Not via London

[hairyhandedfool]

It is true that journey planners are sometimes wrong. But they are more often correct than wrong.

Where they do go wrong, it is more likely to be due to an error/omission in the data/map rather than wrongly interpreting the rules. For example, the shortest route is calculated differently, not due to a misinterpretation of the rule but due to the data source, and allowing +5 miles instead of +3 miles means that most errors occur in the passengers' favour, which is how it should be....

As I say, they are only as good as their programming. Whether the error comes from rules or mapping or anything else is immaterial to the point really.

....In the case of the maps, it is pretty clear that the booking engines use the interpretation favoured by most contributors to this discussion. That does not guarantee it is 'correct' but it does mean that some quite senior people at ATOC believe it is correct....

This would be the same ATOC who you believe can't tell their a**e from their elbow, or are liars, unless you believe they happen to agree with you?

Does what they 'believe' change the written rules laid out clearly for all too see?

....But it's not just the booking engines that agree with us. There would not be "Not via London" routings on tickets where the only mapped routes were using 'London' in the yellow pages and where the shortest route is via London, if your interpretation was correct, as it would leave those tickets without any permitted routes. So, again, there must be some quite senior people in the industry who believe that "Not via London" means that routes that go via London Terminals/Group* are not permitted but all other permitted routes are....

Or could it be an oversight, an error by someone, something that 'got missed'?

Just because a fare exists, does not mean it has to be sold (or even be advertised or valid), infact there are occasionally local fares priced at £999 just so people don't buy or sell it. Equally it could be that the people doing the Routeing Guide (and I think it is more likely the latter online version than the original one, but I can't check without examples) didn't really think through those journeys, we may never know, but none of this means you can ignore the rules laid out.

....(* I don't know for certain which of the two it is, and it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion)

This a fair point and, fortunately, one which I don't believe makes much difference in many cases, though as we are talking about routeing and the Routeing Guide I think London Group works better. I can take it however that you now believe 'London' is one of London Group or London Terminals?

 

[All Line Rover]

Find the permitted routes to London. That'll be going to London then.

"Find the permitted routes to London" does not mean "travel via London." It means "look up the permitted routes to London."

Find the permitted routes from London. That'll be going from London then.

Again, "find the permitted routes from London" does not mean "travel from London."

The combination of maps to and from London can be used to trace any route that runs along those maps, whether or not the route actually passes through London Terminals. The booking engines agree with this, and Yorkie and others have provided numerous examples of tickets which support this argument. This thread is long enough and I'm not going to waste my breath repeating such examples as you gloss over them as 'mistakes' or 'oversights.' :roll:

 

[Ivo]

Using the following, might I give a real-world example?

To me the question is: is it valid to use any route on map combinations built from LONDON entries in the yellow pages, or must you go through London. I can't answer that, because I don't believe it's clear in the routeing guide. However, there are some pointers in the guide:

• Step 6 of Section A seems to say that we only look at the London routes for "journeys via London".
• Page F9 of Section F appears to refer to "permitted routes via London".
• Page F9 of Section F then goes on to say that you're not obliged to change in London, which leads one to wonder just what is meant by "journeys via London".

It does seem that booking engines interpret that you can use any route. I can book tickets like Hereford to Hemel Hemstead route NOT VIA LONDON going through Clapham Junction or Richmond, which would be impossible unless the London maps were applied because the only other mapped route (and the shortest) is via Birmingham.

I, for one, will be very interested to see what routes appear in the new base maps for such flows. Presumably there will be one map for each flow and geographical restrictions will merely restrict parts of that map.

Back in February, I travelled from Winnersh to Wembley Central to watch England play Holland, using a ticket routed NOT VIA LONDON. Owing to the Fares Check Rule, Reading is not an appropriate RP and as such travel via Wokingham is required. I am sure that everyone would agree that travelling via the NLL is the best route for this, and is of course the shortest route. However, no one map that involves the use of the NLL is applicable to this flow, except where the use of the LONDON route is considered. Using the RG data, we see that the only acceptable route between Willesden Junction (the relevant RP for WMB) and London is Map OV, which permits use of the NLL. This thus suggests that by using the correct pairing of maps (LONDON treated as WX+OV) the shortest route of the NLL is applicable and should therefore be accepted - indeed, LOROL were perfectly happy for it to be used.

Of course, there is an alternative route, which involves the WLL - which is not only mapped, it is also the one I was recommended to by SWT at Feltham (where I met my father) on account of Clapham Junction not counting as London. This is the option we used for the return leg.

