Southport-Manchester (via Liverpool)

[mrpsb]

Hi all,

I've read in various places that a Southport-Manchester Stns ticket is valid via Liverpool. Is this correct, and does it mean I can do Southport-Liverpool and back again on a Southport-Manchester Stations season ticket (Or Southport-Liverpool-Manchester-Southport which would be particularly handy tomorrow)? Seems a little too good to be true if so, so I'm checking everywhere I can think (including at the station tomorrow) before trying it!

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[John @ home]

Yes, Southport - Manchester is valid via Liverpool. The reason why it is valid is quite complex, but for a passenger wishing to travel by that route the simplest way to have assurance that you can demonstrate the validity is to print out a valid travel itinerary and to carry it with you on the journey.

I prefer to use East Coast. Entering SOP (Southport) to MAN (Manchester Piccadilly) via LIV (Liverpool Lime St) generates dozens of valid journey opportunities each day.

 

[mrpsb]

Thanks for the quick reply! I have no doubt the reasons why this long way round is valid are a bit complicated, it seems to make little sense, but if it saves me a few quid buying Southport-Liverpool-Manchester tickets for the outward journey tomorrow I'll take it!

 

[Chapeltom]

I used to buy a ticket to Southport from a station 20 miles south east of Manchester but was stopping short at Mossley Hill (as its cheaper than the fare to MSH). On the fasts between MAN and LIV and LIV to MAN you shouldn't get many problems, I had 2-3 problems/questions at most in 100+ uses. I now use a different destination after particular guards on the Oxford Road to Lime St stoppers weren't keen on my 'x' to Southport ticket (I never did explain I was stopping short).

 

[Swirlz]

How is the route valid?

49.56 miles via Liverpool, Huyton, Earlestown, Manchester, which is about 10 miles longer than the shortest via Wigan.

Neither map NW or GM allow a route to be traced via Liverpool.

Finally, Southport-Liverpool-Manchester fails the fare check when travelling via Liverpool.

Have I misread something or are forum members implying validity based on the output of a web sales outlet?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

How is the route valid?

49.56 miles via Liverpool, Huyton, Earlestown, Manchester, which is about 10 miles longer than the shortest via Wigan.

Neither map NW or GM allow a route to be traced via Liverpool.

Finally, Southport-Liverpool-Manchester fails the fare check when travelling via Liverpool.

Have I misread something or are forum members implying validity based on the output of a web sales outlet?

I may be wrong but I think it is to do with using NFM64 to work out appropriate routeing points. This is the data that the journey planners apparently use.

 

[Swirlz]

I may be wrong but I think it is to do with using NFM64 to work out appropriate routeing points. This is the data that the journey planners apparently use.

That may be the case, but (if I have researched correctly), NFM64 fares manual has nothing to do with the passenger contract... The National Rail Conditions of Carriage refers to the current routeing guide, which, as it stands, does not:

a) refer to NFM64. (It tells you to use current fares to do a comparison) or;
b) permit the route

If the ticket was purchased from a booking office, not online, I think the customer would be on a sticky wicket should anybody take issue with the route.

Might have a valid complaint about a route being removed contrary to whatever government guidelines, but, as it stands, I don't think the route is permitted.

The output of a journey planner cannot be held to be "official" - if it was held to be official, forum members would have to accept the other side of the coin.

 

[soil]

That may be the case, but (if I have researched correctly), NFM64 fares manual has nothing to do with the passenger contract... The National Rail Conditions of Carriage refers to the current routeing guide, which, as it stands, does not:

a) refer to NFM64. (It tells you to use current fares to do a comparison) or;
b) permit the route

As I understand it, the electronic guide uses NFM64 in order that fares check calculations do not get confused by constant fares changes. This is a practical issue for computer programmers, and is not exposed to or declared to the end user.

The correct fare to use for a fares check is those that applied on the date the ticket was purchased.

