Strange Easements

[34D]

If I may quote:

"30130 Journey from Harringay, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace, New Southgate, Oakleigh park, New barnet, Hadley Wood, Potters Bar, Brookmonds park, Welham Green, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Welwyn North and Knebworth to Hitchin and beyond may travel via Stevenage. This easement applies in both directions."

Can anyone tell me what is intended by this? It seems totally illogical, makes me wonder if a word is wrong somewhere?

 

[causton]

Apart from 'Brookmonds' in Brookmans Park?

Nope, no idea either - I mean, what other way would you go? via Kings Cross, Liverpool Street and Cambridge? :P

 

[bb21]

Not all easements are correct and useful though. Some are outdated, whilst some others may have been pure mistakes. For example,

Customers travelling from Market Harborough to the north are valid to
travel via Leicester. This easement applies in both directions.

Customers travelling from Stamford via Leicester may travel via Oakham.
This easement applies in both directions.

WO4350 to allow doubleback when the error is 74 or 75 Ditton Marsh to
Waestbury via Warminster

None of these really make any sense. It is ultimately a very poorly-maintained document which only seems to expand in size and never anything taken out of it.

 

[Terrafire]

Definitely not very well maintained. Take a look at this one, from the 12th Dec 2011 version:

Tickets routed Retford for Lincoln-London or Saxilby-London are also valid on
permitted routes that do not pass through Retford. This easement applies in
both directions.(Not implemented or tested yet. To go live on 23rd May
2004)

Hmmmmm. Then there's the incomprehensible:

WO 4258 Error 16 journey around Barry and Bridgend via Cardiff. For fares route Any Permitted

And the genuinely redundant ones:

Customers travelling from Caersws, Newtown and Welshpool via either Wem or Wolverhampton and beyond, may also travel via Shrewsbury. This easement applies in both directions.

Yeah, you bet it does, unless you've opened up the Cambrian Railway again. And let's not forget Easement 700039:

test

Finally, one of my favourite types, the ones that really make a difference:

Customers travelling via Norwich using fares routed Irish Ferries may travel via Norwich

The easements, more than anything else, demonstrate that while we have a great many fares and rules, we certainly do not have a fares system.

 

[LexyBoy]

If I may quote:

"30130 Journey from Harringay, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace, New Southgate, Oakleigh park, New barnet, Hadley Wood, Potters Bar, Brookmonds park, Welham Green, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Welwyn North and Knebworth to Hitchin and beyond may travel via Stevenage. This easement applies in both directions."

Can anyone tell me what is intended by this? It seems totally illogical, makes me wonder if a word is wrong somewhere?

I believe most of these redundant easements are for the benefit of journey planners, which for whatever reason deem some valid routes as not permitted.

 

[34D]

I did wonder actually whether it was meant to read "via Hertford" - example a journey from Oakleigh Park to Letchworth could be one or two changes (at Welwyn and possibly Stevenage) or one change at Ally Pally - though unlikely I would think. For the stations closer to London, "via Finsbury Park" would be a possibility, or even "must travel via Stevenage".

Definitely not very well maintained. Take a look at this one, from the 12th Dec 2011 version:

Originally Posted by Easement 62:
Tickets routed Retford for Lincoln-London or Saxilby-London are also valid on
permitted routes that do not pass through Retford. This easement applies in
both directions.(Not implemented or tested yet. To go live on 23rd May
2004)

The easements I most detest are probably:

Easement 68 Tickets routed Any Permitted for journeys Lincoln-London and Saxilby- London are not valid via Retford. This prohibition applies in both directions. (Not implemented or tested yet. To go live on 23rd May 2004)

Easement 102 (1) Journeys from Lincoln and Saxilby to London made on tickets routed Any Permitted may not go via Retford. (2) Journeys from Lincoln and Saxilby to London made on tickets routed Retford may also use routes allowed by permitted routes which do not pass Retford. (3) Journeys from Market Rasen, Metheringham and Hykeham to London may not go via Retford. (4) Journeys from Lincoln, Saxilby, Market Rasen, Metheringham and Hykeham to stations beyond London may not go via Retford. All this applies in both directions.

These really do need to be changed (in my opinion) to "not retford" (instead of any permitted) and "any permitted" (instead of route Retford). Presumably the rationale here is to split the current 'any permitted' fare between EMT and EC only (and not Northern)?

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe most of these redundant easements are for the benefit of journey planners, which for whatever reason deem some valid routes as not permitted.

I believe that the journey planner software will not be able to read plain language easements of the sort we often discuss.

If what they publish online is then an attempt to come up with a readable translation of some sort of computer gibberish (that only a journey planner software package could normally understand), that might explain many of the errors which we believe are missing words.

Or to put it another way, something odd appearing in that table doesn't mean it is also wrong in the software.