 

[All Line Rover]

My 'supposed rules' are written in black and white in the Routeing Guide. They do not contradict any other part of the Routeing Guide that I have seen.

...

There is nothing vague or contradictory here, so I think you should follow your own advice and 'get over it'.

Black & white? I quote from Section F:

If there is a route “LONDON” as one of the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide,
the range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method:
1. Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London.
2. Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point.
3. Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any
route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are
permitted routes for the journey except those with a repeated map.

"Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London." This is logical. It doesn't say travel via London - it says "look up the permitted routes to London."

"Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point." This is also logical. It doesn't say travel via London - it says "look up the permitted routes from London."

"Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are permitted routes." This too is logical. You don't have to travel via London - you can trace any route along the combination of maps, whether or not that route happens to go via London Terminals and/or 'London Group.'

However, this entire argument falls down because of the statement in the opening paragraph: "The range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method." Steps (1), (2) and especially (3) do not follow logically from this statement.

Are you really suggesting that this isn't contradictory?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

"Find the permitted routes to London" does not mean "travel via London." It means "look up the permitted routes to London."

....

Again, "find the permitted routes from London" does not mean "travel from London."....

To use a ticket you must follow a permitted route, even if you stop or start short, it must be along a permitted route.

Some tickets do not allow routes that go through a particular place or they stipulate that you must go through a particular place, this information is placed in the 'route' of the ticket.

In the case of 'Not Via London' the route must not go via London.

The rules laid out in the Routeing Guide state, quite clearly, that you must find a permitted route to London and a permitted route from London.

It goes on to say that a combination of those make the permitted route for the through journey.

A ticket does not need to have a mapped route, there are many tickets that don't.

If you go from an origin to London and then from London to a destination, your journey from the origin to the destination goes via London.

I believe that is a fair assessment, do you agree?

....The combination of maps to and from London can be used to trace any route that runs along those maps, whether or not the route actually passes through London Terminals....

Where have you found the instruction to do this?

I see no mention of going from permitted routes to and from London, to starting again with the maps, only this time not bothering with London.

....The booking engines agree with this....

And I'm sure you will tell me now that not only do the booking engines show you their working, but that they are also infallible?

....and Yorkie and others have provided numerous examples of tickets which support this argument....

They believe they have found tickets which they believe cannot be used on other routes you mean? Like the Barking-Croydon 'Rte Not Via London' one mentioned early on by yorkie, where it might be possible that the shortest route is not via London?

....This thread is long enough and I'm not going to waste my breath repeating such examples as you gloss over them as 'mistakes' or 'oversights.' :roll:

If you are not prepared to share the routes you have a problem with don't use them to try to justify your point. With one exception I have tried to answer all routeings in this thread. They may not have been concrete answers because I do not have the mileages to hand (for the shortest route, etc), but at the very least they are possibilities.

Just because a fare exists does not mean it can be sold or used (yes, that may make them pointless).

....Back in February, I travelled from Winnersh to Wembley Central to watch England play Holland, using a ticket routed NOT VIA LONDON. Owing to the Fares Check Rule, Reading is not an appropriate RP and as such travel via Wokingham is required. I am sure that everyone would agree that travelling via the NLL is the best route for this, and is of course the shortest route....

I'll stop you there...

So, the shortest route is not via London and the ticket is routed 'Not Via London'? Using this rather limited information, is there a permitted route that avoids London?

Black & white? I quote from Section F:


"Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London." This is logical. It doesn't say travel via London - it says "look up the permitted routes to London."

"Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point." This is also logical. It doesn't say travel via London - it says "look up the permitted routes from London."

"Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are permitted routes." This too is logical. You don't have to travel via London - you can trace any route along the combination of maps, whether or not that route happens to go via London Terminals and/or 'London Group.'

However, this entire argument falls down because of the statement in the opening paragraph: "The range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method." Steps (1), (2) and especially (3) do not follow logically from this statement.

Are you really suggesting that this isn't contradictory?

In order for a ticket to be valid you must be on a permitted route, you may start or end short, or even break your journey (if allowed by the ticket type), but it must be on a permitted route.

The Routeing Guide asks you to find a permitted route to London and a permitted route from London to create a permitted route via London.

In order to use a 'Not Via London' ticket you cannot use a permitted route that goes via London, regardless of how far you want to go along that route.

Do you really think that the instructions for going via London, by finding a route to London and a route from London to create a route via London are not logical and are contradictory?

If they are illogical and contradictory, are you making up rules as you go along because you only have those rules to go on?

 

[All Line Rover]

The Routeing Guide asks you to find a permitted route to London and a permitted route from London to create a permitted route via London.

