to confirm your route to buy an advance ticket, though, so it would be helpful if they all accepted journeys from anywhere to Pilning via Severn Tunnel Junction.

On a wider point, there are a few other stations which appear in the National Rail Timetable but not in the distance tables:

Barking Rivside (BGV)
Bordesley (BBS)
Denton (DTN)
Polesworth (PSW)
Reddish South (RDS)

There's also Inverness Airport (IVA), which is due to open next week, but is listed without a distance to anywhere, and a few other stations which are due to open in the next few months.

 

[_toommm_]

This adds mapped routes via Wakefield, all of which go via Stalybridge.

Glad this has finally been added. I believed before it meant that the diverts were excluded from journey planners because of this, which isn’t great for the average person.

 

[Birmingham]

701052 (Fare route) During engineering works between 20 and 23 February 2023, tickets priced on routes (00799) LONDON EVESHAM, (00433) AP EVESHAM and (00805) VIA EVESHAM from Stations between Ledbury and Worcester Shrub Hill to Didcot Parkway and beyond will be valid for travel via Stroud or Cam & Dursley. This fare route easement will apply in both directions.The line through Evesham is still scheduled to close on those date, so I don't know the reason for removing this one.

This engineering work has now been cancelled, for whatever reason. Timetables have been restored. I suppose it will be rescheduled for another time and the easement added for then.

 

[IanXC]

Glad this has finally been added. I believed before it meant that the diverts were excluded from journey planners because of this, which isn’t great for the average person.

Except when journeys are via Wakefield *and* Rochdale....

 

[thedbdiboy]

Indeed. The claim that "journeys ... are prohibited via Castle Cary due to the fares checking rules of the Routeing Guide" is simply wrong. There are no NFM64 fares to compare to, so there is nothing to indicate to journey planners that this is effectively a loophole fare.

It's also wrong to suggest that "customers [are] being misled by retail systems not applying this rule" - as above, there isn't anything they can apply. Even if there were, customers are always entitled to rely on the itinerary provided by their retailer; this itinerary is contractually valid. Therefore it isn't a case of customers being misled, but rather of customers being sold itineraries which the rail industry doesn't want them to be offered.

The wording "to confirm that journeys between the stations are not valid via Castle Cary" again wrongly suggests that the tickets already weren't valid, and that the booking engines had made a mistake.

Overall, it's clear that whoever wrote this easement doesn't have a clue about contractual validity or consumer law, and is purely approaching things from their own narrow mindset of "this is what we want to be valid".

Goodness me, outrageous!
Seriously, this more than anything highlights the daftness of the Routeing Guide concept, a process chucked at the wall in 1995 to try plug the fundamental inconsistency between maintaining a network fares structure but divide it amongst 26 TOCs.
Neither consumer nor contract law are designed to anticipate a situation where an operator is not allowed to specify the terms of their service, and we know the madness is truly amongst us if we try and claim that a journey from Yeovil Junction to Yeovil Pen Mill (a service not even offered in 1995) was ever intended to be valid via Castle Cary. I mean, by all means enjoy the loophole while you can but please don't try and argue that inalienable human rights are being transgressed when the loophole is closed.

 

[MikeWh]

... we try and claim that a journey from Yeovil Junction to Yeovil Pen Mill (a service not even offered in 1995) was ever intended to be valid via Castle Cary. I mean, by all means enjoy the loophole while you can but please don't try and argue that inalienable human rights are being transgressed when the loophole is closed.

I can't disagree with this line of thinking.

 

[Watershed]

Goodness me, outrageous!
Seriously, this more than anything highlights the daftness of the Routeing Guide concept, a process chucked at the wall in 1995 to try plug the fundamental inconsistency between maintaining a network fares structure but divide it amongst 26 TOCs.

I would have to disagree. There is nothing fundamentally daft about the concept of having a Routeing Guide. I don't think it's inherently necessary, but there is a certain logic to contractually defining valid routes.

The only problem here, as I see it, is that the industry has gradually grown to disregard the established processes for changing the Routeing Guide. Where is the DfT permission that's theoretically required for any changes?

The Routeing Guide is not being treated with the contractual and legal significance it deserves. It is being arbitrarily modified as if it were some sort of sale offered only at the discretion of the TOCs.

Neither consumer nor contract law are designed to anticipate a situation where an operator is not allowed to specify the terms of their service

I'm afraid this is simply not true. There are plenty of companies and industries whose terms are regulated in some way. And all companies, regardless of industry, have to honour contractual terms inferred by information that influenced the customer's purchasing decision (section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act).

, and we know the madness is truly amongst us if we try and claim that a journey from Yeovil Junction to Yeovil Pen Mill (a service not even offered in 1995) was ever intended to be valid via Castle Cary. I mean, by all means enjoy the loophole while you can but please don't try and argue that inalienable human rights are being transgressed when the loophole is closed.

This isn't about trying to argue that human rights are being transgressed; I'm not sure where you have that notion from. It's about the fact that the RDG seem too arrogant to appreciate that validity isn't just about what they decree in the Routeing Guide - information that influences the customer's purchasing decision will be a term of the contract.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I would have to disagree. There is nothing fundamentally daft about the concept of having a Routeing Guide. I don't think it's inherently necessary, but there is a certain logic to contractually defining valid routes.

The only problem here, as I see it, is that the industry has gradually grown to disregard the established processes for changing the Routeing Guide. Where is the DfT permission that's theoretically required for any changes?

The Routeing Guide is not being treated with the contractual and legal significance it deserves. It is being arbitrarily modified as if it were some sort of sale offered only at the discretion of the TOCs.

The concept is fine. Pretty much everything else is not. It has never worked effectively from day 1. When it was a paper guide it was so complicated to read that neither public or staff paid it much attention and tended to use common sense. When journey planners came in, it revealed a torrent of gaps and errors that meant the scope needed to be massively expanded in a continuing and endless cycle of trying to align it with ever changing fares and timetables.
I would agree that it is not being treated with the contractual and legal significance it deserves - but I suspect that if it were, the authorities, rather than clamping down on the process of change, would instead prioritise the need to replace it with something more effective as a matter of urgency.

 

[infobleep]

I would agree that it is not being treated with the contractual and legal significance it deserves - but I suspect that if it were, the authorities, rather than clamping down on the process of change, would instead prioritise the need to replace it with something more effective as a matter of urgency.

Well, why aren't they replacing it?

If there is a wish for a replacement to be approved then they should work within the existing framework.

Of course whilst some people use the routing guide to their advantage, there are also TOCs who out up fares to more popular stations than others. So it kind of works both ways.