Portsmouth & Southsea to London U1 - FOR

[Steddenm]

Hi.

I’ve a return portion of a First Anytime Return from Portsmouth Stations to London Underground Zone 1 and am wondering if this is classed as a valid route. There are no route restrictions on my ticket (ie via Three Bridges/Guildford/SWR Only):

Portsmouth and S/S to Southampton Central
Southampton Central to Reading
Reading to Paddington

Thanks.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Hi.

I’ve a return portion of a First Anytime Return from Portsmouth Stations to London Underground Zone 1 and am wondering if this is classed as a valid route. There are no route restrictions on my ticket (ie via Three Bridges/Guildford/SWR Only):

Portsmouth and S/S to Southampton Central
Southampton Central to Reading
Reading to Paddington

Thanks.

No, this is not a permitted route. You can go via Reading but it must be via Eastleigh and not via Southampton.

 

[yorkie]

No, this is not a permitted route. You can go via Reading but it must be via Eastleigh and not via Southampton.

Agreed.

Traceable on maps BB+BL

 

[Steddenm]

Ok thanks. So I could go Eastleigh - Winchester - Reading - Pad

 

[yorkie]

yes, that's fine

 

[Mister Ed]

Slightly off topic but on a related subsection of this route, I went from Winchester to Portsmouth and Southsea and back a couple of years ago. NRE gave me routes via Southampton or Botley each way for the same day return fare. I actually went via Southampton (as this was the next service) each time and wasn't challenged. Was I just lucky or are the routing rules different for this shorter distance?

 

[swt_passenger]

Slightly off topic but on a related subsection of this route, I went from Winchester to Portsmouth and Southsea and back a couple of years ago. NRE gave me routes via Southampton or Botley each way for the same day return fare. I actually went via Southampton (as this was the next service) each time and wasn't challenged. Was I just lucky or are the routing rules different for this shorter distance?

The routeing guide has been changed not that long ago, within a few years. IIRC they reviewed the maps because someone rubbed them up the wrong way about something or other such as travelling from Basingstoke to Fareham via Salisbury. I expect local staff don’t worry too much, they’ll often announce “change here for Fareham and Portsmouth” on approach to Southampton, whatever direction...

In fact it was 2013: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...oke-on-a-fareham-to-basingstoke-season.86307/

 

[bb21]

Slightly off topic but on a related subsection of this route, I went from Winchester to Portsmouth and Southsea and back a couple of years ago. NRE gave me routes via Southampton or Botley each way for the same day return fare. I actually went via Southampton (as this was the next service) each time and wasn't challenged. Was I just lucky or are the routing rules different for this shorter distance?

On a more general note, the Routeing Guide is not recursive, so a permitted route for a short journey which formed a part of a longer journey may not be a permitted route for the longer journey.

They often are, but this is not a guarantee.

 

[yorkie]

Slightly off topic but on a related subsection of this route, I went from Winchester to Portsmouth and Southsea and back a couple of years ago. NRE gave me routes via Southampton or Botley each way for the same day return fare. I actually went via Southampton (as this was the next service) each time and wasn't challenged. Was I just lucky or are the routing rules different for this shorter distance?

Winchester to Portsmouth is not currently valid via Southampton, but perhaps it was then.

If it was.... perhaps SWT (as it was then; now SWR) requested the change, but that seems unlikely. More likely would be RDG changed it without SWR or the DfT's knowledge or consent, on a whim or simply in error.

 

[swt_passenger]

Winchester to Portsmouth is not currently valid via Southampton, but perhaps it was then.

If it was.... perhaps SWT (as it was then; now SWR) requested the change, but that seems unlikely. More likely would be RDG changed it without SWR or the DfT's knowledge or consent, on a whim or simply in error.

If you follow my link above, SWT eventually did reply (to the person who raised the issue) that it would be corrected, because in their words “this shouldn't be valid”...

 

[yorkie]

Except it would have been valid under BR because it did not undercut any fares; it was therefore "reasonable".

So not a "correction"

But if SWT did change it, it just shows how that franchise wasn't perfect. But it's often RDG (ATOC) making the change, sometimes by accident. Someone could send DfT an FOI request asking if they approved it and why. DfT usually reply to say there was no record of any change request. There's been so many of these dubious changes, and no-one holds RDG or the TOCs to account.

 

[swt_passenger]

I live in the area and would never have thought Basingstoke to Fareham via Salisbury was ‘reasonable’, it’s a heck of a long way round. I suggested at the time that it had caused too much collateral damage, ‘via Southampton’ should probably have been ok.

 

[yorkie]

I live in the area and would never have thought Basingstoke to Fareham via Salisbury was ‘reasonable’, it’s a heck of a long way round. I suggested at the time that it had caused too much collateral damage, ‘via Southampton’ should probably have been ok.

I thought we were talking about Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton?

If you follow my link above, SWT eventually did reply (to the person who raised the issue) that it would be corrected, because in their words “this shouldn't be valid”...

Did they say that about Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton? I have re-read the thread again and I don't see it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought we were talking about Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton?

We were, but it was removing the map that allowed Salisbury that also took out Southampton. They introduced a new map based on Eastleigh at the same time, and it didn’t include the Netley line.

 

[yorkie]

We were, but it was removing the map that allowed Salisbury that also took out Southampton. They introduced a new map based on Eastleigh at the same time, and it didn’t include the Netley line.

So, to clarify, SWR requested Basingstoke to Fareham via Salisbury be removed but did not request the removal of Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton.

RDG implemented the change requested, but did so in a way that removed the reasonable and historic routeing of Winchester to Portsmouth, which was brought up in this thread.

So I will go back to what I said earlier: More likely would be RDG changed it without SWR or the DfT's knowledge or consent, on a whim or simply in error.

It is all too common that the consequences of making a change are not properly analysed by RDG and they are not scrutinised by DfT as they should be.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don’t think we have any way of knowing whether or not SWT intentionally removed Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton, do we?

 

[Joe Paxton]

I don’t think we have any way of knowing whether or not SWT intentionally removed Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton, do we?

I guess a current or former pricing manager for SWR/SWT - e.g. someone with some institutional memory - might be able to shed light on the matter.

Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton doesn't seem an unreasonable route to me (though before anyone says it, I do appreciate reasonableness isn't necessarily the criteria at work here!).

 

[swt_passenger]

Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton doesn't seem an unreasonable route to me (though before anyone says it, I do appreciate reasonableness isn't necessarily the criteria at work here!).

It’s a route that gives more possibilities during the off peak, although about 20 mins longer, but NRES doesn’t suggest it in the peaks when the via Botley route runs at 2 tph.

 

[yorkie]

I don’t think we have any way of knowing whether or not SWT intentionally removed Winchester to Portsmouth via Southampton, do we?

We could send an FOI request to the DfT asking why it was removed, and details of any correspondence.

Many FOI requests of that nature result in confirmation that DfT permission was not sought.

Transport Focus should be consulted; again they are subject to FOI.

 

[swt_passenger]

We could send an FOI request to the DfT asking why it was removed, and details of any correspondence.

Many FOI requests of that nature result in confirmation that DfT permission was not sought.

Transport Focus should be consulted; again they are subject to FOI.

You’re of course welcome to do so if you feel so strongly.