-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The routes book
- Thread starter D2022
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,857
It's quite a big thing, and hard to comprehend at first if you aren't well-versed with it, but all the relevant files are available to download free-of-charge here:
http://www.atoc.org/about-atoc/rail-settlement-plan/routeing-guide
http://www.atoc.org/about-atoc/rail-settlement-plan/routeing-guide
You cannot be charged a penalty fare for travelling off route.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-penalty-fares/
Penalty Fares policy said:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-penalty-fares/
You shouldn't be penalty fared for being off-route. Can you expand on the details of what happened, we might be able to offer some advice, especially if the staff member was in fact incorrect.
Certainly, from the westbury I asked the platform staff if I could go slightly off the route via a different station (to change at gloucester rather than via bath and swindon) and was told to ask someone who knew the routing book better, to which I asked the office staff. Just out of interest I again asked on the train and was immediately informed because of this I would be charged penalty to which I protested correctly that infact I hadn't (yet) gone off the correct route and should I choose then to stay on the right route I would in fact be within the tickets route. Again I was asked for a name and address to which I said no and then chose to get off at Trowbridge to wait the next train as the guard was persisting and irritating me with threats of BTP action for breaking the journey if I were to get off the train, which I ignored. I was not abusive! Nor was the guard. I must point that out.
So all in all.....I hadn't gone off the correct route. Nor attempted to. As I went straight to swindon via bath as normal.
LexyBoy
Established Member
For most journeys it is perfectly adequate to check route validities using National Rail Enquiries, where a "via" station can be entered. If it shows the journey as being valid using only one ticket, then it will be a permitted route. In some cases the fares for different routes will vary, in which case you'll be asked to pay an excess fare if you hold a ticket for a cheaper route - this is the difference between the fares.
I find this astonishing. It would be useful to know the ticket and origin/desination on the ticket, as Brucey says.
However, I am going to guess that your journey was Westbury-Stroud, and that you held an Anytime, Off Peak, Anytime Day or Off Peak Day ticket. Please let us know if this is correct as some of the advice below will change based on this information.
For this journey, both via Gloucester and via Swindon are permitted routes. Break of journey is permitted on all ticket types available for this flow. Not only was your ticket perfectly valid via Gloucester, you should not be charged a penalty fare for being off route, only sold the ticket(s) required to make it valid.
Leaving the train at an intermediate station is not break of journey, it's only a BoJ if you leave the station premises. The situation where the guards actions make any sense (assuming you were polite, as you say) is if an Advance ticket were held.
Did you leave before being issued the PF? If you were issued it then you will certainly (if my above assumptions are correct) be successful in appealing.
I find this astonishing. It would be useful to know the ticket and origin/desination on the ticket, as Brucey says.
However, I am going to guess that your journey was Westbury-Stroud, and that you held an Anytime, Off Peak, Anytime Day or Off Peak Day ticket. Please let us know if this is correct as some of the advice below will change based on this information.
For this journey, both via Gloucester and via Swindon are permitted routes. Break of journey is permitted on all ticket types available for this flow. Not only was your ticket perfectly valid via Gloucester, you should not be charged a penalty fare for being off route, only sold the ticket(s) required to make it valid.
Leaving the train at an intermediate station is not break of journey, it's only a BoJ if you leave the station premises. The situation where the guards actions make any sense (assuming you were polite, as you say) is if an Advance ticket were held.
Did you leave before being issued the PF? If you were issued it then you will certainly (if my above assumptions are correct) be successful in appealing.
Last edited:
First Great Western guards do not charge 'penalty fares,' so if you were travelling off-route, the guard was right to attempt to sell a ticket, or an excess if possible, to enable you to travel via the alternative route.
Basically...the ticket was an off peak return (the one month version) from westbury to swindon, I planned to go via gloucester so I could pop to stroud (break the journey) and pick up my bike from work. I asked the station staff who advised me to ask the ticket staff, who said it wasn't a valid ticket and the journey would need another ticket from swindon to stroud or an equivalent. I then asked on the train again, out of curiosity and was told no again, and the guard then attempted to penalty fare me, I refused (correctly) to give over my details, calmly I might add. The guard persisted (calmly also) and told me if I got off the train without giving my details the BTP would be called. Anyways, I got out at Trowbridge and waited for the train after.
