Not via London

[johnnycache]

Thank you all I didn't expect such a lively debate - its interesting that if you take the next station which is Staplehurst the fare is less so Maidstone is not an appropriate routeing point and therefore use of London maps doesn't arise. The routeing from Staplehurst to Redhill is any permitted (without a cross-London marker).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You can use the via London maps, but not go via London Terminals by using LU/DLR or walking or interchanging at a station short of London Terminals (as appropriate to the journey).....

So I pick a route from Headcorn to London (remembering that I can't go via London) but instead of going to London directly, I get the tube for the last part into London, because that isn't going into London, then I go out on the tube from London, because that isn't going out of London, and join the train to Redhill later on a route from London (for which the ticket wouldn't be valid), remembering that routes via London are not valid on a not via London ticket.

Has that about covered it?

 

[colchesterken]

Anyone know the answer to this one ?..Is a ticket valid between 2 London stations valid for 0ne trip anyware in zone 1

Here is the story I wanted a trip on HS1 I had an appointment in Kensington so I used my zone 1 trip to S Ken intending to return to St Pan. on my OAP bus pass
The ticket would not work the gate the attendant let me through he did not complain but I got the Impression he thought I was trying it on.
Not wanting to do anything wrong again I asked at the ticket office at Liv St and was told the across London ticket ie from Liv st to St Pan was valid for one trip anyware in zone 1
Anyone know the correct answer

 

[yorkie]

So I pick a route from Headcorn to London (remembering that I can't go via London) but instead of going to London directly, I get the tube for the last part into London, because that isn't going into London, then I go out on the tube from London, because that isn't going out of London, and join the train to Redhill later on a route from London (for which the ticket wouldn't be valid), remembering that routes via London are not valid on a not via London ticket.

Has that about covered it?

Where would you be taking the tube to & from? I can't quite work out what route you have in mind.

Anyone know the answer to this one ?..Is a ticket valid between 2 London stations valid for 0ne trip anyware in zone 1

Here is the story I wanted a trip on HS1 I had an appointment in Kensington so I used my zone 1 trip to S Ken intending to return to St Pan. on my OAP bus pass
The ticket would not work the gate the attendant let me through he did not complain but I got the Impression he thought I was trying it on.
Not wanting to do anything wrong again I asked at the ticket office at Liv St and was told the across London ticket ie from Liv st to St Pan was valid for one trip anyware in zone 1
Anyone know the correct answer

It is one trip only, you can alight at any station on a reasonable route for the ticket you hold but you cannot re-enter.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/crossing_london.html

You can ‘break your transfer journey' and leave the Underground at any intermediate station, e.g. if you are travelling between Victoria and Euston you can exit at Oxford Circus. However, if you subsequently wish to continue your journey by Underground you will have to purchase another ticket.

 

[colchesterken]

Thanks Yorkie the point was the ticket was booked Colchester - Ashford Any route
so I had paid for a trip in zone 1 from liv St to st Pan ..could I as I thought go 1 trip anyware in zone 1. I went to kensington but the gate rejected my ticket
I went from kensington back to St Pan on my OAP bus pass

 

[yorkie]

Thanks Yorkie the point was the ticket was booked Colchester - Ashford Any route

via South Kensington? Pushing it a bit, but I suppose technically acceptable on the basis that the cross-London interchange could legitimately be Liverpool St to Victoria, and it would be acceptable to take the Circle line in either direction, including the long way round. Probably not one I'd try!

 

[John @ home]

Is there any official ATOC definition for Via/Not Via London anywhere?

Not exactly a definition, but fourteen years ago, ATOC told us that

The routes "London" and "not London" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

http://www.rossrail.co.uk/central/routeqn2.html

and that, where a ticket is routed "not London" if the only route given in the Guide is "London", you can use the ticket via London.

 

[RJ]

Not Via London is the most misunderstood and confusing term I've ever come across. It seems everyone has their own different definition (London map, London Stations group, London Terminals etc); indeed this was debated in another thread this weekend. Is there any official ATOC definition for Via/Not Via London anywhere?

