Proposed Easement

Status
Not open for further replies.

johnnycache

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2012
Messages
421
I work for Southern

I have (with the aid of some members of this forum) been acquiring an education in the routeing guide and such matters which is very useful

As far as I can see there is no easement allowing passengers making journeys along the coastway to travel via Eastbourne

Of course travel by direct train is allowed but unless i am missing something it would not be permitted (strictly speaking) to change trains at Eastbourne

Hampden Park to Eastbourne is 2 miles each way so a route doubling back via Eastbourne would add 4 miles

Comments please
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
4,840
Location
Sheffield
Strange !

I was convinced that I had seen such an easement but, as you say, it is not in the current RG. I therefore dug out my printed version dated September 1997 and, sure enough, found the following (rather ambiguously worded) easement on page E3:

Customers holding tickets between Coastway stations may travel via Eastbourne.

I think some members of the forum have access to all iterations of the RG, so no doubt someone will be able to say when this easement disappeared.
 

sonic2009

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2010
Messages
4,169
Location
Moulton nr Winsford
This is very interesting http://trainscanbecheaper.info/ lists when I input Worthing to Hastings via Eastbourne.

I get this :

From WORTHING to HASTINGS via EASTBOURNE
Route doubles back through: HAMPDEN PK SSEX, Allowed by easement 000019
Permitted by map CW
Allowed by easement 000019

Yet I cannot find the said easement in the roueting guide.
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
My copy of the Easements list from February 2010 - the oldest I have - includes the following:

19 Journeys via Polegate and Pevensey & Westham or to or from Hampden Park may double back from Eastbourne. This easement applies in both directions.

This is specific to journeys to or from Hampden Park. And now said Easement is not even present. So that at least must have been deleted in the last couple of years. It still wouldn't allow longer-distance journeys to break at or travel via Eastbourne (except where not breaking) though.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,816
My copy of the Easements list from February 2010 - the oldest I have - includes the following:

19 Journeys via Polegate and Pevensey & Westham or to or from Hampden Park may double back from Eastbourne. This easement applies in both directions.

This is specific to journeys to or from Hampden Park. And now said Easement is not even present. So that at least must have been deleted in the last couple of years. It still wouldn't allow longer-distance journeys to break at or travel via Eastbourne (except where not breaking) though.
I would read that as, journeys:
  • Via Polegate
  • Via Pevensey & Westham
  • To or from Hampden Park
may double back from Eastbourne.

So surely that isn't just specific to Hampden Park?
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
I hadn't noticed the "or". My bad.

Just found another copy from December 2011 - which does mention Easement 19. So it's obviously a recent change.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,031
Location
Yorkshire
Armed with that info, I have now found a post from owlman which confirms that the deletion took place wef 21 Feb 2012. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=992052&postcount=5

I would still be interested in when the original 1997 wording was changed.
Seconded - I downloaded the new file on the 21st and it goes:

18 Journeys from Balcombe, Haywards Heath and Wivelsfield to Lewes and stations beyond may go via Brighton. This easement applies in both directions.
20 Journeys via Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Burnley Manchester Road may double back from Halifax. This easement applies in both directions.

Can our southern contact suggest why number 19 has gone? If anything it is needed more nowadays, as a number of services either call into eastbourne or out but not both.
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,468
Location
North of the rivers
There seems to be some confusion about the purpose for easements here. Easements exist to prevent routes being valid which journey planners may otherwise suggest, and thus to make the distribution of revenue easier. On the occasions when easements allow a routeing, this should only be when no other route is permitted, e.g. 300358 - "Customer travelling to stations on the Marlow and Henley on Thames lines via Didcot Parkway may travel via Reading."

