New Routeing Guide Problem

[OwlMan]

There appears to be a conflict between Section A ( pdf file created 02/07/09), Section F (pdf file created 17/1/2003) and the glossary (pdf created 29/6/2009)

From Section A
STEP 3
Common Routeing Points
If the origin and destination have a common routeing point, the permitted
route is direct via the shortest distance from the origin to the destination
over which a regular scheduled passenger train service operates. No doubling back (passing through the same station twice on a single journey) is allowed which may require customers to change trains short of the routeing point, unless an easement allows a longer alternative route.

From Section F
Finding a permitted route when the origin and destination stations have a
routeing point in common.
If there is a common routeing point, the permitted route is the shortest route or a route which is longer by no more than 3 miles. Also permitted is the route followed by direct trains to and from the common routeing point if the journey is made on those trains.
From Glossary
Common Routeing Point Rule
When a journey is between stations that have one or more common
routeing points, the permitted journey takes the route of shortest
distance or any route no more than 3 miles longer, whether or not
they pass through the common routeing point. Also permitted are
journeys that use direct trains to and from the common routeing
point.

To summarise
Section A says you can take (i) the shortest route

Section F says you can take (i) the shortest route
(ii) a route which is no longer that 3 miles more than the shortest route
(iii) A direct train to the routeing point followed by a direct train (even if it involves doubling back)

The glossary says the same as Section F.

Also, by the way Stranraer Harbour is still listed twice in Section B (noted by Clive Feather when he introduced CORE)

Surely someone must look at the Routeing Guide before it is issued to look for inconsistancies.

Peter

 

[tony_mac]

obviously not.
They still allow Carlisle-Newcastle via Manchester and Leeds!

And the example for Stratford to Solihull is now nonsense due to the change of routeing points (although I can't make sense out of it anyway!)

 

[krus_aragon]

The summary document, in example 1 says

Penarth has one routeing point, Cardiff Central.

Sadly the Vale of Glamorgan line reopened to passenger traffic four years ago, and Penarth now has two routeing points: Cardiff Central and Bridgend.

 

[John @ home]

There appears to be a conflict between Section A ( pdf file created 02/07/09), Section F (pdf file created 17/1/2003) and the glossary (pdf created 29/6/2009)

[snip quote from Section A]
[snip quote from Section F]
[snip quote from Glossary]

The words quoted from Sections A and F are not new and have appeared for at least the last few years if not from the beginning. The Glossary is new, and is welcome.

I do have difficulty understanding the author's intention with the sentence

No doubling back (passing through the same station twice on a single journey) is allowed which may require customers to change trains short of the routeing point, unless an easement allows a longer alternative route.

The words in bold are the ones which give me difficulty. The remainder of the sentence is straightforward. Does the author intend that doubling back is not allowed if a change of train is needed to get to the Routeing Point, but is allowed if there is a through train (eg. Wick - Inverness doubling back through Georgemas Jn)? If so, much plainer language should have been used.

To summarise [snip]

I agree with Peter's summary. I am pleased that Section F Examples has been re-named The National Routeing Guide in Detail. It is the only place to contain several important nuggets, such as the permitted route is the shortest route or a route which is longer by no more than 3 miles, and these could easily be missed if a reader believed that the Examples were optional.

I have noticed one significant change between this version and the previous one.

All fares comparisons must be made using the same ticket type.
If the customer requires a Single then Single fares should be compared. If the
customer requires a Saver then Saver fares should be compared.

All fares comparisons must be made using one of the following single ticket
types:
• Standard Open Single (SOS)
• Standard Day Single (SDS)
• Saver Single (SVS)
• Cheap Day Single (CDS)

I suspect that some anomalies have arisen due to the different treatment of SVR fares by different TOCs at Fares Simplification. SVR fares now vary widely when expressed as a multiple of the SVS fare. In some instances, where a journey is part-way round a circle, this could lead to the permitted route for the SVS being the other way from that for the SVR. This change should remove that anomaly.

My main objections with any new edition of the Routeing Guide are the lack of advance notice, lack of public consultation, lack of explanation of the changes, and lack of historical Guides easily available to the public. How is a passenger holding the return portion of a ticket purchased before a change able to find out the permitted routes for a journey when it takes place after the change?

John
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They still allow Carlisle-Newcastle via Manchester and Leeds!

And despite their boast of symmetry:

Because route permissions are the same in both directions of travel you may use the routeing permissions in either direction. The route codes will be the same.

they still allow this in one direction only!

Permitted Routes

Carlisle - Newcastle GN MM+TP MM+WY+LY+NE NC+MH+TP NE+LY+WY+GM+NW
Newcastle - Carlisle GN

Cue debate on the valid routes for the return half of a Carlisle to Newcastle ticket!

John

 

[tony_mac]

it does seem to have been 'updated' in an ad-hoc manner - only the bits they wanted to change have been ,without regard for consistency of the document.

For instance, of the examples given, the majority (around 8 out of 12) are now inconsistent with the data that's actually in the routeing guide.

And the following

All fares comparisons must be made using one of the following single ticket
types:
• Standard Open Single (SOS)
• Standard Day Single (SDS)
• Saver Single (SVS)
• Cheap Day Single (CDS)
In exceptional circumstances, due to local fares policies, a direct comparison
may not be possible. If this is the case and the origin station or destination
station has a lower fare of the type selected than all its routeing points, the
Standard Single (Day or Open) fares should be used for comparison
purposes.

What's the point of that? If you can't compare a Standard Open Single or Standard Day Single then you have to compare a Standard Single (Day or Open) ? Wasn't the person editing it allowed to change the rest of the paragraph?

And we know about the common routeing point problem, but that's even inconsistent in the same section

If the origin and destination have a common routeing point, the permitted
route is direct via the shortest distance from the origin to the destination

shortly followed by

Example (c) - Bamber Bridge to Lostock. Each station has three common routeing points, Preston (21 miles) and both Blackburn and Bolton (24.5 miles). In this instance travel via Preston is the permitted route

Although I think that the entire thing is not maintained properly because it is just unmaintainable; there are too many permutations of maps and routes to not have unintended anomalies, and trying to 'patch' these up in a half-hearted manner is not going to be enough.

 

[dan_atki]

I do have difficulty understanding the author's intention with the sentence

No doubling back (passing through the same station twice on a single journey) is allowed which may require customers to change trains short of the routeing point, unless an easement allows a longer alternative route.

The words in bold are the ones which give me difficulty. The remainder of the sentence is straightforward. Does the author intend that doubling back is not allowed if a change of train is needed to get to the Routeing Point, but is allowed if there is a through train (eg. Wick - Inverness doubling back through Georgemas Jn)? If so, much plainer language should have been used.

I take it to literally mean 'No doubling back is allowed unless an easement says so. This may require customers to change trains short of the routeing point'.

E.G West Hampstead Thameslink is a routeing point for say Radlett, and if coming from Brighton then you'd be expected to change at St Pancras to continue to Radlett, rather than changing at St Albans (the next stop on fast services).

I will concede that the sentence is poorly written and states the obvious (if my interpretation is correct)!

 

[tony_mac]

I see, that makes more sense, I hadn't thought of that! Perhaps a comma between 'allowed' and 'which' would have helped make sense of it.