The claim in bold is not substantiated by the Routeing Guide when taken in its entirety, nor is it substantiated by every single booking engine (a coincidence, don't you think?), nor is it substantiated by numerous tickets that are used on a daily basis. It is only possible to substantiate the claim by picking and choosing a select number of quotes from the Routeing Guide. I do not consider that to be a valid argument.

The Routeing Guide says that when following "LONDON" in the Yellow Pages, you must look up the permitted routes to London, the permitted routes from London, and can travel along any route created by that combination of maps. It does not say that you must travel to London Terminals or travel from London Terminals.

Furthermore, a 'Not via London' ticket does not prevent you from travelling via the geographical area of 'London' - it just prevents you from travelling via London Terminals and/or the 'London Group.' The Hereford to Hemel Hempstead ticket which SickyNicky mentioned is one example of this.

You appear to disagree. I've nothing more to say.

 

[Ivo]

I'll stop you there...

So, the shortest route is not via London and the ticket is routed 'Not Via London'? Using this rather limited information, is there a permitted route that avoids London?

The shortest route that exists should be the NLL, which is valid assuming that the definition of Rte: LONDON is based on WKM - WAT being treated as WX and EUS - WLJ beaing treated as OV. Now, admittedly, having looked again I realise I initially checked for Watford Junction and not Willesden Junction by accident, but, there is still no evidence that use of the NLL is permitted, in spite of there being two other routes (WX+TS and WX+LM, the former of which appears erroneous).

Use of the WLL is permitted through WX+LM. Surely the NLL should be permitted on account of (a) being the shortest route not affected by route restrictions on the ticket, and (b) the "LONDON" combination of WX+OV authorising this route? Perhaps it is this very situation that explains its omission from the Wokingham to Willesden flow?

I would go into more detail but I have a meeting to get to.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The claim in bold is not substantiated by the Routeing Guide when taken in its entirety....

On what do you base that? It is written in the Routeing Guide. Therefore it is written in the Routeing Guide in it's entirety.

....nor is it substantiated by every single booking engine....

Which booking engines show their working? I would very much like to see it worked out. I would also like to see conclusive evidence that they are infallible.

Oh but wait, if you had that you'd have produced it by now, wouldn't you? Hmmmm.....

....(a coincidence, don't you think?)....

What is a coincidence? That the booking engines (which may not be infallible) don't show definitive confirmation of what isn't written in the Routeing Guide? Yeah a massive one!

....nor is it substantiated by numerous tickets that are used on a daily basis....

Proof?

....It is only possible to substantiate the claim by picking and choosing a select number of quotes from the Routeing Guide. I do not consider that to be a valid argument....

You don't consider a written part of the contract between passenger and railway to be a valid argument, but you consider something that is not part of the written contract between passenger and railway (and can't be guaranteed to be accurate) as a valid argument? I think that says all I need to hear.

....The Routeing Guide says that when following "LONDON" in the Yellow Pages, you must look up the permitted routes to London, the permitted routes from London, and can travel along any route created by that combination of maps....

So you believe you must look up the permitted routes to and from London, well it's a start. What do you do with those routes once you have looked them up? Do you:

a) Ignore them, there was no point in looking them up anyway.
b) Use part of them to make up a route in a way not documented in the Routeing Guide, on booking engines or in any other railway document.
c) Put them together to form a permitted route via London, as stated in the Routeing Guide.
d) Not worry about them and use the maps instead, it's not a logical process anyway.

If you have a route to London followed by a route from London, is this not a route via London?

Are tickets routed 'Not Via London' valid on routes via London?

....It does not say that you must travel to London Terminals or travel from London Terminals....

To use a ticket you must follow a permitted route. Do you agree or disagree with that?

If you agree, which route, that goes via London, can you use with a 'Not Via London' ticket?

If you do not agree, by what routes can you use a ticket?

....Furthermore, a 'Not via London' ticket does not prevent you from travelling via the geographical area of 'London' - it just prevents you from travelling via London Terminals and/or the 'London Group.' The Hereford to Hemel Hempstead ticket which SickyNicky mentioned is one example of this....

I have never claimed 'London' is anything more than London Group or London Terminals. I have never claimed that a 'Not Via London' ticket stops you from travelling through anything more than London Terminals or London Group. If you believe I have said that I challenge you to find it and quote it. If it turns out I have then I will acknowledge that, if it turns out you are mistaken, I expect you to do the same. If you will not try to do it, I will take it as acknowledgement that you are 'mistaken'.

.... I've nothing more to say.

We can only hope.

