Negative easement 700948: mustn't go via Oxford

[Nicholas43]

This monster deserves a thread of its own, I think:
700948 (Circuitous Route) Journeys from or via Princes Risborough to or via London stations are not valid via Oxford. this circuitous route easement applies in both directions.
It thus purports to stop you, for example, from using a Charlbury to London Terminals ticket to travel via Princes Risborough to Marylebone.
Amusingly, today Chiltern appear to have implemented it such that they won't sell Oxford to Marylebone tickets.

 

[JB_B]

Similarly, NRE no longer finds any tickets for journeys from Oxford to Marylebone via Princes Risborough.


I wonder if they've miscoded the easement? As far as I can see, one of the underlying electronic easements behind 700948 is coded to be triggered as follows:-

702437
Journey contains (at least one of) {Oxford}
Journey includes (all of) {Princes Risborough}
Journey has destination (at least one of) {Marylebone,Paddington}

(For the return journey, 702441 is the same but with MYB/PAD as origins )

Some retail sites are still finding tickets, however, so I could be wrong.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Bizarre! Couldn't get Chiltern's website to offer any train times / fares from Oxford to Marylebone on their own direct services departing Oxford in the next hour or so.

 

[rob.rjt]

That looks like the easement is badly written, badly coded or both. I am not a fares expert, but it seems that it is easy to see what mischief they are trying to prevent by taking out the first "or via" so the easement would read as below

700948 (Circuitous Route) Journeys from or via Princes Risborough to or via London stations are not valid via Oxford. this circuitous route easement applies in both directions.

This suggests that the intention is to prevent customers from Princes Risborough (PRR) catching the Chiltern service to Oxford (OXF) thence on via Great Western to Paddington.

It sounds like the order that you hit the parts of the easement is important - Princes Risborough then Oxford then London, rather than preventing OXF -> PRR -> London.

Not sure how this should be coded electronically however.

 

[Nicholas43]

That looks like the easement is badly written, badly coded or both.
...
This suggests that the intention is to prevent customers from Princes Risborough (PRR) catching the Chiltern service to Oxford (OXF) thence on via Great Western to Paddington.

Yes. But Princes Risborough to Paddington via Oxford has never been valid, based on Routing Guide 101.
I think it's a botched attempt to cover up years of lazy pricing managers not setting sensible prices North Cotswolds or Didcot to Haddenham and beyond.

 

[rob.rjt]

I think it's a botched attempt to cover up years of lazy pricing managers not setting sensible prices North Cotswolds or Didcot to Haddenham and beyond.

In which case, I would expect (for the North Cotswold line) for the easement to be worded:
(Circuitous Route) Journeys from or via Hanborough to or via London stations are not valid via Princes Risborough. this circuitous route easement applies in both directions.

This catches all North Cotswold services which must pass Hanborough. A similarly worded easement could be included for Culham, Radley, Appleford and Didcot if required.

 

[Watershed]

In which case, I would expect (for the North Cotswold line) for the easement to be worded:
(Circuitous Route) Journeys from or via Hanborough to or via London stations are not valid via Princes Risborough. this circuitous route easement applies in both directions.

This catches all North Cotswold services which must pass Hanborough. A similarly worded easement could be included for Culham, Radley, Appleford and Didcot if required.

That wouldn't work in a computer context - Hanborough is not a mandatory timing point so services that don't call there won't have that location in their schedule. Charlbury is the first station along the line towards Worcester that's a mandatory timing point.

Of course, you could 4 different easements in the data to ensure all possible trains were covered, but that seems a little excessive.

I'm not even sure this is the loophole the easement is designed to undermine.

Fares from the Bicester/High Wycombe/Aylesbury area to stations south or west of Oxford are priced via Banbury, i.e. as if the Bicester Chord hadn't opened. Splitting at Oxford is often worthwhile for these journeys.

 

[Nicholas43]

Indeed. And it would be a bare-faced lie that via Islip and Princes Risborough is a circuitous route; it's a completely reasonable alternative. Meanwhile the railway is happy to sell the unwary ridiculous tickets via Banbury, which IS a circuitous route.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Yes. But Princes Risborough to Paddington via Oxford has never been valid, based on Routing Guide 101.
I think it's a botched attempt to cover up years of lazy pricing managers not setting sensible prices North Cotswolds or Didcot to Haddenham and beyond.

Exactly. It's ridiculous that the only fares from (say) Charlbury to Princes Risborough assume you're going via London and are priced as such - £77.60 off-peak return!

Cotswold Line—Marylebone is a sensible journey and I'm sure people will continue to use it; Cotswold Line customers IMO are not shy at asking for split tickets (there's one particular split which is fairly well known here in Charlbury, at least). Why Chiltern are quite so reluctant to set through fares, I have no idea. Certainly my experience of the Marylebone gateline is that they simply look at the "headline" ticket type (off-peak/super off-peak etc.) and make no further judgement.