Not Via London fares are something I have studied in great depth. I like them because virtually no-one actually knows what "London" means in that context. I've had many a TM tell me they'll penalise me for using a Not Via London ticket via London, but if they interpreted the ticket correctly, they would realise that what they're saying isn't actually the case.

If you piece together the bits contained in the NRG, the only logical conclusion is that is means choosing a valid route does not negotiate any station in the London Routeing Group.

I don't know whether or not you can use LONDON map combinations with a Not Via London ticket. It is something that needs to be clarified by ATOC. I wouldn't try it without consulting them first because it is open to interpretation. Past experience dictates that TOCs will attempt to penalise you if it could go either way, so I stand by my stance of only being creative using objectively written rules.

Personally I think the less said about Not Via London tickets, the better. They're almost always unregulated and can be changed to closer reflect the intended route. See New Southgate to Derby, then Oakleigh Park to Derby. One is routed Not Via London, the other Via Peterborough. They're both set at the same price, but the routing validity is not the same. I have my suspicions as to why this is the case and it's very much a case of letting sleeping dogs lie.

What about Croydon Stns - Hither Green, route: Not via London. The shortest route is via London Bridge. Therefore, you cannot use the shortest route excuse. We have to consider mapped routes. Therefore we can use the London maps but avoiding London Terminals which means walking between New Cross Gate and New Cross (which is a recognised interchange but does not form the shortest route). Do you disagree with that?

I think in this case you can complete the journey by travelling via Surrey Quays.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Where would you be taking the tube to & from? I can't quite work out what route you have in mind.....

Does it really matter what the exact route is? I'm try to understand how you think you can use a 'Rte Not Via London' ticket via London.

Is it like having a ticket from Leeds to Sheffield routed 'Not Via Doncaster' and then going to Bentley, taking a bus (or taxi I guess) directly to Conisbrough and then carrying on to Sheffield? Would that be okay because I haven't actually gone through Doncaster?

 

[island]

Does it really matter what the exact route is? I'm try to understand how you think you can use a 'Rte Not Via London' ticket via London.

Is it like having a ticket from Leeds to Sheffield routed 'Not Via Doncaster' and then going to Bentley, taking a bus (or taxi I guess) directly to Conisbrough and then carrying on to Sheffield? Would that be okay because I haven't actually gone through Doncaster?

In the yellow pages of the routeing guides, the term LONDON as a permitted map between X and Y means "combine the maps from X to London with the maps from London to Y".

On a ticket, the route NOT VIA LONDON means "you may not travel via, or change at, a station that is a London terminal" (or perhaps that is in the London routeing group).

These are not mutually exclusive. If you can use the maps generated by the first option and abide by the second restriction, you have a valid route.

Your interpretation is that using the London maps necessarily involves "travelling via London", which it does not.

I am not impressed by the fact that you repeatedly dodge questions and posts which show up your faulty logic. But no doubt this post will be dismissed as "putting words in your mouth" or "yorkie can answer for himself".

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The Routeing guide is specific, you pick a route to London and a route from London (The Routeing Guide in Detail, page F9, as quoted by me on page 1 of this very thread).

Explain how you can go to London and from London without ever going to or from London? It's a simple question that I don't believe anyone has really explained yet.

Please explain what questions I have "repeatedly" dodged?

Where is the faulty logic? Can ruling out a route via London because the ticket is 'Rte Not Via London' be faulty logic?

What is your problem with me wanting Yorkie to answer a question aimed at Yorkie which was posed in a response to a post by Yorkie?

Why can Yorkie make out that I say one thing when I don't, and that's fine, and yet I have to defend everything I say, and even be attacked for that?

 

[island]

Right, I'll have a go.

The Routeing guide is specific, you pick a route to London and a route from London (The Routeing Guide in Detail, page F9, as quoted by me on page 1 of this very thread).

Explain how you can go to London and from London without ever going to or from London? It's a simple question that I don't believe anyone has really explained yet.

To repeat the quote for convenience:

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.

Suppose we are travelling from A to B (which are both routeing points), and LONDON is the only permitted route. (You can assume if you wish that via a London terminal would be the shortest route, but that's not important.)