 

[All Line Rover]

So you believe you must look up the permitted routes to and from London, well it's a start. What do you do with those routes once you have looked them up? Do you:

a) Ignore them, there was no point in looking them up anyway.
b) Use part of them to make up a route in a way not documented in the Routeing Guide, on booking engines or in any other railway document.
c) Put them together to form a permitted route via London, as stated in the Routeing Guide.
d) Not worry about them and use the maps instead, it's not a logical process anyway.

If you have a route to London followed by a route from London, is this not a route via London?

Are tickets routed 'Not Via London' valid on routes via London?

You haven't answered the point I was making. Instead you twist it to try and support your argument. So this doesn't happen for the nth time, please tell me whether the following statements are true or false:

1. When following 'LONDON' in the Routeing Guide, you look up the permitted routes (maps) to London, and the permitted routes (maps) from London. Yes, or no?

2. You combine the permitted routes (maps) you have found. Yes, or no?

3. You trace any route you want along those maps, providing you do not use the same map twice. Yes, or no?

4. If you answered 'yes' to question 3, as such combinations of maps often combine at stations other than London Terminals (e.g. at Clapham Junction), it is therefore true that you do not have to travel via a London Terminal when tracing routes for 'LONDON' in the Routeing Guide. Yes, or no?

5. A 'Not via London' ticket only prevents travel via London Terminals, not the geographical area of 'London' itself. Yes, or no?

6. If you answered 'yes' to question 5, and 'yes' to question 3, you can therefore use a 'Not via London' ticket along a permitted route found by tracing routes for 'LONDON' in the Routeing Guide, so long as doing so does not involve travelling via a London Terminal. Yes, or no?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The shortest route that exists should be the NLL, which is valid assuming that the definition of Rte: LONDON is based on WKM - WAT being treated as WX and EUS - WLJ beaing treated as OV. Now, admittedly, having looked again I realise I initially checked for Watford Junction and not Willesden Junction by accident, but, there is still no evidence that use of the NLL is permitted, in spite of there being two other routes (WX+TS and WX+LM, the former of which appears erroneous).

Use of the WLL is permitted through WX+LM. Surely the NLL should be permitted on account of (a) being the shortest route not affected by route restrictions on the ticket, and (b) the "LONDON" combination of WX+OV authorising this route? Perhaps it is this very situation that explains its omission from the Wokingham to Willesden flow?

I would go into more detail but I have a meeting to get to.

The shortest route is a permitted route, this is stated categorically in the NRCoC.

If the shortest route is not via London, a 'Not Via London' ticket can be used, because it doesn't go via London.

It is only if this route is not one that you wish to use, and you are not using a direct train, that you go to the Routeing Guide. However the route restriction of 'Not Via London' would still apply to any routes picked from the Routeing Guide, unless it is the same price as, or more expensive than, the fare for going via London.

However, as I am trying to explain to, well, pretty much everyone it seems, the Routeing Guide, as quoted in this thread a couple of times, says that if you use the 'London' option you must find the permitted routes to 'London' and the permitted routes from 'London'. Then it says to use a combination of those to make a permitted route from origin to destination. This could only produce a route via London and would therefore not produce a valid route for a 'Not Via London' ticket.

 

[bb21]

Can we refrain from personal attacks and stick to the topic itself please. Thanks.

 

[bnm]

The definitive source for ticketing purposes, National Rail Enquiries, along with booking engines and Ticket Issuing Systems will all permit what Hairyhandedfool vehemently argues isn't permitted.

In this case I'll go with real world interpretation rather than forensic analysis of a somewhat esoteric document set (Routeing Guide), which, depending on your own definitions of what is and isn't permitted, can be used to support both the points of view argued at length in this thread.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You haven't answered the point I was making. Instead you twist it to try and support your argument. So this doesn't happen for the nth time, please tell me whether the following statements are true or false:

1. When following 'LONDON' in the Routeing Guide, you look up the permitted routes (maps) to London, and the permitted routes (maps) from London. Yes, or no?....

Permitted routes yes, this is stated categorically in the Routeing Guide. There is no mention of combining the maps other than to produce permitted routes to London from the origin and from London to the destination.

2. You combine the permitted routes (maps) you have found. Yes, or no?....

The permitted routes yes, this is stated categorically in the Routeing Guide. There is no mention of combining maps except to produce permitted routes to London from the origin and from London to the destination.

3. You trace any route you want along those maps, providing you do not use the same map twice. Yes, or no?....

You use the maps to find the permitted routes to London from the origin and from London to the destination. You are not permitted to repeat a map.

4. If you answered 'yes' to question 3, as such combinations of maps often combine at stations other than London Terminals (e.g. at Clapham Junction), it is therefore true that you do not have to travel via a London Terminal when tracing routes for 'LONDON' in the Routeing Guide. Yes, or no?....