Obviously if you have booked a specific itinerary based on the electronic system, then it's valid, but in general, there is no reason to look at NFM64, and customers cannot simultaneously rely on the parts of the printed routeing guide that suit them, while also using the bits of the electronic system they fancy.

ATOC have chosen not to make the electronic system end-user accessible, and therefore ONLY the paper maps and current fares are valid.

There is no reason to use NFM64, this is purely an electronic/implementation issue.

I would however add that the ready availability of itineraries on numerous sites, probably makes the point moot.

 

[Swirlz]

As I understand it, the electronic guide uses NFM64 in order that fares check calculations do not get confused by constant fares changes. This is a practical issue for computer programmers, and is not exposed to or declared to the end user.

The correct fare to use for a fares check is those that applied on the date the ticket was purchased.

Obviously if you have booked a specific itinerary based on the electronic system, then it's valid, but in general, there is no reason to look at NFM64, and customers cannot simultaneously rely on the parts of the printed routeing guide that suit them, while also using the bits of the electronic system they fancy.

ATOC have chosen not to make the electronic system end-user accessible, and therefore ONLY the paper maps and current fares are valid.

There is no reason to use NFM64, this is purely an electronic/implementation issue.

If that is the case, then Southport-Manchester is NOT valid via Liverpool.

That said, booking online and presenting a valid itinerary showing the ticket would effectively give the passenger authority to travel on a route that is not permitted.

Buying at a ticket office without an approved itinerary etc. could make the customer liable to the various pitfalls, (Byelaw 18, Excess fares etc).

I struggle to find why some members of this forum think that travelling on a non-permitted route, because a weakness in the online booking process displays a non-valid route as valid is acceptable, if, on the other side, the same weaknesses can show a permitted route to be non-permitted, but members say to disregard that...

 

[mrpsb]

Just to report back, checked with station staff and guard on Merseyrail before boarding, all told me valid via Liverpool.

 

[Swirlz]

Just to report back, checked with station staff and guard on Merseyrail before boarding, all told me valid via Liverpool.

Well, as discussed, it isn't.

But, of course, that doesn't mean it won't be accepted.

 

[soil]

Well, as discussed, it isn't.

If you are told that it is, it is.

 

[Swirlz]

If you are told that it is, it is.

...for that one journey.

There's nothing to say the next conductor would accept it, or on another day it would be accepted.

Merseyrail staff, much to my annoyance and inconvenience, regularly deny that the routeing guide exists, and the conductors don't even do tickets!

 

[John @ home]

My understanding is that, for regulated fares only, the train companies are compelled to offer at least the same route availability as was available in NFM 64 unless a Regulator has granted a dispensation for a particular fare, and that the train companies find it expedient to offer the same route availability for non-regulated fares.

 

[soil]

My understanding is that, for regulated fares only, the train companies are compelled to offer at least the same route availability as was available in NFM 64 unless a Regulator has granted a dispensation for a particular fare, and that the train companies find it expedient to offer the same route availability for non-regulated fares.

From what I can establish, there was a certain wording in the National Routeing Guide,

"All fares comparisons must be made using the same ticket type. If
the Standard Single is the requested fare then compare Standard
Singles. If the Saver is the requested fare, then compare Savers,
and so on.

Sometimes (because of different local fares policies) a direct
comparison may not be possible. In that case Standard Single fares
should be compared. If a fare of the type requested has a lower fare
than all its routeing points, compare Standard Single fares.

Fares comparisons are made using National Fares Manual No 64.

Fares comparisons should match fares with similar fares routeings.
If that is impossible because the two sets of fares routeings are
not the same, compare fares for the cheapest fares routes."

However I am not sure when this was dropped.