1. I look up the permitted routes from A to London Group (let's say they are maps AB and AC).
2. I look up the permitted routes from London Group to B (let's say they are AD and AE).
3. I combine any route in (1) with any route in (2), giving me AB+AD, AB+AE, AC+AD, and AC+AE.

This is a way of working out the maps to use.

I then apply any route restrictions on the ticket. If the route restriction is NOT VIA LONDON, I must not use a London terminal station.

The appearance of LONDON in the right-hand columns of the yellow pages does not mandate travelling via a London terminal. It represents a shorthand rather than spelling out all the map combinations implied. You said "you pick a route to London and a route from London", but in fact the correct way of stating this would be "you pick a map from A to London and a map from London to B".

And before you dismiss this as theoretical, posts 6, 9, and 12 contain concrete examples with named stations. If you disagree with my logic, please specify the permitted routes for the journeys named in those posts. Would the railway offer tickets which can't possibly be used?

Please explain what questions I have "repeatedly" dodged?

You have not repeatedly dodged any one question, but you have dodged the following two once each:

Hairyhandedfool: What about Croydon Stns to Barking? There is a route +Not via London fare, but the only mapped routes are via London Group. What route do you suggest passengers take, given your logic?

Clearly the intended route is to use the London maps but avoid London Terminals, e.g. by changing at Canada Water & West Ham (using the Jubilee Line) or by changing at Shadwell & Limehouse (using the DLR). Do you really disagree with that?

That is a question better suited to those who set the rules, I can only follow them.

What about Croydon Stns - Hither Green, route: Not via London. The shortest route is via London Bridge. Therefore, you cannot use the shortest route excuse. We have to consider mapped routes. Therefore we can use the London maps but avoiding London Terminals which means walking between New Cross Gate and New Cross (which is a recognised interchange but does not form the shortest route). Do you disagree with that?

Perhaps, instead of bringing up new situations, you could answer the question asked of you?

Where is the faulty logic? Can ruling out a route via London because the ticket is 'Rte Not Via London' be faulty logic?

You are ruling out more than a route via London; you are ruling out entire maps.

What is your problem with me wanting Yorkie to answer a question aimed at Yorkie which was posed in a response to a post by Yorkie?

This is a discussion forum. Users are welcome to discuss posts, whether or not they are addressed to them.

Why can Yorkie make out that I say one thing when I don't, and that's fine, and yet I have to defend everything I say, and even be attacked for that?

I'm not sure which post you're referring to, but I am intending to discuss your posts and posting style and I'm sorry if you've taken that as an attack.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Suppose we are travelling from A to B (which are both routeing points), and LONDON is the only permitted route. (You can assume if you wish that via a London terminal would be the shortest route, but that's not important.)

1. I look up the permitted routes from A to London Group (let's say they are maps AB and AC).
2. I look up the permitted routes from London Group to B (let's say they are AD and AE).
3. I combine any route in (1) with any route in (2), giving me AB+AD, AB+AE, AC+AD, and AC+AE.

This is a way of working out the maps to use.

I then apply any route restrictions on the ticket. If the route restriction is NOT VIA LONDON, I must not use a London terminal station.

The appearance of LONDON in the right-hand columns of the yellow pages does not mandate travelling via a London terminal. It represents a shorthand rather than spelling out all the map combinations implied. You said "you pick a route to London and a route from London", but in fact the correct way of stating this would be "you pick a map from A to London and a map from London to B".....

The Routeing Guide, as you have kindly re-quoted, states you find "the permitted routes" to London, not the permitted map(s). It follows this with stating that you find "the permitted routes" from London, not the map(s). So you must find a route that goes to and from London, in other words, via London. What was the ticket routeing?....

....And before you dismiss this as theoretical, posts 6, 9, and 12 contain concrete examples with named stations. If you disagree with my logic, please specify the permitted routes for the journeys named in those posts. Would the railway offer tickets which can't possibly be used?....

The job of a ticket office clerk is to offer the cheapest ticket for the journey being made, not to offer the cheapest ticket between origin and destination. If a passenger wishes to go via London, the 'Not Via London' should not be offered as the cheapest fare, unless by some bizarre quirk of fate, the fare via London is the same price.