You have to have a route via London as (a) you have looked up the permitted routes to and from London and (b) you are not instructed to combine maps from the origin to London with those from London to the destination.

5. A 'Not via London' ticket only prevents travel via London Terminals, not the geographical area of 'London' itself. Yes, or no?....

'London' is generally recognised to be either London Group or London Terminals, though there is no real way to know which at this point.

6. If you answered 'yes' to question 5, and 'yes' to question 3, you can therefore use a 'Not via London' ticket along a permitted route found by tracing routes for 'LONDON' in the Routeing Guide, so long as doing so does not involve travelling via a London Terminal. Yes, or no?

You cannot use a 'Rte Not Via London' ticket on routes, permitted or otherwise, that pass through London, regardless of how far you travel on them.

Can you now produce a document which states categorically that you do not need to follow a permitted route to London when using the 'London' option in the Routeing Guide?

Can you show me a booking engine that shows it's working out and is proven infallible?

Can you show me proof that 'numerous' tickets, routed 'Not Via London', are used, legitimately, by routes, only found by joining up all the maps in the 'London' option, on a daily basis?

To use a ticket you must follow a permitted route. Do you agree or disagree with that?

If you agree, which route, that goes via London, can you use with a 'Not Via London' ticket?

If you do not agree, by what routes can you use a ticket?

 

[All Line Rover]

You have to have a route via London as (a) you have looked up the permitted routes to and from London and (b) you are not instructed to combine maps from the origin to London with those from London to the destination.

I'm sorry? This appears to contradict what I read earlier. Let's look again:

If there is a route “LONDON” as one of the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide,
the range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method:
1. Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London.
2. Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point.
3. Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any
route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are
permitted routes for the journey except those with a repeated map.

Hmmm... That says to combine the maps from the origin to London with those from London to the destination. I'm not told to travel via London Terminals - I'm just told to combine the maps. Since such maps often combine at stations other than London Terminals, such as Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction, I can follow a route using those maps without going via London Terminals. Therefore I am able to use a 'Not via London' ticket along such a route.

Do you agree, or disagree?

You cannot use a 'Rte Not Via London' ticket on routes, permitted or otherwise, that pass through London, regardless of how far you travel on them.

Pass through what? The M25, or London Terminals?

Can you now produce a document which states categorically that you do not need to follow a permitted route to London when using the 'London' option in the Routeing Guide?

No. Can you now produce a document which states categorically that you need to travel via London Terminals when using the 'London' option in the Routeing Guide?

Can you show me a booking engine that shows it's working out and is proven infallible?

No. Is the Routeing Guide infallible?

If you agree, which route, that goes via London, can you use with a 'Not Via London' ticket?

One that I've repeated numerous times already. Hereford to Hemel Hempstead. As well as travelling via Birmingham, you can use it to travel via the geographical area of London but not London Terminals itself. I'm sure you are aware of similar tickets.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm sorry? This appears to contradict what I read earlier. Let's look again:


Hmmm... That says to combine the maps from the origin to London with those from London to the destination. I'm not told to travel via London Terminals - I'm just told to combine the maps. Since such maps often combine at stations other than London Terminals, such as Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction, I can follow a route using those maps without going via London Terminals. Therefore I am able to use a 'Not via London' ticket along such a route.

Do you agree, or disagree?....

Lets look again.

If there is a route “LONDON” as one of the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide,
the range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method:
1. Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London.
2. Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point.
3. Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any
route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are
permitted routes for the journey except those with a repeated map.

Seems to say the ROUTE found in (1) with the ROUTE found in (2), don't see any mention of combining maps in (3). Therefore you are asked to combine ROUTES, not maps.

Pass through what? The M25, or London Terminals?....

I have already stated what London is.

No. Can you now produce a document which states categorically that you need to travel via London Terminals when using the 'London' option in the Routeing Guide?....

Here and here, unless you don't believe 'London' is London Terminals or London Group (which contains many London Terminals).

No. Is the Routeing Guide infallible?...

The Routeing Guide does have some issues in section F, but none relate to travel via London.

One that I've repeated numerous times already. Hereford to Hemel Hempstead. As well as travelling via Birmingham, you can use it to travel via the geographical area of London but not London Terminals itself. I'm sure you are aware of similar tickets.

Using the definition of 'London' that I thought we had virtually agreed on (London Terminals or London Group), why don't you read the question again and actually answer it?