It does not appear to have been here 14th April 2004:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040414012827/http://atoc.org/rsp/Routeing Guide/pdf_docs/sectionf.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20040417000439/http://atoc.org/rsp/Routeing Guide/pdf_docs/sectiona.pdf

but was quoted here in that same month

http://uk.railway.narkive.com/WNWUU...-ticket-destination-on-midland-mainline-etc.3

In September 2006 it seems ATOC submitted a revised RG Section A relating to the electronic RG implementation (in 2008.zip here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_copies_of_every_pape#incoming-355100)

This however has been dropped for the 2004 version.

In addition, it appears the DFT never approved any of the other PDFs posted online, which apparently do not match the printed guide in many important respects. As I understand it:

The National Routeing Guide was a printed document
The Electronic National Routeing Guide was an electronic version of this, aimed at rail users, with some PDFs to explain how the system works.
The Electronic National Routeing Guide no longer exists, so the PDFs essentially no longer serve a purpose.
The online Routeing Guide at http://www.atoc.org/about-atoc/rail-settlement-plan/routeing-guide is NOT the National Routeing Guide, as per the picture on page 1 here: http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/RSPDocuments/instructions.pdf which instructs you to use the National Routeing Guide
The National Routeing Guide is still a printed document, but one that is no longer available for sale, and the ENRG pdfs are used for this.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with John @ home.

. . . . NFM64 fares manual has nothing to do with the passenger contract... The National Rail Conditions of Carriage refers to the current routeing guide, which, as it stands, does not:

a) refer to NFM64.

. . . .

Might have a valid complaint about a route being removed contrary to whatever government guidelines, but, as it stands, I don't think the route is permitted.

The relevant "government guidelines" would probably be the enabling function of S.28 of the Railways Act 1993 (and as amended) which empowered the Franchise Director (since, the SRA, and then ORR) to impose conditions in the Franchise Agreements awarded to Operators to ensure that fares were "reasonable". The Franchise Agreements (and other Conditions) restrict the changes to fares and the availability of routes.

The passenger's Contract does not refer to NFM 64, but it is only formed by virtue of the Operators' Franchise Agreements, and is only binding in so far as it is compliant with and enabled by that Agreement (and other Conditions).

The output of a journey planner cannot be held to be "official" - if it was held to be official, forum members would have to accept the other side of the coin.

The output from a properly obtained* journey planner which corresponded to tickets properly sold and used for travel would be very hard to refute as evidence of binding terms to a Contract. I am informed that legal advice to that effect has been given to Rail operators.

* A journey which was deliberately chosen to willfully exploit an unintended error which gave the buyer an advantage over an operator would not be 'properly obtained; indeed it could be considered as evidence of an actual or attempted fraud.

 

[island]

I agree with Swirlz, and partially with DaveNewcastle. If an official website gives you an itinerary then you are fine to follow that itinerary precisely. But in this case, the journey isn't valid in general due to using an inappropriate routeing point.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

From what I can establish, there was a certain wording in the National Routeing Guide,

"All fares comparisons must be made using the same ticket type. If
the Standard Single is the requested fare then compare Standard
Singles. If the Saver is the requested fare, then compare Savers,
and so on.

Sometimes (because of different local fares policies) a direct
comparison may not be possible. In that case Standard Single fares
should be compared. If a fare of the type requested has a lower fare
than all its routeing points, compare Standard Single fares.

Fares comparisons are made using National Fares Manual No 64.

Fares comparisons should match fares with similar fares routeings.
If that is impossible because the two sets of fares routeings are
not the same, compare fares for the cheapest fares routes."

However I am not sure when this was dropped.

The passage in the current Routeing Guide pdf is the same as in the original paper guide, and so neither mention the use of NFM64. The Routeing Guide that has been officially available to ticket office staff has never mentioned NFM64.

....In addition, it appears the DFT never approved any of the other PDFs posted online, which apparently do not match the printed guide in many important respects.....

I can't comment about the DfT's position, but certainly routeing points (Section B), map tables (Section C), maps (Section D), 'Easements' (Section E) and 'The Routeing Guide in Detail' (Section F) have all had alterations from the paper guide (Section F having had the least change, none of which corrected it's many "inconsistences").