Post 6 > Where do you get to London, as required by the Routeing Guide Instructions (and Routeing Guide in Detail) for using the 'London' option? Is Stratford in London? Given the routeing of the ticket, and that you may have just said Stratford is London, how do you avoid going via London at the same time?

Post 9 > The post confirms that there are routes avoiding London that a 'Not Via London' fare could be valid on (though not as a mapped route). One of these may be the shortest route, I cannot check without a copy of the NRT. If one is the shortest route there is a valid route that does not go via London.

Post 12 > I have already stated how this may be a valid by a route other than via London on page two of this thread, I'm not sure what else I can add to that without a copy of the NRT.

....You have not repeatedly dodged any one question, but you have dodged the following two once each:...

The first question was answered, admittedly the answer was not immediate and it was not a concrete answer as I could not verify the mileages. I then asked a question of Yorkie which he did not answer initially. He responded with the second question you highlight, it was only after this (and a prompt from me) that he answered my question (perhaps I should claim he has not answered questions repeatedly?). Granted I have not yet returned to this, but one question is not "repeatedly" dodging questions, infact I could debate the use of 'repeatedly' when you can only give two examples.

....You are ruling out more than a route via London; you are ruling out entire maps....

I have ruled out any route via London because the route restriction is 'not via London'. This has been done using the instructions provided in the Routeing Guide.

....This is a discussion forum. Users are welcome to discuss posts, whether or not they are addressed to them....

I am merely saying that if I ask Yorkie a question I should expect Yorkie to answer it. Of course people can have their say on a topic, but just as I would not want "words put in my mouth", I would want an answer from Yorkie if the question was directed at him, particularly when only Yorkie is in a position to answer categorically. If my post came across 'heavy handed' I can only apologise, but it was to reinforce that I wanted Yorkie to answer, not to find out what someone else thinks Yorkie meant.

....I'm not sure which post you're referring to, but I am intending to discuss your posts and posting style and I'm sorry if you've taken that as an attack.

The post below was from page two, from Yorkie, you can check the context for yourself if you wish, no-one challenged it (except me of course).

The shortest route should not involve a walk or other mode of transport, though London Terminals does appear to be an exception to that rule (understandably) where the mileage is considered zero between termini. But you can't use that argument with avoiding London. You are just looking for excuses to claim the ticket is valid by other methods.

I had not mentioned walking, I'm still not clear what is meant by "other modes of transport", and I wasn't looking for excuses for anything (what have I got to find excuses for?). I raised these points, but I don't believe there was a response to the points made.

So, he can say all that and no-one says anything, yet I just have to breathe and I have to justify it? Maybe you weren't trying to attack me with your post, only you could know that really, but I'm sure you can understand how it comes across given the previous posts, whether you saw them at the time or not.

 

[yorkie]

Post 6 > Where do you get to London, as required by the Routeing Guide Instructions (and Routeing Guide in Detail) for using the 'London' option? Is Stratford in London? Given the routeing of the ticket, and that you may have just said Stratford is London, how do you avoid going via London at the same time?

Stratford is in London, after all the name as printed on tickets is Stratford London to avoid confusion with Stratford U Avon. However it is not a member of London Terminals, so when a ticket is routed "Not via London" then going via Stratford is permitted if Stratford is on a permitted route on an "Any Permitted" ticket, as "Not via London" means "All permitted routes except those that pass through London Terminals". The same applies to stations such as Clapham Junction.

There are several of us who all believe that "Not via London" is a restriction that applies to routes that would otherwise be permitted on an "Any Permitted" ticket and simply means not via London Terminals, you are welcome to disagree with all of us but I don't see a need for each of us to answer individually to every detail when we all agree with each other.

As for your question regarding what "other modes of transport" refers to, you tell me, as it was you who was claiming that the shortest route could be a route other than a route wholly by rail. But I am not really interested in that as the shortest route discussion does not need to come into this, as the question is whether a route restriction can mean no mapped routes exist for certain tickets and clearly the answer has to be "no!" as it would be absurd and illogical to infer that could be the case.