 

[button_boxer]

One that I've repeated numerous times already. Hereford to Hemel Hempstead. As well as travelling via Birmingham, you can use it to travel via the geographical area of London but not London Terminals itself. I'm sure you are aware of similar tickets.

Hereford is a routeing point. Hemel Hempstead is associated with Bletchley Group and Watford Junction. Map combinations for Hereford to Watford Junction and Hereford to Bletchley are the same: LONDON, CE+BP+TV and CE+TV. CE+BP+TV allows routes via Birmingham and Nuneaton, CE+TV gives routes via Coventry.

Hereford to London has various routes including to Waterloo or Victoria via Clapham Junction. The maps for London to Watford Junction include the Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction stretch but not Victoria or Waterloo to Clapham Junction - the only mapped routes from London to Watford Junction or Bletchley start at Euston. So in this case the only place where a route from Hereford to London and a route from London to Watford touch is at London Terminals. The sequences of maps touch at Clapham Junction but the combinations of routes don't.

The interesting case would be if there are any journeys with a LONDON entry in the yellow pages where the origin to London leg can go into Waterloo and the London to destination leg can come out of Waterloo. That would be a valid example of combining a route from origin to London with a route from London to destination without travelling via London if you change at Clapham Junction. Travelling via London in this case would require doubling back.

 

[All Line Rover]

Hereford is a routeing point. Hemel Hempstead is associated with Bletchley Group and Watford Junction. Map combinations for Hereford to Watford Junction and Hereford to Bletchley are the same: LONDON, CE+BP+TV and CE+TV. CE+BP+TV allows routes via Birmingham and Nuneaton, CE+TV gives routes via Coventry.

Hereford to London has various routes including to Waterloo or Victoria via Clapham Junction. The maps for London to Watford Junction include the Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction stretch but not Victoria or Waterloo to Clapham Junction - the only mapped routes from London to Watford Junction or Bletchley start at Euston. So in this case the only place where a route from Hereford to London and a route from London to Watford touch is at London Terminals. The sequences of maps touch at Clapham Junction but the combinations of routes don't.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand your post.

The correct associated RP Group for Hemel Hemptead is Watford Junction. The permitted routes from Hereford to Watford Junction include 'LONDON'. This involves looking at the routes to London Group, and the routes from London Group.

Permitted routes from Hereford to London Group include maps BD+LW+WW. This allows Hereford > Newport > Bristol > Westbury > Basingstoke > Woking > Clapham Junction > London Waterloo.

Permitted routes from London Group to Watford Junction include map EN. This allows London Euston > Willesden Junction > Watford Junction, but also allows Clapham Junction > Willesden Juntion > Watford Junction.

It is therefore possible to combine the route to London Group and the route from London Group at Clapham Junction, which avoids London Terminals.

My disagreement with HHF is HHF's insistence that combining the routes to and from London Group 'must' involve travelling London Terminals. The Routeing Guide never mentions this. It only tells us to combine the 'routes' (or 'maps', or whatever) to and from London Group, which frequently allows us to avoid travelling via London Terminals. And when you can avoid travelling via London Terminals (and crossing London), you can freely use a "not via London" ticket.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Permitted routes from London Group to Watford Junction include map EN. This allows London Euston > Willesden Junction > Watford Junction, but also allows Clapham Junction > Willesden Juntion > Watford Junction.....

What part of Clapham Junction > Willesden Junction > Watford Junction conforms to 'a permitted route from London to the destination routeing point'?

....It is therefore possible to combine the route to London Group and the route from London Group at Clapham Junction, which avoids London Terminals.....

Which of Clapham Junction, Willesden Junction and Watford Junction is in London Group?

....My disagreement with HHF is HHF's insistence that combining the routes to and from London Group 'must' involve travelling London Terminals. The Routeing Guide never mentions this....

My 'insistence' is that the permitted route(s) must be via London, this is in the passage in the Routeing Guide that you quoted!

....It only tells us to combine the 'routes' (or 'maps', or whatever) to and from London Group....

It says routes (not "or 'maps', or whatever"), and you haven't even done that!

....which frequently allows us to avoid travelling via London Terminals....

Really? How does having a permitted route to and from London allow us to avoid London?

....And when you can avoid travelling via London Terminals (and crossing London), you can freely use a "not via London" ticket.

Not quite, if you use a permitted route and that route does not go via London you can use a 'Not Via London' ticket. It's not rocket science.

 

[34D]

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand your post.

The correct associated RP Group for Hemel Hemptead is Watford Junction. The permitted routes from Hereford to Watford Junction include 'LONDON'. This involves looking at the routes to London Group, and the routes from London Group.

