Plans to restrict outboundary Travelcards valid routes to match those to London Terms

[319321]

Is anyone else aware of plans to restrict the valid routes for outboundary Travelcards to match those between the origin and London Terminals?

 

[cav1975]

Is anyone else aware of plans to restrict the valid routes for outboundary Travelcards to match those between the origin and London Terminals?

Could you explain what you mean, please?

 

[Romilly]

It is considered by many on this forum that a Travelcard from a station outside the Zones (and to some or all of the zones) can be used to travel from the origin station to any point on the Zone 6 outer boundary (and then freely used within the zones) and then used to travel back from any point on the Zone 6 outer boundary to the origin station.

I know nothing of any such plans as are mentioned by the OP, but presumably the OP has heard a suggestion that you look at the permitted routes from the origin station to London, see where they cross the Zone 6 outer boundary, and only allow a journey from the origin station to one of those crossing points, unlimited travel within the zones, and a journey back from one of those crossing points to the origin station.

All that presupposes a travelcard to Zones 1 to 6 (or 2/3/4/5 to 6). It needs to be read with the necessary modifications in the case of, for example, a travelcard to Zones 1 to 9.

 

[MikeWh]

It is considered by many on this forum that a Travelcard from a station outside the Zones (and to some or all of the zones) can be used to travel from the origin station to any point on the Zone 6 outer boundary (and then freely used within the zones) and then used to travel back from any point on the Zone 6 outer boundary to the origin station.

With the small caveat that the permitted route between those stations must not enter zones 1-6 before the chosen boundary station.

All that presupposes a travelcard to Zones 1 to 6 (or 2/3/4/5 to 6). It needs to be read with the necessary modifications in the case of, for example, a travelcard to Zones 1 to 9.

And therein lies one of the problems. Where the travelcard does not include inner zones you reduce the possible uses. A Watford North to zones 4-6 travelcard would be useless to get to Hendon if you weren't allowed to use the line via St Albans to get to Elstree and Borehamwood.

 

[34D]

So you mean that a Potters Bar travel card might no longer be valid via Birmingham and Reading, to intercept zone 6 at West Drayton?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And therein lies one of the problems. Where the travelcard does not include inner zones you reduce the possible uses. A Watford North to zones 4-6 travelcard would be useless to get to Hendon if you weren't allowed to use the line via St Albans to get to Elstree and Borehamwood.

That of course is a fair point. But going from Milton Keynes Central it would not be in the faintest bit reasonable to insist on entering the Zones via the Brighton mainline, say. And if people are taking the mick by doing things like that, I'm not surprised someone somewhere is asking how we stop it.

Back in the day we had Reasonable Routes. Your example would be reasonable, but MKC to West Croydon via Sevenoaks, or some such silly example, clearly isn't. But we move onto Permitted Routes and it becomes so.

I suppose you could codify it in a way that handled both scenarios. Perhaps it could be that the use of a 1-6 Travelcard may follow any Permitted Route to the station of your choice in the Zones, but that that route must, while not inside the Zones, be one that would be Permitted were it a point to point ticket to that station. So if I chose Elstree and Borehamwood, for example, it might (I haven't checked) be acceptable to go via Bletchley-Bedford. But if I chose Caterham, say, going half way round the South East to enter the Zones to the south of London is plainly ridiculous and would not be Permitted.

The other option is explicit routeing printed on all outboundary Travelcards, I suppose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you mean that a Potters Bar travel card might no longer be valid via Birmingham and Reading, to intercept zone 6 at West Drayton?

That is a fine example of an utterly ridiculous use-case that some are arguing should be allowed. From Potters Bar, sensible, reasonable routes to West Drayton all go via London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another option, thinking on, might be a variant of the Fares Rule. So, you could say that if a relevant point to point return or season ticket[1] to the first station inside the boundary is more expensive than the outboundary Travelcard, it is not allowed as a route.

[1] This would be a Season, Super Off Peak, Off Peak or Anytime Day Return depending on the type of Travelcard in use.

 

[319321]

This is what Paul Wilkes, from Transport Focus wrote in June as part of a reply to a complaint I made:

To confirm, One-day Travelcards have no routeing shown on them (although this is being addressed by ATOC) but are understood to take the routeing for other tickets on the flow to London Terminals. In the case of Rochford to London Terminals, only one route applies: via Wickford to Liverpool Street. In general terms, therefore, the route via Southend and Upminster, even though shorter in mileage, is not valid. Rail Settlement Plan (RSP) at ATOC confirms this. RSP says:

“First of all shortest route is irrelevant as there is no railway track between Southend Victoria and Southend Central. So the shortest route by rail to the Travelcard boundary from Rochford is the relevant measure. This I believe is via the only routeing point for Rochford which is Wickford. Subsequently via Shenfield to the first boundary station at Harold Wood. If [the complainant] wants to use the Travelcard to get to Upminster [he] would have needed to change at Romford to get the service via Emerson Park.