 

[Terrafire]

I believe that the journey planner software will not be able to read plain language easements of the sort we often discuss.

If what they publish online is then an attempt to come up with a readable translation of some sort of computer gibberish (that only a journey planner software package could normally understand), that might explain many of the errors which we believe are missing words.

Or to put it another way, something odd appearing in that table doesn't mean it is also wrong in the software.

It's bizarre, though. Presumably the journey planners, being logical automated routeing systems, need to read a consistent and logical set of easements, all formatted in exactly the same way. Why we can't get that list, expanded out into English in exactly the same way for each one, is beyond me.

 

[philjo]

Can anyone explain how you are supposed to travel in this case?

700119
Customers travelling from Shelford via Royston, may not travel via Cambridge. This easement applies in both directions.

If going from Shelford to somewhere such as Hitchin, I can't see how to get there other than via Cambridge! (assuming of course that you don't go via London)

 

[LexyBoy]

Can anyone explain how you are supposed to travel in this case?

700119
Customers travelling from Shelford via Royston, may not travel via Cambridge. This easement applies in both directions.

If going from Shelford to somewhere such as Hitchin, I can't see how to get there other than via Cambridge! (assuming of course that you don't go via London)

NRE appears to take it at its word: Shelford-Hitchin requires more than one ticket.

Whittlesford Parkway, one stop further from Cambridge than Shelford, has a Via Cambridge fare (£13.50 SDS) and an Any Permitted (£30.60 SDS) with suggested route via Finsbury Park (!).

A very peculiar one; I can only imagine it's to prevent Shelford-London being valid on FCC (these tickets being routed Any Permitted), but it obviously has some ridiculous side-effects! Nice little PF earner for FCC though I'd imagine.

 

[spasmj]

For 700119 I'll attempt to explain the non-text version of the easement. The data specification can be found here.

Firstly it is defined as two easements which both correspond to the same text easement:

E,700254,07032011,31122999,700119,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,
E,700255,07032011,31122999,700119,3,2,7,YYYYYYY,,

"E" indicates the record type (E = Easement)
"700254" and "700255" are unique identifiers.
"07032011" means the easement applies from 07/03/2011
"31122999" means the easement applies until 31/12/2999 (indefinitely)
"700119" is the text easement to which these easements apply.
"3" indicates that the easement type is 'Normal'
"2" indicates that the easement class is 'Negative'
"7" indicates that the easement category is 'Circuitous Route easement'.
"YYYYYYY" indicates that the easement is valid every day of the week.
A further two columns are available for start and end times.

Each easement has further "Easement Location" records (See quotes below).

In the forth column:
1 = The easement applies to journeys containing this location
2 = The easement applies to journeys from this origin
3 = The easement applies to journeys to this destination
4 = The easement applies to journeys via this location
5 = The easement applies to journeys which exclude this location

L,700254,CBG,1
L,700254,RYS,4
L,700254,SED,2

The above means that the easement applies for journeys with origin Shelford via Royston which contain Cambridge. The easement is negative :- the route is not allowed.

L,700255,CBG,1
L,700255,RYS,4
L,700255,SED,3

The above means that the easement applies for journeys with destination Shelford via Royston which contain Cambridge. The easement is negative :- the route is not allowed.

On this occasion the non-text definition matches the text definition. Often this is not the case :roll:.

 

[Terrafire]

For 700119 I'll attempt to explain the non-text version of the easement. The data specification can be found here.

Firstly it is defined as two easements which both correspond to the same text easement:



"E" indicates the record type (E = Easement)
"700254" and "700255" are unique identifiers.
"07032011" means the easement applies from 07/03/2011
"31122999" means the easement applies until 31/12/2999 (indefinitely)
"700119" is the text easement to which these easements apply.
"3" indicates that the easement type is 'Normal'
"2" indicates that the easement class is 'Negative'
"7" indicates that the easement category is 'Circuitous Route easement'.
"YYYYYYY" indicates that the easement is valid every day of the week.
A further two columns are available for start and end times.

Each easement has further "Easement Location" records (See quotes below).

In the forth column:
1 = The easement applies to journeys containing this location
2 = The easement applies to journeys from this origin
3 = The easement applies to journeys to this destination
4 = The easement applies to journeys via this location
5 = The easement applies to journeys which exclude this location



The above means that the easement applies for journeys with origin Shelford via Royston which contain Cambridge. The easement is negative :- the route is not allowed.



The above means that the easement applies for journeys with destination Shelford via Royston which contain Cambridge. The easement is negative :- the route is not allowed.

On this occasion the non-text definition matches the text definition. Often this is not the case :roll:.

Very interesting, thank you.

 

[swt_passenger]

On this occasion the non-text definition matches the text definition. Often this is not the case :roll:.