Permitted routes from Hereford to London Group include maps BD+LW+WW. This allows Hereford > Newport > Bristol > Westbury > Basingstoke > Woking > Clapham Junction > London Waterloo.

Permitted routes from London Group to Watford Junction include map EN. This allows London Euston > Willesden Junction > Watford Junction, but also allows Clapham Junction > Willesden Juntion > Watford Junction.

It is therefore possible to combine the route to London Group and the route from London Group at Clapham Junction, which avoids London Terminals.

My disagreement with HHF is HHF's insistence that combining the routes to and from London Group 'must' involve travelling London Terminals. The Routeing Guide never mentions this. It only tells us to combine the 'routes' (or 'maps', or whatever) to and from London Group, which frequently allows us to avoid travelling via London Terminals. And when you can avoid travelling via London Terminals (and crossing London), you can freely use a "not via London" ticket.

So what we are saying is that permitted routes from Hereford to Hemel include BD+LW+WW+EN (surely we are all agreed here?).

And surely we are also agreed that BD+LW+WW+EN allows travel via Kensington Olympia?

And also agreed that route BD+LW+WW+EN passes through greater London?

And further agreed that BD+LW+WW+EN avoids London Terminals or London Groups members?

Surely if 'not London' means avoiding greater London then HHF is correct, and if 'not London' means not London group/terminals then all line rover is correct?

Or have I missed something?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not quite, if you use a permitted route and that route does not go via London you can use a 'Not Via London' ticket. It's not rocket science.

Greater London? Or London Group/Term? Or just London maps/routes? What are you saying?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Your joking right? I need to spell it out again?

 

[34D]

Your joking right? I need to spell it out again?

Give me a straight-forward one-line answer as to whether you believe 'not via London' means:
-not via London Terminals/London Groups
-not via Greater London

Please could you also give a straight-forward answer as to whether you acknowledge that map combination BD+LW+WW+EN is a valid map combination for Hereford to Hemel (just a one-word yes or no is fine).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Okay, I will cut a short answer long (there are answers to both questions here so please read carefully, I wouldn't want you to miss them!), but I will summarise at the bottom and give the answers you specifically asked for just for you.

Hereford to Hemel Hempstead 'Rte Not Via London'

The routeing points have been identified by others as Hereford and Watford Junction, for simplicity I shall trust that this is true.

One of the route codes in the Routeing Guide identified by other members is 'London', for simplicity I shall trust that this is true. I shall concentrate on this and not follow other possible combinations, that may exist, in this post.

We need to define 'London', in this case it really does not matter what the definition is, but for simplicity and clarity I pick 'London Group'.

The Routeing Guide says we need to identify permitted routes from the origin (Hereford) to London [Group]. Other members have identified BD+LW+WW as the route code for Hereford to London [Group], for simplicity I shall trust that this is true.

BD+LW+WW offers a few choices for permitted routes, but I will pick the following as a sample:

Hereford-Newport-Swindon-Reading-Woking-Clapham Junction-London Waterloo

Hereford-Newport-Cheltenham-Swindon-Reading-Woking-Clapham Junction-London Waterloo

Hereford-Newport-Swindon-Reading-Hayes and Harlington-Clapham Junction-London Waterloo

Next we have to find the permitted routes from London [Group] to the destination (Watford Junction). Other members have identified EN as a route code for London [Group] to Watford Junction, for simplicity I shall trust that this is true.

EN offers only one choice, London Euston to Watford Junction.

The Routeing Guide now tells us to combine those permitted routes, that we have just found, to find a permitted route for the entire journey. I have picked the following for demonstrative purposes:

(Hereford-Swindon-Reading-Woking-Clapham Junction-London Waterloo)-(London Euston-Watford Junction)

However, we have a ticket routed 'Not Via London [Group]', so we cannot have a route via London [Group]. Both London Waterloo and London Euston are part of London Group so this route is not valid with a 'Not Via London [Group] ticket.

If you feel the need to change the definition of 'London' from London Group to Greater London, or London Terminals, or stations inside the M25, or even stations with London in the name, feel free to make the appropriate changes, but the net result is the same.

In summary

I would consider London to refer to London Group (though I can understand people wanting to use London Terminals) for the purposes of routeing, regardless of it being on the ticket or in the Routeing Guide.

I do not consider BD+LW+WW+EN to be a permitted route (by definition it is not a permitted route) or a [valid] map combination for the 'London' route code for Hereford to Hemel Hempstead (Watford Junction). It does not follow the instructions given in the Routeing Guide.

In it's simplest terms

Not Via London Group.

No.