The map permissions for Rochford are therefore via its Routeing Point Wickford to London (G01) routeing point the only map permissions are on map CO which must include travel via Shenfield>Romford>Stratford to London.

That is what Transport Focus were arguing, though I can see from their communications with Rail Settlement Plan that Rail Settlement Plan never suggested that Travelcards are only valid using the routes to London Terminals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is what Transport Focus are arguing, though I can see from their communications with Rail Settlement Plan that Rail Settlement Plan never suggested that Travelcards are only valid using the routes to London Terminals.

So, hang on a minute, Transport Focus are arguing for ATOC/RSP to make something *stricter*? Why? That seems not quite their remit?

 

[319321]

Thats one of my points to them Neil!
=======
Note: I changed the word 'are' in 'are arguing' to 'were' as it better reflects the current situation with them.

 

[trevmonk]

In January I enquired of ATOC whether an outboundary Travelcard from Park Street (same line as the Watford North example above) would be valid via St Albans City to Elstree on the boundary of Zone 6. This is in addition to its other routeing to Zone 6 at Hatch End via Watford Junction.

After a long consideration by the Routeing and Fares team and an ATOC consultation with GTR I received the following brief reply:

"I am pleased to advise that you would be free to travel in this manner should you wish."

Ominously this was followed a couple of hours later with the qualification:

"Further to my email, we would like to advise that whilst this route is currently permissible we do not intend for it to be used in that way - the intention of the train operating companies would be to look to close this loophole by September."

September is here.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The September fares change had the route of such tickets changed to VIA WATFORD JUNC
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you mean that a Potters Bar travel card might no longer be valid via Birmingham and Reading, to intercept zone 6 at West Drayton?

That never was valid - no valid routes for Potters Bar to West Drayton pass through Birmingham or Reading. This absolutely is not about using any physically possible route to the boundary of zone 6; but a reasonable one (where in this case permitted is an approximation for reasonable). If all the permitted routes enter the zones away from the chosen destination, as is the case for Potters Bar to West Drayton, then no extra rights are conferred. This rule doesn't permit abuses like your example, but permits things like an Oxford travelcard being valid to the Chiltern line stations via the Chiltern line or to the Great Western line stations via the Great Western line. This provides an anomaly of course in the case of the Abbey line where LM fares are priced far lower than TL ones

 

[Bletchleyite]

The September fares change had the route of such tickets changed to VIA WATFORD JUNC

I get the feeling this is how ATOC are generally sorting out ridiculous routes - going through and putting in one or two midpoints effectively stop you doing anything silly. It does to me make more sense than further obfuscating the Routeing Guide with easements.

 

[trevmonk]

The September fares change had the route of such tickets changed to VIA WATFORD JUNC

Which proves that St Albans commuters could have been saving hundreds of pounds a year for the last two years by buying Watford North Travelcards, despite First Capital Connect claiming the loophole had been closed in 2013 after the infamous court case.

The hastily added Routeing Guide easement 700434 was irrelevant for Travelcards due to the shortest route to Zone 6 at Elstree being via St Albans. The way they have belatedly fixed it is by adding the 'via Watford Junction' restriction.

Although London Midland are setting the new 'via Watford Junction' fares Govia Thameslink have taken over the pricing for the Any Permitted Travelcards, - and are not surprisingly making them exactly the same as tickets from St Albans!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although London Midland are setting the new 'via Watford Junction' fares Govia Thameslink have taken over the pricing for the Any Permitted Travelcards, - and are not surprisingly making them exactly the same as tickets from St Albans!

I don't see this as unreasonable. In the end, some routes are justified as being more expensive than others (if only to avoid anomalies). I don't mind being told (within reason) the price for what I want to do is higher than normal, I just mind being told I can't do it when it actually makes sense for my journey, or being required to split tickets.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The hastily added Routeing Guide easement 700434 was irrelevant for Travelcards due to the shortest route to Zone 6 at Elstree being via St Albans. The way they have belatedly fixed it is by adding the 'via Watford Junction' restriction.