 

[4COR]

I don't think the easement was designed to stop Cotswold Line to Marylebone at all (after all it only stops an overly expensive journey being used on a journey that should be cheaper) - it's a clumsy attempt to stop Chiltern Line customers from Princes Risborough towards Marylebone coming on the circuitous journey to Paddington via Oxford. It doesn't appear to be implemented quite the same everywhere (...) - but like others, Oxford to Marylebone direct can't be bought with an itinerary via Princes Risborough/High Wycombe which is almost certainly not the desired outcome... (stops the direct Chiltern Service!)

 

[Nicholas43]

I don't think the easement was designed to stop Cotswold Line to Marylebone at all (after all it only stops an overly expensive journey being used on a journey that should be cheaper) - it's a clumsy attempt to stop Chiltern Line customers from Princes Risborough towards Marylebone coming on the circuitous journey to Paddington via Oxford. It doesn't appear to be implemented quite the same everywhere (...) - but like others, Oxford to Marylebone direct can't be bought with an itinerary via Princes Risborough/High Wycombe which is almost certainly not the desired outcome... (stops the direct Chiltern Service!)

I don't think so. This evil and botched 'easement' stops Charlbury (etc) to London Terminals tickets from being valid to Marylebone.
I can't see why anyone would want to go Princes Risborough to Paddington via Oxford, and it's never been allowed on one ticket.

 

[yorkie]

Here is the relevant easement record data:

E,702436,16062021,31122999,700948,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,
E,702437,16062021,31122999,700948,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,
E,702438,16062021,31122999,700948,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,
E,702439,16062021,31122999,700948,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,
E,702440,16062021,31122999,700948,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,
E,702441,16062021,31122999,700948,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,
E,702442,16062021,31122999,700948,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,

Summary of the above:

• The unique easement identifiers for the corresponding text easement are 702437 through to 702442.
• For all of these, the start date is 16/06/2021 with no specified end date.
• All are of type 'normal'
• All are of class 'negative'
• All are of category 'circuitous route'
• All are valid (applicable) every day

And here is the relevant easement location record data:

L,702436,MYB,3
L,702436,OXF,1
L,702436,PAD,3
L,702436,PRR,2

L,702437,MYB,3
L,702437,OXF,1
L,702437,PAD,3
L,702437,PRR,4

L,702438,MYB,4
L,702438,OXF,1
L,702438,PAD,4
L,702438,PRR,2

L,702439,MYB,4
L,702439,OXF,1
L,702439,PAD,4
L,702439,PRR,4

L,702440,MYB,2
L,702440,OXF,4
L,702440,PAD,2
L,702440,PRR,3

L,702441,MYB,2
L,702441,OXF,1
L,702441,PAD,2
L,702441,PRR,4

L,702442,MYB,4
L,702442,OXF,1
L,702442,PAD,4
L,702442,PRR,3

The 3-letter station codes above are:
MYB = London Marylebone
OXF = Oxford
PAD = London Paddington
PRR = Princes Risborough


The location modifiers above are:
‘1’ = Applicable location. The easement applies to journeys containing this location.
‘2’ = Origin. The easement applies to journeys from this origin.
‘3’ = Destination. The easement applies to journeys to this destination.
‘4’ = Via. The easement applies to journeys via this location.

Bizarre! Couldn't get Chiltern's website to offer any train times / fares from Oxford to Marylebone on their own direct services departing Oxford in the next hour or so.

Chiltern's fares data provider is not handling easements correctly; I've tweeted them.

That looks like the easement is badly written, badly coded or both. I am not a fares expert, but it seems that it is easy to see what mischief they are trying to prevent by taking out the first "or via" so the easement would read as below

700948 (Circuitous Route) Journeys from or via Princes Risborough to or via London stations are not valid via Oxford. this circuitous route easement applies in both directions.

The text makes no difference; what matters is the data (and of course the journey planner applying the easement correctly)

It sounds like the order that you hit the parts of the easement is important - Princes Risborough then Oxford then London, rather than preventing OXF -> PRR -> London.

Not sure how this should be coded electronically however.

If you want to know what's possible, see https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/f...NationalRoutingGuideDataFeedSpecification.pdf pages 15-16 (see my quote above for a copy of the data and a key to the main elements of what has been encoded)

 

[Nicholas43]

Many thanks, Yorkie. I don't understand what RDG mean by 'containing'. Is it 'from or via or to'?

 

[JB_B]

Many thanks, Yorkie. I don't understand what RDG mean by 'containing'. Is it 'from or via or to'?

I think it works like this - happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong.

Both the Contains/Applicable Location=1 location records and the Via/Includes=4 records are tested against all (mandatory timing) points in the journey - ie origin, destination and all points in between.

The difference* between the two record types is that, where specified, all Via records must be matched for the easement to be triggered; only one of the Contains records needs to be matched.

Where Origin=2 records are specified only one of them need to be matched; the same goes for Destination=3 records.

* RDG don't make it particularly easy to find this information. Their page which purports to link to the specification for the routeing guide data feed - including easement data - is at https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/our-services/rail-data/routeing-guide-data.html but it actually links to the fares data specification instead.