Additional comment

I hope that this is categorical and simple enough for you to understand fully and that you read through what was written without skim-reading or glossing over bits you thought were 'inconvenient truths'.

If you believe any part of this calculation is wrong, please specify why, how you have come to that conclusion and where it is written that it is wrong (providing a link or photo attachment of the text).

 

[island]

I think we are at the stage where everything that can be said on the topic has been said. Some people believe one thing, and one person believes another. No party is going to be convinced they are wrong. Mods, any chance of closing the thread?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well, if you are sure they ("some people") can't prove where I am going wrong and won't concede either, I guess there is no choice, would be a shame to not let them ("some people") have a go though.

 

[34D]

I now believe that I understand hairyhandedfool point.

I don't know that any of us mere mortals can make a determination either way.

 

[MikeWh]

Just before they do ...

The Routeing guide in detail says:

Example: Portsmouth–Derby has a route LONDON in the Routeing Guide. Section C (the yellow pages) has the following routes for the journey Portsmouth–London:
Portsmouth Gp London Gp CW+LB CW+SC CW+SC+LB CW+SD+LB MW+WX PD WW

and London–Derby:
London Gp Derby Gp CE+LM MM

Combining every route Portsmouth–London with every route London–Derby gives the complete range of routes from which a permitted route may be picked:

CW+LB+LM+CE
CW+LB+MM
CW+SC+LM+CE
CW+SC+MM
CW+SC+LB+LM+CE
CW+SC+LB+MM
CW+SD+LB+LM+CE
CW+SD+LB+MM
MW+WX+LM+CE
MW+WX+MM
PD+LM+CE
PD+MM
WW+LM+CE
WW+MM

If combining maps gives a route code with a repeated map, for example
WX+LM+CS+LM, that would not be permitted because it breaks rule 5 of the route tracing procedure that a map once left cannot be returned to.

Routes created from the route LONDON in the yellow pages do not oblige you to change in London. For example Oakham to Brighton has the route LONDON which yields LB+MM. This allows the journey Oakham – Leicester – Bedford – Brighton, changing at Bedford and continuing via Thameslink to Brighton.

The line in Red contains the word route several times and it is clear that some of those instances is refering to route maps (or codes) and others to routes. Furthermore, the line in Green says that you do not have to change in London. I also cannot find anywhere where the general instruction saying that you change from one map to another at any common interchange point is over-ridden in the case of maps via London.

The bottom line is that the line in red only makes sense if Route != Route.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Now that is what I am talking about, thanks MikeWH. I still don't believe it states you can avoid London, but it is something to chew over.

 

[bnm]

"Routes created from the route LONDON in the yellow pages do not oblige you to change in London" If you are not obliged to 'change in London', then does it not follow that you can change elsewhere when you hold a ticket marked 'Not via London'?

It appears to say you can use LONDON and not change in 'London'. As there's no further definition of 'London' one must assume this means either 'London Group' or 'London Terminals'.

In neither of those does Clapham Junction appear, so the Hereford to Hemel Hempstead example given up thread (and the many more that journey planners and booking engines allow) is permissible using the routeing option 'LONDON' as listed in the yellow pages. So long as one sticks to the condition printed on the ticket taking 'Not via London' to mean you can't travel via either the London Group or London Terminals, then I see no reason why a route from the Routeing Guide using LONDON cannot be used at say Clapham Junction, or indeed anywhere which shares a (non London Group/Terminals) routeing point on the 'from' and 'to' maps.

 

[MikeWh]

Furthermore, this last bit:

Routes created from the route LONDON in the yellow pages do not oblige you to change in London. For example Oakham to Brighton has the route LONDON which yields LB+MM. This allows the journey Oakham – Leicester – Bedford – Brighton, changing at Bedford and continuing via Thameslink to Brighton.

LB and MM both share routeing point intersections at Bedford, West Hampstead and London and the instruction tells us you can switch at Bedford. This means it is saying that you don't have to get all the way to London before changing maps.

 

[yorkie]

I think it's pretty conclusive that the booking engines and, as far as I can tell all bar one person here, agree that "Not via London" simply either means "Not via London Terminals" or "Not via London Group" and that no further routeing restriction exists or is implied.

So I think that we'll all have to agree to disagree with the one person, and that person will have to agree to disagree with all of us. We aren't going to change his mind, and he isn't going to change our mind. So let's leave it at that!

I don't think much more can be added to this debate, which has gone round and round in circles!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mods, any chance of closing the thread?

Done.

However if anyone has anything significant to add that hasn't been stated before, please PM me and I will consider re-opening the thread (for example if someone ATOC is reading this and wishes to contribute, that would be worth re-opening it for).