 

[RJ]

Stratford is in London, after all the name as printed on tickets is Stratford London to avoid confusion with Stratford U Avon. However it is not a member of London Terminals, so when a ticket is routed "Not via London" then going via Stratford is permitted if Stratford is on a permitted route on an "Any Permitted" ticket, as "Not via London" means "All permitted routes except those that pass through London Terminals". The same applies to stations such as Clapham Junction.

"Not Via London" means not via the London Routeing Group as shown in the Group Stations document. There is a distinction to be made between the Station Group and the Group Stations where London is concerned.

A Queenstown Road to Maryland ticket routed +Not Via London is valid via Vauxhall, which is a London Terminal.

 

[yorkie]

"Not Via London" means not via the London Routeing Group as shown in the Group Stations document. There is a distinction to be made between the Station Group and the Group Stations where London is concerned.

A Queenstown Road to Maryland ticket routed +Not Via London is valid via Vauxhall, which is a London Terminal.

Well, for the purposes of this discussion regarding whether or not mapped routes can be used for Not via London tickets, it doesn't really matter if it means not via the London routeing Group or the London Terminals stations Group. The only difference, as you say, is Vauxhall, and I had not previously considered the possibility of it making any difference, however your example is an interesting one.

ATOC/RSP had previously stated it referred to the station group, not the routeing group, and in the Birmingham area, that is certainly what it is intended to mean.

However, whichever it means, it will very rarely make a difference.

 

[RJ]

ATOC/RSP had previously stated it referred to the station group, not the routeing group, and in the Birmingham area, that is certainly what it is intended to mean.

However, whichever it means, it will very rarely make a difference.

That sets a bad precedent. Perhaps that person at ATOC should try to explain why you can buy a Not London ticket for travel to or via a London Terminal station.

Normally I detest the kind of pointless nitpicking sometimes seen on here where the motive is solely point scoring. In this case, because there is a material difference between the London routing and station groups, they should not be used interchangably, especially in a thread where quite a specific education is being sought. The magnitude of the difference isn't the point.

You know how I do. The level of attention to detail I pay is a fundamental function of not only saving money on tickets, but as an indemnity should any TOCs incorrectly claim that I owe them money for a new ticket.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Worth pointing out that the schema for the electronic data feed that ATOC supplies to booking engines allows a routeing restriction to refer either to an individual station, or a routeing guide group, but never a fares group. In the case of the NOT BIRMINGHAM fares that are intended to be used via Aston, the electronic data feed still clearly indicates that the routeing restriction refers to the Birmingham routeing group, which is why these fares don't show up in booking engines (they interpret them as unusable).

But I think it has long been established on here that one hand at ATOC doesn't know what the other is doing; no surprise there.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Stratford is in London, after all the name as printed on tickets is Stratford London to avoid confusion with Stratford U Avon. However it is not a member of London Terminals, so when a ticket is routed "Not via London" then going via Stratford is permitted if Stratford is on a permitted route on an "Any Permitted" ticket, as "Not via London" means "All permitted routes except those that pass through London Terminals". The same applies to stations such as Clapham Junction.

There are several of us who all believe that "Not via London" is a restriction that applies to routes that would otherwise be permitted on an "Any Permitted" ticket and simply means not via London Terminals, you are welcome to disagree with all of us but I don't see a need for each of us to answer individually to every detail when we all agree with each other....

So you believe that London, as far as the Routeing Guide is concerned, contains stations which are neither in London Group nor London Terminals, but the routeing restriction on the ticket only includes stations that are London Terminals? May I inquire how you came about these definitions?

As for your question regarding what "other modes of transport" refers to, you tell me, as it was you who was claiming that the shortest route could be a route other than a route wholly by rail. But I am not really interested in that as the shortest route discussion does not need to come into this, as the question is whether a route restriction can mean no mapped routes exist for certain tickets and clearly the answer has to be "no!" as it would be absurd and illogical to infer that could be the case.

I mentioned that you might be able to use LUL or DLR services, but you used the term "other methods of transport", so only you can say what it means. Or perhaps you don't know what you are saying?