The Routeing Guide shows that both Westbury and Swindon (Wilts) are Routeing Points. That makes it quite easy to determine permitted routes. In this case the only mapped routes are on map BL or alternatively on map MW. As you can see by looking at either of these maps, there isn't a mapped route from Westbury to Gloucester to Swindon.
Therefore the staff were correct to say this is not a permitted route.
You were attempting to travel to Stroud, which is clearly beyond Swindon on any permitted route to Swindon, so if you went via Swindon you would be travelling 'over distance' from Swindon. Travelling via Gloucester, it could be argued you are deviating from your route to a new destination (Stroud) and therefore treated as holding no valid ticket from the last station that your ticket is valid, and therefore liable to the full fare from that station to your destination (or, if applicable, possibly a Penalty Fare).
Failing to give your name & address is a criminal offence, however if you held a valid ticket at the time of the inspection you should, IMO, not have had to give your name & address if you complied with the instructions of staff to either not deviate from the route or to pay the additional fare as appropriate. However if you made your intentions clear to ignore these instructions then I can understand why they would wish to take your name & address at that point as you could be seen to be demonstrating intent to avoid payment of the fare for part of the journey you were making.
Therefore the staff were correct to say this is not a permitted route.
You were attempting to travel to Stroud, which is clearly beyond Swindon on any permitted route to Swindon, so if you went via Swindon you would be travelling 'over distance' from Swindon. Travelling via Gloucester, it could be argued you are deviating from your route to a new destination (Stroud) and therefore treated as holding no valid ticket from the last station that your ticket is valid, and therefore liable to the full fare from that station to your destination (or, if applicable, possibly a Penalty Fare).
Failing to give your name & address is a criminal offence, however if you held a valid ticket at the time of the inspection you should, IMO, not have had to give your name & address if you complied with the instructions of staff to either not deviate from the route or to pay the additional fare as appropriate. However if you made your intentions clear to ignore these instructions then I can understand why they would wish to take your name & address at that point as you could be seen to be demonstrating intent to avoid payment of the fare for part of the journey you were making.
RJ
Established Member
I agree with Yorkie - you didn't have a valid ticket for what you wanted to do. Only one map in the NRG, map MW shows the permitted routes. Via Gloucester isn't one of them.
What different route were you trying to change to? The only ticketing option between WSB and SWI is Any Permitted. I've just looked at a rail map and don't know how you can justify making a blind assumption that a Westbury to Swindon ticket is valid via Gloucester. It's not by any means a reasonable route.
In future, you may wish to check the National Rail website to verify if what you want to do can be covered with one ticket. Or, consult the National Routeing Guide before making the journey, instead of giving staff a hard time when they quite correctly tell you that you have gotten it wrong. In order for a member of railway staff to request your details, they only need to state in general terms the nature of the breach they hold a reasonable belief you have committed, which in this case was wholly justified. Your refusal to provide was not "correct" in this case.
Last edited:
What an unnecessarily unpleasant response to the OP.
From what has been posted by the OP, there is nothing to suggest that he/she told railway staff of an intent to travel off route or that he/she gave railway staff a "hard time". The OP merely posed the question and was then threatened with a penalty fare while still on route and was then asked for name/address when no offence had been committed. There is also no evidence to suggest that the OP had "gotten it wrong" as he/she doesn't claim to have taken a position that the desired route was a valid one.
Now, it's possible, of course, that what the OP has posted about what took place and what was said is inaccurate. How others are able to know this escapes me.
RJ
Established Member
I take on board what you say. However, the story told by the OP is missing important details. At the moment, we're expected to believe that the OP was threatened with a Penalty Fare, simply for asking a question. It wouldn't surprise me if the member of staff didn't have a clue when break of journey is permitted, which seems to be a problem endemic in revenue protection staff who are too lazy to find out how restrictions work.
A few details more details would have made the initial story more clear. As almost every story we see involves the OP making themselves out to be a helpless victim, it's only natural that further questions are asked. There is usually an underlying reason for anything involving enforcement.