Thanks for digging all that out - so going back to my earlier post^, is it possible then that there are cases where the plain language text has been reverse translated from the data - and the text could then be misleading?

Another thing that occurs to me, if an easement is made to cover a short period only, say during engineering works, can it accidentally remain in the publicly accessible easement list, even though it was a one off and should have been deleted once finished with?

 

[spasmj]

Thanks for digging all that out - so going back to my earlier post^, is it possible then that there are cases where the plain language text has been reverse translated from the data - and the text could then be misleading?

Another thing that occurs to me, if an easement is made to cover a short period only, say during engineering works, can it accidentally remain in the publicly accessible easement list, even though it was a one off and should have been deleted once finished with?

There are certainly cases where the text is misleading or fails to explain the full details of the 'non-text' easement. I don't know anything about the process by which the easements are created though.

re easements for engineering works - There are plenty of easements which apply only during engineering works. A good proportion haven't been 'active' for several years. Easement 30027, for example, is defined to start 30/07/2005 and end 21/08/2005. It may be the case that the text of the easement remains true and that the 'non-text' version would be given new start and end dates should any relevant engineering works be scheduled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
700039, 000062 and 000068
Don't exist in non-text version.

30152 - "WO 4258 Error 16 journey around Barry and Bridgend via Cardiff. For fares route Any Permitted"

This text easement has three 'non-text' easements; each one only applies when the route on the ticket is Any Permitted.

1) It permits journeys via Bridgend and Dinas Powys which include Cardiff.
2) It permits journeys with origin Bridgend via Dinas Powys which include Cardiff
3) It permits journeys with destination Bridgend via Dinas Powys which include Cardiff

 

[34D]

NRE appears to take it at its word: Shelford-Hitchin requires more than one ticket.

Whittlesford Parkway, one stop further from Cambridge than Shelford, has a Via Cambridge fare (£13.50 SDS) and an Any Permitted (£30.60 SDS) with suggested route via Finsbury Park (!).

A very peculiar one; I can only imagine it's to prevent Shelford-London being valid on FCC (these tickets being routed Any Permitted), but it obviously has some ridiculous side-effects! Nice little PF earner for FCC though I'd imagine.

Would anyone fancy taking up this easement with FCC and NXEA? Ideally with a view to obtaining an assurance that (for example) route cambridge would be valid for destinations Hitchin-Royston inclusive?

Ideally FCC would say that the easement would be valid for any route where via CBG and RYS is quicker - I'd suggest potters bar/Cuffley to Huntingdon personally.

I've included Huntingdon because (although Shelford-cambridge-peterborough-huntingdon may be quicker) route royston hitchin is necessary if a Network railcard is being used.

Finally, may say that I am concerned that we are treating the computer programming language as authoritative, whereas surely the English language should be authoritative and the computer version derived from that?

 

[swt_passenger]

Finally, may say that I am concerned that we are treating the computer programming language as authoritative, whereas surely the English language should be authoritative and the computer version derived from that?

That really depends how the English language version they publish online is produced. It may not be the original easement as requested by the originator. Perhaps if you are a TOC wishing to close a loophole you just provide a plain language request on a proforma. Maybe an expert codes that in using the rules linked to above. Someone else may try and summarise either the initial request or the codes to produce the public version later. There are a number of possible pitfalls.

It would appear from the explanation above that there are a massive number of easement data entries (eg each direction of the same journey will be separate). So the published listing is just an attempt to summarise them in a concise way for public use. (A point I suggested a few weeks ago when we were discussing some easement puzzle or other in the Dartford area IIRC.)

In any case, we know there are a number that make no sense as written, for example in my area:

30160 WO4333 Error 16 at Romsey and Eastleigh for journeys Romsey to Winchester.

That's completely meaningless without more info as far as I can see...

30098 Journeys from Chandlers Ford via Eastleigh and Basingstoke are permitted regardless of fares. This easement applies in both directions.

Well yes, but where does the easement actually apply? Does it apply at Southampton Parkway perhaps? There's no way of knowing what it is for as published.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Perhaps if you are a TOC wishing to close a loophole you just provide a plain language request on a proforma. Maybe an expert codes that in using the rules linked to above.

You would hope that permission to amend the routeing guide would be requested from the DfT, and Passenger Focus consulted in the meantime!!!!

 

[swt_passenger]

You would hope that permission to amend the routeing guide would be requested from the DfT, and Passenger Focus consulted in the meantime!!!!

Fair point, but it shouldn't afffect the actual mechanism of coding and decoding a new easement once approved.

 

[sheff1]

Fair point, but it shouldn't afffect the actual mechanism of coding and decoding a new easement once approved.