....As I understand it:

The National Routeing Guide was a printed document......

......The National Routeing Guide is...... no longer available for sale......

The 1996 paper guide is no longer printed (in fact I don't know of many copies actually being printed, beyond those given to ticket offices) and, if all ticket offices read and acted on the small 'Newsrail Express' article on the Routeing Guide which was posted in 'The Manual' back in 2009 (ish), none of those ticket office copies still exist. Fortunately I can say with great confidence that copies of the 1996 guide do still exist (even if, in some cases, it is because staff at the ticket offices don't even know it is there!).

 

[OwlMan]

For anyone interested the 1996 NRG is available from the ORR archives at
http://public-register.documentretr...zAxIDogTGljZW5jZXMgOiAwMS8wOS8xOTk2|QmFjaw==|

 

[maniacmartin]

For anyone interested the 1996 NRG is available from the ORR archives at
http://public-register.documentretr...zAxIDogTGljZW5jZXMgOiAwMS8wOS8xOTk2|QmFjaw==|

For this link to work, you must first visit http://public-register.documentretrieval.co.uk/ and click the login button. Then click OwlMan's link

 

[Wiggaz]

Is there a station on the Merseyrail Northern Line - e.g. Formby - from which it is definitely valid to Manchester via both Liverpool and Southport/Wigan?

 

[soil]

There are three routeing points in this area:

Liverpool Group
Wigan Group
Preston

The relevant single fares from each RP to Manc are:
Liverpool:
SDS £12.40
CDS £11.50

Preston
SDS
£11.10

Wigan (to Salford/Manchester CTLZ)
SDS
£5.70
CDS
£4

The single fares from Merseyrail Northern line stations are:
Southport
SDS £12.20
CDS £11

Birkdale - Formby
SDS £12.30
CDS £11.30

All stations Hightown - Liverpool
SDS £12.40
CDS £11.50

Wigan passes the fares check from all stations north of Liverpool.

To reach Wigan, you must take the shortest route. From Hightown southwards, this is via Sandhills and Rice Lane.

From Formby northwards, via Southport.

From Wigan there is only one mapped route - via Atherton.

To use Liverpool routeing point on current fares, you need a ticket from stations Hightown or south of Hightown. Permitted routes are then:

Hightown -Sandhills - Kirkby - Wigan Wallgate - Manchester
Hightown - Liverpool - Earlestown - Manchester
Hightown - Liverpool - Liverpool South Parkway - Manchester
Hightown - Liverpool - Huyton - Wigan NW - Manchester

Because there is no Southport routeing point, via Southport is never a mapped route, but it might be the shortest route.

For stations Formby north to Southport, Formby - Southport - Wigan Wallgate - Manchester is the shortest route and hence valid.

From Formby, via Liverpool and Earlestown is permitted under the 3 miles rule.
Via Liverpool and Liverpool South Parkway may also be permitted, depending upon which part of the timetable you look at.

From Freshfield, via Liverpool and Earlestown is also permitted under the 3 miles rule.

From Ainsdale north, via Liverpool won't come under the 3 miles rule.

Nothing could be simpler!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Have you considered page F3 of the Routeing Guide? Specifically the bit which says:

Sometimes a station has no scheduled passenger service to one of the routeing
points to which it is related. These routeing points should be ignored.

Which would mean that intermediate stations on the Southport-Liverpool line could not use Preston or Wigan as a Routeing Point and that intermediate stations on the Southport-Wigan line cannot use Preston or Liverpool.

 

[soil]

Have you considered page F3 of the Routeing Guide? Specifically the bit which says:

"Sometimes a station has no scheduled passenger service to one of the routeing points to which it is related. These routeing points should be ignored."