We know tickets can have no mapped routes, I fail to see why a routeing restriction should be any different.

 

[Oscar]

I believe that via/not via London in the context of the context of routeing refers to via/not via London Routeing Group, as London Routeing Group is used in the Routeing Guide which determines Permitted Routes and therefore it is logical that this is what the route restriction is referring to.

When a mapped route is given as London, this means a map which covers point A to London Routeing Group and London Routeing Group to point B. Routeing Guide maps often overlap in various places, however, so it may be possible to follow these maps without travelling via London Routeing Group.

The normal process for finding Permitted Routes via/not via a specific location is to find all the Permitted Routes and then eliminate the routes which do not fit with the restriction. Are you suggesting that maps should be eliminated which could go via a specific location even if those maps can be used avoiding that location? York to Middlesbrough is valid via map TP (York - Darlington - Middlesbrough / York - Yarm - Middlesbrough). Do you believe that this is not a valid mapped route for "Not via Darlington" tickets because it is possible to go via Darlington on this map? Or alternatively do you believe that "London" in the Routeing Guide Section C is not a shorthand for two maps which join at London (often among other places) and instead compels travel via London?

 

[yorkie]

So you believe that London, as far as the Routeing Guide is concerned, contains stations which are neither in London Group nor London Terminals, but the routeing restriction on the ticket only includes stations that are London Terminals? May I inquire how you came about these definitions?

"Not via London" does not mean you can't go via any station with London in the name or any station in Greater London you know! It either means "not via London Terminals" or it means "not via London Group" there is very little difference in either case with London (Vauxhall being the only issue - and I am grateful to RJ for finding an example that tests that!) but as for which it means, you can ask ATOC for their definition, but ATOC have given us differing answers (see post above by Indigo2!) however for the purposes of the original question it does not matter.

Going back to your Stratford London question, there is absolutely no doubt that a "not via London" ticket is valid there!

I mentioned that you might be able to use LUL or DLR services, but you used the term "other methods of transport", so only you can say what it means. Or perhaps you don't know what you are saying?

It's you who is saying it, I do not know what you are saying. As I said before, the shortest route is the shortest route by rail, but our opinion is that mapped routes do not become invalid for the reasons you state anyway as that would be illogical.

We know tickets can have no mapped routes, I fail to see why a routeing restriction should be any different.

I think you will have to agree to disagree with us on that then!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Going back to your Stratford London question, there is absolutely no doubt that a "not via London" ticket is valid there!

Wait, so now Stratford isn't in London? Now I'm confused, is it in London or not?

It's you who is saying it, I do not know what you are saying. As I said before, the shortest route is the shortest route by rail, but our opinion is that mapped routes do not become invalid for the reasons you state anyway as that would be illogical.

The proof is in the thread yorkie, you can't deny it, you said "other methods of transport" first, I have only ever inquired as to what you mean by that. You can't seem to tell me so I must presume you do not know what you are saying, a sad day indeed.

 

[island]

Wait, so now Stratford isn't in London? Now I'm confused, is it in London or not?

Stratford is in Greater London but is not a London terminal. You can go up to the booking office at Stratford and ask for a ticket to London, and you will get one from Stratford to London Terminals.

What this all boils down to is the following question:

Does the route restriction "NOT VIA LONDON" mean (1) "You must not travel via, nor change at, a London terminal station", (2) "You must not travel via, nor change at, a station in the London routeing group", or (3) "You must not use any map combination generated by the entry LONDON in the yellow routeing guide pages"?

(Or perhaps some combination of these.)

My understanding is that I think it is (1), yorkie thinks it is (2), and hairyhandedfool thinks it is (3). Is this understanding correct?

 

[yorkie]

My understanding is that I think it is (1), yorkie thinks it is (2), and hairyhandedfool thinks it is (3). Is this understanding correct?

(1) and (2) are effectively the same thing with respect to this discussion, and will have the same effect in the vast majority of cases.