If a member of staff has reasonable suspicion (even if wrong) that someone is attempting to breach a Byelaw and they request the person's name and address, the person is legally required to provide those details.
In this case, it appears the member of staff was given reason to believe that the OP was intent on travelling via Gloucester, without taking up the opportunity to obtain a valid ticket prior to boarding the train. If this was the case then the OP was legally obliged to provide their name and address when asked.
Last edited:
MichaelAMW
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,014
I have to say I agree with MKB and disagree with RJ.
He has to give his address under the RORA if he doesn't otherwise pay the fare or hand over a valid ticket - he handed over a valid ticket. Under the byelaws the guard, as you say, has to have "reasonable" suspicion, which based on what has been said he did not. I don't agree that the fact he is wrong allows him to nevertheless demand your name and address - that means there is no effective restriction on demanding those details as you could claim anything you like! It's hard to see how the guard could be so sure that the OP was intent on travelling via Gloucester, based on what was said - the OP has been clear that this was a perfectly civil conversation on both their parts.
RJ states that "As almost every story we see involves the OP making themselves out to be a helpless victim" and that the story is lacking details, which makes me think he is applying the details of other situations to this one. Actually, the OP's initial post was a simple request about where he can find the routeing guide - he didn't complain about, or even mention, the experience he had, which does not seem to be him taking a "helpful victim" stance.
As MKB says, filling in the gaps in such a negative way isn't particularly fair to the OP.
He has to give his address under the RORA if he doesn't otherwise pay the fare or hand over a valid ticket - he handed over a valid ticket. Under the byelaws the guard, as you say, has to have "reasonable" suspicion, which based on what has been said he did not. I don't agree that the fact he is wrong allows him to nevertheless demand your name and address - that means there is no effective restriction on demanding those details as you could claim anything you like! It's hard to see how the guard could be so sure that the OP was intent on travelling via Gloucester, based on what was said - the OP has been clear that this was a perfectly civil conversation on both their parts.
RJ states that "As almost every story we see involves the OP making themselves out to be a helpless victim" and that the story is lacking details, which makes me think he is applying the details of other situations to this one. Actually, the OP's initial post was a simple request about where he can find the routeing guide - he didn't complain about, or even mention, the experience he had, which does not seem to be him taking a "helpful victim" stance.
As MKB says, filling in the gaps in such a negative way isn't particularly fair to the OP.
RJ
Established Member
Original Poster (OP) in this context refers to whoever is telling the story, not necessarily in the first post. In this case, the OP clearly had a story to tell, as we were led to believe that they had already received a Penalty Fare for asking to travel on a different route. There are inferences as to what the member of staff did wrong, but no explanation offered as to what precisely caused the misunderstanding. It is obviously not as clear cut as "getting penalty fared for ASKING for a different route."
I know there's a general reluctance for people to press for details unless the OP has clearly admitted that they did wrong, at which point several people always seem to jump in. In this case, inquiring minds would like to know why the member of staff got it so wrong. Whilst I appreciate the pro passenger stance, any criticism of a member of staff should come with a fair explanation of why the member of staff decided to behave in a seemingly inappropriate manner.
I'm not applying the details of any other case to this one, however it is not hard to spot where there are gaps in the story. From what has been posted, it cannot be established why the member of staff wanted to obtain the OP's details. However, it is implied that the member of staff wanted to penalise the OP for disembarking one stop away from Westbury, which was still very much on route.
I wonder if the OP was on a train that was going to Gloucester, was told that their ticket was not valid via Gloucester and wanted to obtain a ticket to travel via Gloucester, at which point they were told it would be a Penalty Fare as retailing facilities were available at Westbury. If this is the case then I wonder if it was made sufficiently clear by the OP that they were intending to get off at or before Bath Spa.
If this is the case then it implies that the member of staff wanted to PF the OP who was still on route, held a belief that tickets were only valid on direct trains and wanted to PF the OP, despite the ticket held being valid at all stations between Westbury and Bath Spa. I know some guards are bad with tickets, but this seems a bit far fetched.
Last edited:
- Status