Well no, but the publicly available easement should be whatever it was that was approved, not some half baked attempt at translating computer code.

If any coding needs altering solely to fix a coding fault or omission, there should be no need for details to appear in the public easement guidance at all.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well no, but the publicly available easement should be whatever it was that was approved, not some half baked attempt at translating computer code.

I think everyone agrees with that. I was trying to tease out why it might happen, not attempting to justify it in any way...

 

[RJ]

Why draw attention to a document where the majority of it is easy to understand? There are some useful ones in there which represent open loopholes to save £££s on some routes.

 

[philjo]

NRE appears to take it at its word: Shelford-Hitchin requires more than one ticket.

Whittlesford Parkway, one stop further from Cambridge than Shelford, has a Via Cambridge fare (£13.50 SDS) and an Any Permitted (£30.60 SDS) with suggested route via Finsbury Park (!).

A very peculiar one; I can only imagine it's to prevent Shelford-London being valid on FCC (these tickets being routed Any Permitted), but it obviously has some ridiculous side-effects! Nice little PF earner for FCC though I'd imagine.

On checking my NFM10 CD last night I see that the only fares provided for Shelford to Hitchin or Letchworth etc are for "route Cambridge" - there is no "any permitted" fare shown. So you have to travel via Cambridge. EC & FCC sites will let you buy those tickets.

So I think the easement is intended to stop Shelford tickets to London going via Cambridge & FCC but is badly worded.

 

[34D]

Why draw attention to a document where the majority of it is easy to understand? There are some useful ones in there which represent open loopholes to save £££s on some routes.

Indeed, I agree with you. I don't think that this thread has highlighted any of the ones that seriously benefit passengers though....?

The document is of course freely available online.....

 

[Squaddie]

Why draw attention to a document where the majority of it is easy to understand? There are some useful ones in there which represent open loopholes to save £££s on some routes.

Considering the hassle you seem to have on a regular basis while exploiting those loopholes, is it really worth it?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Indeed, I agree with you. I don't think that this thread has highlighted any of the ones that seriously benefit passengers though....?

We have had a few instances in recent months where particularly beneficial easements have been mentioned on the forum and then lo and behond at the next update those same easements are the ones which have vanished or been tightened up...

 

[34D]

We have had a few instances in recent months where particularly beneficial easements have been mentioned on the forum and then lo and behond at the next update those same easements are the ones which have vanished or been tightened up...

Could you let me know which ones (by PM if preferred).

The next question I would appreciate an answer on the forum - when was the most recent revision please, and who was consulted on the changes?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Sorry - I can't remember now; I didn't note them at the time but I did recognise at the last revision late last year when it was put up on here that something that allowed a rather long circuitous route at low price had got blocked in it and it had been discussed on here about 3 - 4 months earlier.

 

[RJ]

Considering the hassle you seem to have on a regular basis while exploiting those loopholes, is it really worth it?

I've never exploited the better nature of an easement in the NRG thank you very much.

I'm not sure if that's a serious question in any case. As long as I have paid my fare, or otherwise fulfilled my liabilities then I'm content.

Beyond that, it's not my place to assume that revenue protection staff have poor decision making skills or do not know their trade well. Would you as a customer, go somewhere, act appropriately and expect the worst?

Oh and as it happens, I worked in revenue protection. In my opinion, the following applies;

Compulsory conditions required before considering penalising a passenger

- You're certain they've breached the rules, can establish significant proof and can unequivocally back up your decision with reference to specific clauses.

Wrong reasons to penalise a passenger;

- Just because you can

- Just in case they did something wrong

- Because you don't like the look of them

- Because they're railway staff

- You acknowledge that the fare due has been paid but penalising them because you feel that they should have paid more

- You acknowledge that the fare due has been paid but penalising them because you feel that they are trying to play the system

- You acknowledge that the fare due has been paid but penalising them because you don't understand the rules that establish validity

You may well disagree with me and that's your perogative. However, with empathy in mind, I expect to be treated the way I treated people when I was in that position.

Do you think I ever penalised anyone due to ignorance on my part? Hell no.

 

[Terrafire]

Just noting that, from a legal perspective, routeings like West Kirby-Shotton via Manchester Piccadilly, which Indigo2 pointed out, could fall foul of the doctrine of unilateral mistake. This essentially subjects the terms to the test whether a reasonable observer would know that there was a mistake in the terms such that they did not make sense to one of the parties. I'm not sure anyone claiming they'd formed a contract on the basis of the routeing guide or the journey planners would necessarily be successful here, in the extremely unlikely event it came before a judge.

 

[RJ]

We have had a few instances in recent months where particularly beneficial easements have been mentioned on the forum and then lo and behond at the next update those same easements are the ones which have vanished or been tightened up...

I can confirm that there are some high profile lurkers on here.