Whether "not via London" or "not via Birmingham" means "not via London Terminals" and "not via Birmingham Stns" or whether it in fact means "not via London Routeing Group" and "not via Birmingham Routeing Group" respectively, is something only ATOC can tell us. However as Indigo2 says ATOC are not consistent on that point. Whatever ATOC say, we can find inconsistencies. I couldn't say for sure which is more correct than the other.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....My understanding is that I think it is (1), yorkie thinks it is (2), and hairyhandedfool thinks it is (3). Is this understanding correct?

(3) is right, but quite simplistic, I will try to explain.

The Routeing Guide says that if a map combination is noted as 'London' you find the permitted routes to London and the Permitted route from London and put them together to make a series of routes via London.

A ticket that is routed 'not via London' obviously could not be used via London (excepting where a cheaper valid fare exists of course), so any route via London can be ruled out. As all routes created through the map combination 'London' will go into London and come out, all of those routes would not be available to a 'rte Not via London' ticket because they go via London.

So I'm not saying you can't work them all out, but that 'Not Via London is ruling out routes created by 'London' because they all go via London, so looking at them is a waste of time.

I'm still interested to know how yorkie thinks Stratford could be 'London' in terms of routeing, but also not 'London' in terms of routeing.

 

[johnnycache]

In the question that i originally put i asked the membership whether a ticket from Headcorn to Redhill route not via London was valid via the following route:

Headcorn, Tonbridge, Orpington, Bromley South, Beckenham Junction, Crystal Palace, Norwood Junction, East Croydon, Redhill

I think the answer from Yorkie would be "yes you can since you have not travelled via a London station (either a London Terminal or a member of London Routeing Group)"

I'm not sure what the answer from HHF would be and would like to know...
he seems to be saying that no journey is possible using a combination of a Maidstone to London and a London to Redhill map that doesn't involve travelling via a London station....

Maidstone to London maps LK, LK+SL, LL, LR+SL, NK
London to Redhill maps LB, LB+SL, SL

Map LK allows Maidstone to Crystal Palace via Bromley South, Beckenham Junction etc
Map LB allows Crystal Palace to Redhill via Croydon

So can i legitimately combine the maps in this way ?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The 'London' option requires a route to London and a route from London, therefore a ticket routed 'Not via London' cannot be valid via the London option because the ticket would prohibit travel on any permitted route that goes via London.

The only options for a Headcorn to Redhill 'Rte Not Via London' ticket are the permitted routes allowed by map LK, either from Maidstone or Tonbridge.

 

[MikeWh]

I suspect that the difference of opinion here comes from the lazy use of terms in the Routeing Guide in detail.

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.

My reading of this is that where they talk about permitted routes in this section they actually mean permitted route codes (i.e. maps). Permitted routes are found by tracing routes on each map in turn without doubling back or using a map more than once. After you have extrapolated all the permitted routes from the various map combinations you no longer have a concept of the individual maps, so the last statement (in bold) does not make sense. For that reason I believe that they mean route codes rather than routes. Once you add together the combinations of maps you are then permitted to follow the usual rules allowing any common interchange point to be used.

 

[sheff1]

So can i legitimately combine the maps in this way ?

There is a clear difference of opinion on what is, after all, merely a discussion forum, open to all. As far as I am aware, noone's opinion on here has any official status.

Have you discussed the validity of the fare in question with South Eastern (the fare setters) and/or ATOC (the Routeing Guide owners) ? What is their take on the matter ?

 

[IrishDave]

My reading of this is that where they talk about permitted routes in this section they actually mean permitted route codes (i.e. maps). Permitted routes are found by tracing routes on each map in turn without doubling back or using a map more than once. After you have extrapolated all the permitted routes from the various map combinations you no longer have a concept of the individual maps, so the last statement (in bold) does not make sense. For that reason I believe that they mean route codes rather than routes. Once you add together the combinations of maps you are then permitted to follow the usual rules allowing any common interchange point to be used.

I agree entirely. Indeed, combining the map codes rather than the routes is exactly what is done in the worked Portsmouth-Derby example immediately following the aforementioned rules on page 9 of section F of the Routeing Guide. Furthermore, it says:

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.

While the example happens to pass through London, the wording of the first sentence seems to be unambiguous (except for the inevitable discussion of what "London" means).