Which would mean that intermediate stations on the Southport-Liverpool line could not use Preston or Wigan as a Routeing Point and that intermediate stations on the Southport-Wigan line cannot use Preston or Liverpool.

Ah yes, the stealth rules section.

I had a look at the current ENRG, and these stations are all still linked to Preston, Wigan Group and Liverpool Stations.

NRE says Meols Cop to Manchester Stations via Southport and Liverpool is permitted:

http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/MEC/MAN/030413/1645/dep?via=Hightown

Clearly there are no direct trains from Meols Cop to Liverpool Group, and it's definitely not the shortest route either.

So it seems they don't apply this rule. It's worth pointing out that it doesn't say direct services btw.

For Bank Hall to Manchester via Sandhills, Ormskirk, and Preston, they say not valid:

http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/BAH/MAN/030413/1645/dep?via=Rufford

However logically speaking given that we know that fares from Southport have risen disproportionately to some other local fares since NFM64, there's a good chance that the reason they say it's not allowed is because they ONLY perform the fares check using NFM64 and therefore Preston was not a valid routeing point.

As for using Wigan as a Routeing Point, it's not required by the ENRG, because they implement Liverpool Group - Wigan Group in each case without any intermediate waypoints, so a Liverpool Stations - Manchester stations ticket shows up as valid via Southport, even though it's not mapped on the printed guide.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Ah yes, the stealth rules section....

That's right, the section you have already used to provide a routeing rule:

From Formby, via Liverpool and Earlestown is permitted under the 3 miles rule.

The three mile rule only appears in Section F.

....I had a look at the current ENRG, and these stations are all still linked to Preston, Wigan Group and Liverpool Stations.

NRE says Meols Cop to Manchester Stations via Southport and Liverpool is permitted:

http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...p?via=Hightown

Clearly there are no direct trains from Meols Cop to Liverpool Group, and it's definitely not the shortest route either....

Look up Wigan (Wigan Group) to Patricroft (Earlestown, Manchester Group, Wigan Group) on NRES, it shows four journeys on Thursday 4th April that require only one ticket, out of a whole day's service.

0647 from North Western (via Newton-le-Willows)
1821 from North Western (via Newton-le-Willows)
2155 from Wallgate (via Manchester)
2257 from North Western (via Huyton)

If we say they share a common routeing point (and ignore page F3), only the shortest route can be used (there are no direct trains). Via Huyton and via Manchester are more than three miles longer than the shortest route (via Newton-le-Willows) and so are not valid. If they are not valid NRES is in error saying that trains via Huyton and via Manchester are valid.

If we say that they do not share a common routeing point (because there is no direct train from Wigan to Patricroft) then Newton-le-Willows fails the fares check rule (but is the shortest route), whilst Manchester Group passes the fares check rule. If this is true then once again NRES is in error, firstly for say via Huyton is valid, and secondly for saying via Manchester is not valid for the rest of the day.

So can we really trust NRES?

.... It's worth pointing out that it doesn't say direct services btw....

Quite right, but I do believe that the only station that could not be reached by rail alone from any other station closed in 1972 (Dartmouth), so if it does not refer to direct trains, why is it there? Further to this, take note that "scheduled passenger service" is singular, not plural.

....However logically speaking given that we know that fares from Southport have risen disproportionately to some other local fares since NFM64, there's a good chance that the reason they say it's not allowed is because they ONLY perform the fares check using NFM64 and therefore Preston was not a valid routeing point....

And given that there are no rules to say we should use NFM64 (and also given that those entrusted with giving out impartial information (staff) have no realistic access to NFM64, nevermind the general public!), we can only further use this as evidence not to trust online journey planners.

....As for using Wigan as a Routeing Point, it's not required by the ENRG, because they implement Liverpool Group - Wigan Group in each case without any intermediate waypoints, so a Liverpool Stations - Manchester stations ticket shows up as valid via Southport, even though it's not mapped on the printed guide.