The easements also later stated that tickets from the Abbey Line to Elstree, Hendon, Mill Hill, etc, were not valid via St Albans City. That second easement was added in about February, presumably after your question.

But adding VIA WATFORD JUNCTION is the best way of permanently resolving the issue, as it now allows the ANY PERMITTED ticket to be used via SAC, rather than having to split tickets at St Albans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The easements also later stated that tickets from the Abbey Line to Elstree, Hendon, Mill Hill, etc, were not valid via St Albans City. That second easement was added in about February, presumably after your question.

Which was silly, as it's obviously a sensible way to go.

But adding VIA WATFORD JUNCTION is the best way of permanently resolving the issue, as it now allows the ANY PERMITTED ticket to be used via SAC, rather than having to split tickets at St Albans.

Indeed. The vast majority of these routeing issues need solving by adding routed fares rather than shouting at people for wanting to travel on perfectly reasonable routes.

There are even worse ones - at least you can travel via Euston every day. Tickets from Ormskirk to Preston have no permitted routes at all on Sunday - this is ludicrous. The current fares set need to be routed RUFFORD and the Any Permitted modified to allow travel via Liverpool with a higher fare to avoid anomalies (I suspect making them the same as the Ormskirk to Wigan fare would work). Similarly there is no ticket from the Merseyrail Northern Line to London via Preston - why on earth not? If people want to do it, charge them an appropriate fare for it, don't sit there telling them they can't.

 

[Be3G]

It would certainly be a great shame if outboundary travelcards' permitted routes were limited to those with a destination of London Terminals rather than allowing the user a choice of any station with the zones of the travelcard held. However, I can see why ATOC might want to do it as it does create some significant anomalies in places, not quite on the scale of Potters Bar to West Drayton via Birmingham but still technically allowing routes that should attract a considerably higher fare.

If ATOC's method will be to simply add via points to the tickets' route fields where these anomalies exist then that wouldn't be too bad, but I do hope there isn't a blanket rule change to London-Terminals-only.

 

[30907]

With the small caveat that the permitted route between those stations must not enter zones 1-6 before the chosen boundary station.



And therein lies one of the problems. Where the travelcard does not include inner zones you reduce the possible uses. A Watford North to zones 4-6 travelcard would be useless to get to Hendon if you weren't allowed to use the line via St Albans to get to Elstree and Borehamwood.

Is it not possible by bus within the Zones?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would certainly be a great shame if outboundary travelcards' permitted routes were limited to those with a destination of London Terminals rather than allowing the user a choice of any station with the zones of the travelcard held. However, I can see why ATOC might want to do it as it does create some significant anomalies in places, not quite on the scale of Potters Bar to West Drayton via Birmingham but still technically allowing routes that should attract a considerably higher fare.

So, if people evidently want to take those routes, why not allow them to do so at an appropriately higher fare?

There seems at the moment to be a growing case of "thou shalt take only the routes that the railway wants thou to". And it grates. Just charge an appropriate fare for the routes people want to take, and stop trying to discourage them from taking them. Everyone has their own reason to want to differ a bit from the norm at times.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Perhaps it could be that the use of a 1-6 Travelcard may follow any Permitted Route to the station of your choice in the Zones, but that that route must, while not inside the Zones, be one that would be Permitted were it a point to point ticket to that station.

Until I saw this thread I had always thought that outboundary Travelcards were already thus restricted...

 

[Starmill]

Because the rule is that you take permitted routes from your origin to a boundary station where you have not yet crossed the boundary, the current system seems to work just fine to me. There aren't any cases where big abuses are possible because of the caveat Mikewh already helpfully posted.

It's no more reasonable to enter the zones on an Outboundary travelcard from the West Midlands at West Drayton or West Ruislip than it is at Hatch End.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There seems at the moment to be a growing case of "thou shalt take only the routes that the railway wants thou to". And it grates. Just charge an appropriate fare for the routes people want to take, and stop trying to discourage them from taking them. Everyone has their own reason to want to differ a bit from the norm at times.

I think the problem is the TOCs are simply being reactionary. They don't actually care what you do until they notice someone doing something that saves money. Then they go over the top and stop people from doing things in the more sensible fashion. If someone wants to get from Garston (Herts) to Hendon, by train is a very sensible way to do that. You would think that the premium would apply for going via Central London wouldn't you? But nope, apparently it applies for walking across St Albans instead!

 

[bb21]

So, hang on a minute, Transport Focus are arguing for ATOC/RSP to make something *stricter*? Why? That seems not quite their remit?