;) Of course it makes sense, I don't imagine anyone would complain but it would be good to have a return of easement 19.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,816
There seems to be some confusion about the purpose for easements here. Easements exist to prevent routes being valid which journey planners may otherwise suggest, and thus to make the distribution of revenue easier.
I'm not sure thats correct, the Easements document itself begins with the following:

Routing Guide said:
Easements are relaxations of Routeing Guide rules to allow journeys that strict adherence to the rules would forbid. Some previously published easements are no longer exceptions to Routeing Guide rules and have therefore been deleted as unnecessary.
In the past few years TOCs have used them as you describe to prevent otherwise valid routes being permitted (known as Negative Easements), however that is arguably not the original purpose of them. Think about it, surely an Easement is a relaxation of a term, not a restriction!
 
Joined
8 Jun 2009
Messages
525
I'm not sure thats correct, the Easements document itself begins with the following:



In the past few years TOCs have used them as you describe to prevent otherwise valid routes being permitted (known as Negative Easements), however that is arguably not the original purpose of them. Think about it, surely an Easement is a relaxation of a term, not a restriction!
I think LexyBoy had tongue planted firmly in cheek.
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,468
Location
North of the rivers
I think LexyBoy had tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Hence the obligatory smiley! Look at recent additions to the list of easements though and you might start to believe me!

As someone unfamiliar with the route, what is wrong with changing at Hampden Park? Are there long waits or is it just a shack in the middle of nowhere? And is anyone likely to pull someone up for changing at Eastbourne?
 

johnnycache

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2012
Messages
421
Not all trains call at Hampden Park which indeed lacks some of the comforts of Eastbourne

You are right no one is likely to come to any harm in this case but it did seem strange that an easement was not in place

It is even more strange that an easement was once in place but has been removed

I also learned something new today that the price check for appropriate routes is based on NFM64 fare levels. So TOCs can't either deliberately or otherwise change routeing entitlements by changing current fares. One thing that had worried me was that we at Southern by lowering some fares might have inadvertently made some routeing options fail the price check.
 

bb21

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
23,850
I also learned something new today that the price check for appropriate routes is based on NFM64 fare levels. So TOCs can't either deliberately or otherwise change routeing entitlements by changing current fares. One thing that had worried me was that we at Southern by lowering some fares might have inadvertently made some routeing options fail the price check.
I was informed by ATOC in a previous communication that the current version of the Routeing Guide was created on the basis of fares from NFM64, however nothing in the instructions on how to use the RG refers to NFM64.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,031
Location
Yorkshire
I was informed by ATOC in a previous communication that the current version of the Routeing Guide was created on the basis of fares from NFM64, however nothing in the instructions on how to use the RG refers to NFM64.
Can we infer that for the fares check we use the most favourable comparison (favourable to the passenger) of comparing two NFM64 fares or comparing the same two NFMcurrent fares?
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
I was informed by ATOC in a previous communication that the current version of the Routeing Guide was created on the basis of fares from NFM64, however nothing in the instructions on how to use the RG refers to NFM64.
Is NFM64 even readily available anywhere? (And by readily I mean a human-readable interface, not just a mess of binary files.)
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
4,840
Location
Sheffield
Is NFM64 even readily available anywhere? (And by readily I mean a human-readable interface, not just a mess of binary files.)
RJIS uses the NFM64 fares for the fares check calculations, but as far as I am aware NFM64 is not publicly available.
 
Last edited:

Oscar

Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Messages
1,127
Location
Switzerland
I also learned something new today that the price check for appropriate routes is based on NFM64 fare levels. So TOCs can't either deliberately or otherwise change routeing entitlements by changing current fares. One thing that had worried me was that we at Southern by lowering some fares might have inadvertently made some routeing options fail the price check.
The booking engines do the fares check based on NFM64 according to this document. We are told to do the fares check based on the current NFM. Hence why Southport to Manchester via Liverpool is sold by the booking sites but is no longer a Permitted Route. There are also new Permitted Routes which are not sold by the booking engines for this reason.