Though we must not forget that you cannot doubleback through a station (go through it more than once), unless an easement allows it, it is on the shortest route or you are using a direct train.

 

[soil]

That's right, the section you have already used to provide a routeing rule:

The three mile rule only appears in Section F.

It's rather less ambiguous however.

Look up Wigan (Wigan Group) to Patricroft (Earlestown, Manchester Group, Wigan Group) on NRES, it shows four journeys on Thursday 4th April that require only one ticket, out of a whole day's service.

0647 from North Western (via Newton-le-Willows)
1821 from North Western (via Newton-le-Willows)
2155 from Wallgate (via Manchester)
2257 from North Western (via Huyton)

If we say they share a common routeing point (and ignore page F3), only the shortest route can be used (there are no direct trains). Via Huyton and via Manchester are more than three miles longer than the shortest route (via Newton-le-Willows) and so are not valid. If they are not valid NRES is in error saying that trains via Huyton and via Manchester are valid.

The 21:55 uses a bus connection from Victoria. My guess is that this counts as zero miles. This then passes under the 3 mile rule.

The 22:57 uses a bus from Huyton. Again, apparently zero miles, and therefore shorter than the shortest route and also therefore valid.

The 21:17, which uses rail from Huyton instead of the bus, is seen as not valid.

And given that there are no rules to say we should use NFM64 (and also given that those entrusted with giving out impartial information (staff) have no realistic access to NFM64, nevermind the general public!), we can only further use this as evidence not to trust online journey planners.

There is no trustworthy source of information.

The printed NRG has numerous discrepancies and ambiguities. The maps include closed lines and stations.

The eNRG has a set of rules, which ATOC has not published, which are presumably unambiguous. It also has a set of maps and RPs, which unlike the printed guide, is tended and maintained, and which is intended to be better than the printed guide.

It is reasonable to look at it for guidance in the face of ambiguities and errors, furthermore ATOC are responsible for a document which can incur criminal liabilities and all ambiguities should be interpreted in the passengers' favour, until such time as they can be bothered to resolve them.

In terms of NFM64, as noted previously the intent was to preserve valid routes as they were at implementation. In this case, Southport - Liverpool - Manchester is reasonable and was permitted at the time of the first NRG, so it should remain so today.

Though we must not forget that you cannot doubleback through a station (go through it more than once), unless an easement allows it, it is on the shortest route or you are using a direct train.

Of course, but the printed routeing guide is clear that you must go via Kirkby to travel Liverpool - Wigan - Manchester.

Absent the Kirkby waypoint, via Southport is obviously permitted, and I suspect if you had a routeing engine with enough via points, you could do:

Liverpool - Southport - Burscough Bridge - Burscough Junction - Kirkdale - Wigan
as well as Liverpool - Burscough Junction - Burscough Bridge - Wigan Wallgate

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It's rather less ambiguous however....

Considering you believe "longer by no more than three miles" and "no more than three miles longer" include routes that are shorter, I think that comment is on dubious ground.

....The 21:55 uses a bus connection from Victoria. My guess is that this counts as zero miles. This then passes under the 3 mile rule.

The 22:57 uses a bus from Huyton. Again, apparently zero miles, and therefore shorter than the shortest route and also therefore valid.

The 21:17, which uses rail from Huyton instead of the bus, is seen as not valid....

The buses are rail replacement services. They are shown in the National Rail Timetable (Table 90). Therefore they both have mileage. Therefore NRES is incorrect to show them if only the shortest route is permitted.

There is no trustworthy source of information.

The printed NRG has numerous discrepancies and ambiguities. The maps include closed lines and stations....

The contract between passenger and railway states the National Routeing Guide is a source of routeing information. The ATOC website has a 'National Routeing Guide' that anyone can access. The Online Journey planners are supposed to adhere to the National Routeing Guide, the routes they give should agree with any route to be found in that document. If the 'National Routeing Guide' is not trustworthy, the contract between passenger and railway is on shaky ground.