You haven't dealt with them quite enough times, have you?

When Transport Focus haven't got a clue, they will simply fob off the passenger, because it is easier. I will go so far as to say that even when presented with evidence of the industry's mistakes, they still don't have a clue how to resolve it because they are toothless. If a TOC tells them to bugger off there is not a lot they can do.

IMO these days it is far more important knowing some contacts in the industry than relying on that shower of clueless idiots.

 

[LexyBoy]

Not a surprising move, but a shame as I'm sure it will affect some people who have a good reason to use a Travelcard on a route off the London Terminal route. In particular, there are a lot of journeys from Surrey/Sussex/Kent for which a Z4-6 TC (for example) would be well suited but apparently invalidated by this. Looks like the usual "reduce the routes passengers can use 'cos we can't be bothered to work out revenue allocation properly".

Personally, I travel to Surbiton somewhat regularly - often on a Travelcard from Reading if I'm planning further travel. The most convenient routes would no longer be allowed, leaving only the most crowded route via central London as a reasonable option. With the price of inboundary TCs having been massively hiked, a Z1-6 + point to point ticket becomes a lot more expensive.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's just yet another case of ATOC bodging something to fix a problem that doesn't really exist, rather than dealing with the small number of anomalies properly.

Nobody can argue that the shortest journey from Potters Bar to West Drayton is via Birmingham and the moon, therefore nobody can really argue a Potters Bar outboundary Travelcard is valid that way.

The biggest issue has been St Albans, and that has finally been dealt with by adding the VIA WATFORD JUNCTION fare- something ATOC should have done two years ago rather than trying to bodge it with unenforceable and badly worded easements. The other big one is Windsor, and that can be dealt with by creating VIA SLOUGH and VIA STAINES tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The biggest issue has been St Albans, and that has finally been dealt with by adding the VIA WATFORD JUNCTION fare- something ATOC should have done two years ago rather than trying to bodge it with unenforceable and badly worded easements. The other big one is Windsor, and that can be dealt with by creating VIA SLOUGH and VIA STAINES tickets.

I agree. I am yet to find any such issue which could not be solved by adding explicit routes to fares, rather than complicating an already complicated set of data in the Routeing Guide.

I suspect that the TOCs are rushing to solve the problem (as fares changes have to wait until the next NFM, but the Routeing Guide is updated frequently) rather than waiting and solving it properly.

 

[FenMan]

I agree. I am yet to find any such issue which could not be solved by adding explicit routes to fares, rather than complicating an already complicated set of data in the Routeing Guide.

Try a Blackwater Z1-6 Day Travelcard - route ASCOT/GUILDFORD. There are two currently valid routes into the zones via Guildford that would no longer be permitted if the rules are changed.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not a surprising move, but a shame as I'm sure it will affect some people who have a good reason to use a Travelcard on a route off the London Terminal route.

Is there hard evidence it is happening generally? Despite the thread title being written as a statement, surely it should only be a question about a possible change?

 

[trevmonk]

The easements also later stated that tickets from the Abbey Line to Elstree, Hendon, Mill Hill, etc, were not valid via St Albans City. That second easement was added in about February, presumably after your question.

But adding VIA WATFORD JUNCTION is the best way of permanently resolving the issue, as it now allows the ANY PERMITTED ticket to be used via SAC, rather than having to split tickets at St Albans.

In fact rather than relying on the easement they just withdrew point to point tickets for the stations in question a couple of years ago - requiring split tickets, which still seems to be the case.

The London Midland ANY PERMITTED Travelcards, however, were always valid via St Albans and remained so. It just seems that GTR don't like the fact that London Midland were selling their version slightly cheaper. Rather than letting competition flourish there seems to be collusion whereby GTR get London Midland to introduce a VIA restriction and then take over the ANY PERMITTED themselves at a higher price. I thought the purpose of denationalisation was to encourage competition between different operators.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The London Midland ANY PERMITTED Travelcards, however, were always valid via St Albans and remained so. It just seems that GTR don't like the fact that London Midland were selling their version slightly cheaper. Rather than letting competition flourish there seems to be collusion whereby GTR get London Midland to introduce a VIA restriction and then take over the ANY PERMITTED themselves at a higher price. I thought the purpose of denationalisation was to encourage competition between different operators.

That it might be, but allowing one business to force another to accept their tickets at a lower price than that business wants to undermines the free market.

 

[bb21]

That it might be, but allowing one business to force another to accept their tickets at a lower price than that business wants to undermines the free market.

Surely you mean the state-created monopoly?