If you do find the correct link (it's https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/f...NationalRoutingGuideDataFeedSpecification.pdf ) then you'll find that there are still no clues about how type 1 and 4 records differ and are meant to be interpreted.

Chiltern's fares data provider is not handling easements correctly; I've tweeted them.

Do you mean that they're not interpreting the data (as it is now) correctly or are you saying they've injected duff data into the feed?

 

[yorkie]

Easements are one of the hardest aspects of implementing the Routeing Guide for a journey planner to get right.

The easement is not ideal but journey planners should not even be looking at negative easements, if the journey is either by a through train or the shortest route (or both!).

If it's a direct train or the shortest route then there is no requirement to look at negative easements as contractually they cannot take effect.

 

[4COR]

Even the National Rail journey planner is getting this wrong though - it refuses to return any MYB->OXF direct journey even when forcing it to look for direct trains (same engine?). Ironically, the GWR planner gets it right and offers the Chiltern Advances...!

 

[JB_B]

Even the National Rail journey planner is getting this wrong though - it refuses to return any MYB->OXF direct journey even when forcing it to look for direct trains (same engine?). Ironically, the GWR planner gets it right and offers the Chiltern Advances...!

National Rail (NRE) , Chiltern and Grand Central all get it wrong so presumably the culprit is Silverrail (by erroneously allowing negative easements to override both the direct train and shortest route rules.)

The routeing guide instructions make it pretty clear - section A, page 1: "Reference to National Routeing Guide data is only required when a customer is not using an advertised through train or the shortest route."

 

[Nicholas43]

Leaving aside the comical snafu with Oxford > Marylebone, I still don't understand why Chiltern raised this impediment. As Cyrus Wuff has pointed out, Princes Risborough > London is map CI. Oxford does not (duh!) appear on this.
If Chiltern think they aren't getting their fair share of Charlbury (etc) > London revenue, then surely they have a remedy for that? Has the Dept 'for' Transport signed off this passenger-hostile wheeze? How can Chiltern pretend that Charlbury Oxford Princes Risborough Marylebone is 'circuitous', and get away with it?

 

[Haywain]

National Rail (NRE) , Chiltern and Grand Central all get it wrong so presumably the culprit is Silverrail

LNER also fails to return results, so I agree that Silverrail may be at fault. We'll see if they get it resolved now it's been raised with them.

 

[4COR]

Looks like the easement is gone in today's version of the easements pdf file (21/06/2021)....

 

[JB_B]

Looks like the easement is gone in today's version of the easements pdf file (21/06/2021)....

It's been dropped from the routeing guide data feed in the last hour or so. Presumably things will be back to normal by tomorrow.

 

[Watershed]

Which just goes to show how well connected and monitored this forum is.

 

[alistairlees]

The easement is not ideal but no implementation of any journey planner should not even be looking at negative easements if the journey is either by a through train or the shortest route (or both!).

I think there’s one too many negatives in there.

 

[infobleep]

Interesting. But if you put Oxford to London Marylebone via High Wycombe only two trains show up on National Rail Enquiries. The 09:39 Oxford to Banbury, changing onto the 10:05 to London Marylebone. The return is the 21:10 London Marylebone to Banbury, changing onto the 22:32 to Oxford. However, no fare is shown.

If you reverse the direction, so starting at London Marylebone, then it can't even find a journey full stop.

This doesn't affect the Flexi-season as that is priced to London terminals.

 

[kieron]

National Rail (NRE) , Chiltern and Grand Central all get it wrong so presumably the culprit is Silverrail (by erroneously allowing negative easements to override both the direct train and shortest route rules.)

I saw the same problem with Southern and Trainline. I don't know who's responsible for what, though.

As for GWR, they offer all sorts of journeys this easement should have prohibited. I'm not sure if the rules about through trains have anything to do with this.

 

[JB_B]

As for GWR, they offer all sorts of journeys this easement should have prohibited. I'm not sure if the rules about through trains have anything to do with this.

Which journeys ( presumably not on through trains ) were you looking at ?

 

[Nicholas43]

So, leaving aside the separate issue that (some?) journey planners have been bungling the application of this easement embuggerment, no forum members can yet elucidate what (in Chiltern's view) misuse of what ticket(s) Chiltern were seeking to prevent. And, if the railway has procedures to restrain train companies from raising unnecessary embuggerments, and implementing them in daft ways, these procedures did not work in this instance.

 

[Watershed]

And, if the railway has procedures to restrain train companies from raising unnecessary embuggerments, and implementing them in daft ways, these procedures did not work in this instance.

I don't think there are any such procedures. The system expects train companies (more specifically, Pricing Managers) to be sufficiently competent that they wouldn't create an easement unless it's justified and done correctly.

 

[Nicholas43]

The system expects train companies (more specifically, Pricing Managers) to be sufficiently competent that they wouldn't create an easement unless it's justified and done correctly.

That's all right then. And I've just seen a squadron of Gloucester Old Spots heading NNE at 10000 feet.

 

[ABB125]

That's all right then. And I've just seen a squadron of Gloucester Old Spots heading NNE at 10000 feet.

Don't worry, they're probably just following an itinerary Avanti gave them...