If closed lines provide a permitted route for their ticket then there would be nothing to stop a passenger stopping or starting short on that route, that is an issue the railway has to address, but is it an ambiguity or discrepancy? I'm not convinced.

....The eNRG has a set of rules, which ATOC has not published, which are presumably unambiguous. It also has a set of maps and RPs, which unlike the printed guide, is tended and maintained, and which is intended to be better than the printed guide....

I do believe that contract law states that an involved party must have access to all parts of the contract, in this case that includes the edition of Routeing Guide that is in use at the time of buying the ticket. What you are saying is that ATOC wants the passengers to use a set of rules (part of the contract) to which they have no access and which they can alter with no warning or agreement.

....In terms of NFM64, as noted previously the intent was to preserve valid routes as they were at implementation. In this case, Southport - Liverpool - Manchester is reasonable and was permitted at the time of the first NRG....

Maybe, but NFM64 forms no part of the contract and therefore should not be used. If it did form part of the contract I believe ATOC would have to publish NFM64 again.

 

[soil]

The contract between passenger and railway states the National Routeing Guide is a source of routeing information. The ATOC website has a 'National Routeing Guide' that anyone can access. The Online Journey planners are supposed to adhere to the National Routeing Guide, the routes they give should agree with any route to be found in that document. If the 'National Routeing Guide' is not trustworthy, the contract between passenger and railway is on shaky ground.

Indeed.

If closed lines provide a permitted route for their ticket then there would be nothing to stop a passenger stopping or starting short on that route, that is an issue the railway has to address, but is it an ambiguity or discrepancy? I'm not convinced.

It is if I want to use a 200 mile detour that relies on that closed route.

I do believe that contract law states that an involved party must have access to all parts of the contract, in this case that includes the edition of Routeing Guide that is in use at the time of buying the ticket. What you are saying is that ATOC wants the passengers to use a set of rules (part of the contract) to which they have no access and which they can alter with no warning or agreement.

I don't think ATOC particularly care about the customers' access to accurate and reliable reference data. Clearly their intent is that the electronic system should be the most accurate source of information. This much is clear from the fact that the routeing guide displays closed lines and uses examples that are not valid on current fares or routeing points.

Maybe, but NFM64 forms no part of the contract and therefore should not be used. If it did form part of the contract I believe ATOC would have to publish NFM64 again.

ATOC don't have to do anything. It appears they can do pretty much what they like. No cases have reached court to say otherwise. The DFT are toothless.

 

[dave4jackie]

...for that one journey.

There's nothing to say the next conductor would accept it, or on another day it would be accepted.

Merseyrail staff, much to my annoyance and inconvenience, regularly deny that the routeing guide exists, and the conductors don't even do tickets!

Ok why does the journey planner say it is a permitted route to go to manchester via liverpool from southport if according to you it is not,don't forget merseyrail stations have star machines so it is all in there regarding permitted routes

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....It is if I want to use a 200 mile detour that relies on that closed route....

Ambiguity -

1. Doubtfulness or uncertainty as regards interpretation.
2. Something of doubtful meaning.

Discrepancy -

1. Divergence or disagreement, as between facts or claims; difference.
2. An instance of divergence or disagreement.

I'm not sure either apply even if you did want to use a 200 mile detour that relies on the use of a closed route.

(Definitions from thefreedictionary.com)

Ok why does the journey planner say it is a permitted route to go to manchester via liverpool from southport if according to you it is not,don't forget merseyrail stations have star machines so it is all in there regarding permitted routes

As has been noted in this thread, the online journey planners (and indeed those of the ticket machines at railway stations) apparently use a version of the Routeing Guide that very few people (and certainly not Joe Public) has direct access to and that ATOC apparently update without warning to rail users, combined with fares data from 1996 that the vast majority of people (including staff) have no real access to.