National Routeing Guide

[maniacmartin]

The new tool seems to make some assumptions/clarifications that the instructions were not explicit about:

Routeing Point Groups: Members of a RP group are discounted if they cannot be reached without going through another member of that group. Given that double backs are allowed within RP Groups for interchange purposes this isn't really an issue.

Which ticket type: The old and new PDF instructions both mention that "one of the following" ticket types must be used, but it is not clear whether you can use any type from the list that you want, or if you must try them in the order presented.
The tool implies that it finds the first ticket type common to both stations and compares with only that ticket type, declaring invalid if it fails and not trying any further ticket types. This could possibly result in a loss of permitted routes.

Routed ticket: For routed tickets, the instructions tell us to "check carefully that the route selected is via this specific route". My understanding was that you calculated the permitted routes as usual, then at the end discarded all routed that didn't obey the routeing on the ticket. It wasn't clear previously whether the fares comparison should be done with routed fares or 'Any Permitted' fares. The tool appears to try to compare with routed fares if you specify a route, and fall back to Any Permitted otherwise.

I've not done much investigation on these points as I don;t have the time sadly

 

[kieron]

Routeing Point Groups: Members of a RP group are discounted if they cannot be reached without going through another member of that group. Given that double backs are allowed within RP Groups for interchange purposes this isn't really an issue.

It can be if the station in the group which is closer to the associated station fails the fare check. I haven't looked for routes where this occurs yet, though.

I have noticed that the calculator doesn't incorporate the "Sometimes a station has no scheduled passenger services to one of the routeing points to which it is related. These routeing points should be ignored." thing in section F.

As this would be another way for TOCs to remove permitted routes without changing the routeing guide, perhaps it's out of step with current thinking. Or perhaps it's not something they used anyway, given how many reasonable routes it prohibits, and had just been left in the routeing guide to confuse people.

 

[Starmill]

But that is exactly what many members of this forum have been arguing for some time, especially when using the current fares would deny a route, where the historical fares would allow it. Only one set of data should be used, for consistency. Personally I think it should be current fares, as those are easier for everyone to check and are more transparent, but if people insist on using the historical fares, then so be it. You can't just use whichever fare you fancy, it is either one or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I couldn't agree more. The current RG as it is means there's no cake and definitely nobody eating it! It's a largely irrelevant mess, fiddled with by ATOC and picked over on here but that's about it.

I'm not sure that only one set of data should be used as the fares available have changed drastically over the 19 years since NFM64 was published. New stations and lines have opened, certain TOCs have "gouged" prices, many tickets that were "any Permitted" now have specific routes, etc. I think that the only fair way for passengers to do a fare check is to actually allow them to have their cake and eat it, as you put it i.e. if it passes the check in either NFM64 or with current fares then it's OK.

This is the only way to safeguard rights passengers have had historically under the current crackers system.

Another way to do that is to just go back to permitting any reasonable route, it worked for BR... *runs and hides*

 

[ainsworth74]

Is this the first time that we've had a full copy of NFM64 available in electronic format or has it been published previously?

 

[furlong]

Is this the first time that we've had a full copy of NFM64 available in electronic format or has it been published previously?

This is not a full copy.

An identical subset has been released previously under Freedom of Information legislation.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is not a full copy.

Ah, hadn't managed to download it yet.