So every time I want to do a fares check I have to book a trip to York? :P
If anyone ever has any specific requests, don't hesistate to PM me - I often go to the NRM library.
 

johnnycache

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2012
Messages
421
I understand that TIS manufacturers are supplied with a CD with NFM64 fares on so they can make their journey planners compliant

Its not satisfactory though that interested users are unable to validate the output of journey planners
 

lyndhurst25

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,101
This is crazy beyond belief! What's the point of publishing the Routing Guide, with its detailed instructions on how you must do a fares check, but the fares information isn't available to members of the public (an railway staff who have to enforce this) without a trip to York?

Does anyone know whether the useful trainscanbecheaper.info uses NFM64 or NFM12 to determine valid routes? (I recall that the person behind that website posts on here from time to time).

(What year is NFM64 from?)
 
Last edited:

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
4,840
Location
Sheffield
This is crazy beyond belief! What's the point of publishing the Routing Guide, with its detailed instructions on how you must do a fares check, but the fares information isn't available to members of the public (an railway staff who have to enforce this) without a trip to York?
You call still do the fares check using current fares. As NFM64 is not mentioned in the RG, my view is that if you use current fares and a ticket passes then the route is valid.

The issue is that, because the electronic journey planners use NFM64, there will occasions where they will not show routes which are valid on current fares. Conversely, on occasion they will show as vaild routes which would not be on current fares.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
For those who like to study Easements in the Routing Guide for information relevant to journey planning, its maybe worth pointing out that an Easement may exist and may be applied that is not in the Routing Guide.

This FOI request and this response illustrates the difference by reference to Easement 25 which was removed from the Routing Guide on 3rd April 2012 but which the Department confirms "remains valid".
 

Oscar

Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Messages
1,127
Location
Switzerland
My understanding is that if an easement is not published in the Routeing Guide it cannot influence the validity of a ticket, as it does not form part of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. Is this correct?
 

SickyNicky

Verified Rep - TrainSplit.com
Joined
8 Sep 2010
Messages
2,487
Location
Ledbury
Does anyone know whether the useful trainscanbecheaper.info uses NFM64 or NFM12 to determine valid routes? (I recall that the person behind that website posts on here from time to time).
?)
I can confirm that I use NFM12. All this stuff about NFM64 is a bit of a red herring as I see it. The NRCoC refer to simply "the fare" which you can only take as meaning the current fare. So the contract you are travelling under is based on the current fare and therefore that's what trainscanbecheaper uses.

I knew that NFM64 was in use by the TIS' but chose not to go down that route for the reason said. Having said that, as a passenger you can have the best of both worlds. If a booking engine will allow a routeing point that's not allowed under NFM12, great. Get an itinerary and off you go. If NFM12 is allowing routes that were not previously allowed, also great. Make sure you have print outs of the relevant sections of the conditions of carriage and fares and off you go :)
 

Solent&Wessex

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Messages
2,373
How on earth can current routeing be based around fares from 16 years ago, when so much has changed in that time and that fares data from that long ago isn't widely accessible to anyone? And it isn't just fares - timetables have changed and new services been introduced which distort things too. Of all the things that ATOC have come up with, this must be one of the most stupid. If we are supposed to use the routeing guide based solely on 1996 fares then a) why doesn't it say that anywhere in the guide; b) how are people meant to know that and then work out routes; and c) why bother updating the routeing guide at all - fares and routes from 1996 don't change do they? Surely the 1996 routeing guide would be the one to use for all routeing calculations then?
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,031
Location
Yorkshire
My understanding is that if an easement is not published in the Routeing Guide it cannot influence the validity of a ticket, as it does not form part of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. Is this correct?
Given that 'validity of ticket' is a precise thing, with the strange legislation around tickets, I wouldn't like to attempt an answer.

As you are probably aware, there are actually three different lists of easements:

-those in the routeing guide PDF
-those in 'the manual'
-unwritten local custom and practice

Given the UTCCR (specifically, conflicting/ambiguous terms), the unknown easements (2 and 3 above) which positively benefit the passenger would be taken into consideration, but any that disbenefit the passenger could not. But I'm not a lawyer nor a TOC prosecutor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top