Ticketing Query (Any permitted vs London)

[Andrew]

I'm looking up YP Saver Returns between Oxford and Manchester, and wondering what routes are valid. I'm fairly familiar with working out valid routes using the routeing guide, but I'm puzzled as regards the actual fares.

I assumed that an "Any Permitted" ticket (such as the YP Saver Return @ 38.55GBP) was valid on any permitted route, where you can travel by 1. The shortest route, 2. Any advertised through train, 3. Any route permitted by the routeing guide.

Routeing guide routes for Oxford to Manchester include London (as well as various obscure and less obscure XC routes). Therefore I thought an Any Permitted ticket would be valid via London.

However, there is also a higher price Saver Return (51.15GBP) which is advertised as Route London. Is this ticket just a rip off when people could in fact buy an Any Permitted Saver, or is an "Any Permitted" ticket not valid via London?

The following from the routeing guide seems to confirm that the London Saver is a rip-off:

In some instances (particularly long distance cross country journeys) the Fares Manual will show an "any permitted" fare but without the via London, Maltese cross (D ) symbol. Reference to Section C (yellow pages) may show via London to be a permitted route for this journey and in such instances travel via London to include cross-London transfer would be permitted.

Anyway, does anyone have any ideas what would happen if I tried using an Any Permitted Saver via London? Fine, not fine, excess fare?

 

[voyagerdude220]

Well when i've been using the Avantix Traveller software, to work out prices, in cases like these, where theres an "Any Permitted" and also a "London" saver return available, i personally think that:

The £38.75 Saver- "Any Permitted" [priced by VXC] allows the passenger to travel on "Any Permitted route" providing it doesn't go via London.

The £51.15 Saver- " + London" [priced by VWC] allows the passenger to travel on "Any Permitted route", and ALSO gives the passenger the option of travelling via London if they wish to do so, instead of Leamington Spa.

I may be wrong, but that's how i see it.

Please will other members of Rail UK confirm if i'm right or wrong.

Edit: Sorry i didn't answer your original question- I would guess that you would be charged the excess fare, up to the "+London" price, unless you were caught in a penalty fare area(?) where you would be charged the penalty fare.

 

[yorkie]

I
I assumed that an "Any Permitted" ticket (such as the YP Saver Return @ 38.55GBP) was valid on any permitted route, where you can travel by 1. The shortest route, 2. Any advertised through train, 3. Any route permitted by the routeing guide.

Correct
1) Yep - plus any routes no longer than 3 miles longer
2) Yep - doesn't have to be on departure boards/announcements, it just has to appear in the NRT as a through train.
3) Yep - any mapped route in the RG

Routeing guide routes for Oxford to Manchester include London (as well as various obscure and less obscure XC routes). Therefore I thought an Any Permitted ticket would be valid via London.

So it does, so yes it is.

However, there is also a higher price Saver Return (51.15GBP) which is advertised as Route London. Is this ticket just a rip off when people could in fact buy an Any Permitted Saver, or is an "Any Permitted" ticket not valid via London?

This is a major error with the RG, and has been highlighted at uk.railway. The conclusion of the discussion was that it is valid.

However, we have a saying, "there are valid tickets that look invalid, invalid tickets that look valid, and everything in between!" The fact that this ticket does not have the maltese cross (+) sign will cause LU staff who have been badly trained to think the ticket is not valid via London and the barriers will not accept it. Some railway staff who have not been trained on the RG will also, mistakenly, think it's not valid. Thetrainline has also been incorrectly programmed not to allow 'Any Permitted' tickets via London; only '+ Any Permitted' tickets can be routed that way so you can't buy it online with a via London itinery.

The following from the routeing guide seems to confirm that the London Saver is a rip-off:

Indeed, VWC set the "London" fare and VXC set the "Any Permitted"

Anyway, does anyone have any ideas what would happen if I tried using an Any Permitted Saver via London? Fine, not fine, excess fare?

It's a lottery. They should accept it, some will query it, some will try to charge you an excess, the excess is £6.20 each way. A PF should not be issued for being off-route (which you aren't, but if they THINK you are), HOWEVER there have been reports of FarceGroup desperate RIPs (sorry - I meant RPIs - I just wish they'd RIP at times ) incorrectly PFing people for being allegedly "off route" who were not off route at all. If that happens to you, refuse to pay and say "see you in court"; it would never get to court as it's valid.

I had a Grantham-Stroud "Any Permitted", valid via London but no +, this was accepted without question by all guards on GNER/FGW, but a jobsworth on LU who had been badly trained made false claims that the ticket was not valid, so I argued with him and eventually one of his collegues got him to accept it.

 

[voyagerdude220]

In that case i assume it means i was wrong.

Does this mean that the "+London" fare shouldn't really exist now, or (probably better option-) should it replace the "Any Permitted" fare? (At the £38.55 price)

 

[yorkie]

Well when i've been using the Avantix Traveller software, to work out prices, in cases like these, where theres an "Any Permitted" and also a "London" saver return available, i personally think that:

The question is not "what does Mr Random think off the top of their head" the question is: is it valid. We don't need to "think"; we need to check!

The £38.75 Saver- "Any Permitted" [priced by VXC] allows the passenger to travel on "Any Permitted route" providing it doesn't go via London.

Wrong.

The £51.15 Saver- " + London" [priced by VWC] allows the passenger to travel on "Any Permitted route", and ALSO gives the passenger the option of travelling via London if they wish to do so, instead of Leamington Spa.

Correct, it does indeed also allow travel avoiding London, you are not compelled to go via London, due to the presense of a cheaper ticket for a non-London route. Conversely, the presense of a more expensive ticket does not mean an 'Any permitted' is not valid via the more expensive route

I may be wrong, but that's how i see it.

Please will other members of Rail UK confirm if i'm right or wrong.

Done - 1 out of 2

Edit: Sorry i didn't answer your original question- I would guess that you would be charged the excess fare, up to the "+London" price,

Correct - in theory only 1/2 the difference if doing it one way only.

unless you were caught in a penalty fare area(?) where you would be charged the penalty fare.

I've read that they (in this case, FGW) can't penalty fare customers from another company (in this case VWC), and I've also read that penalty fares cannot be charged if you are off-route (I've heard that personally from a friendly RPI), I have so far been unable to get absolute proof that these are the case in the form of authoriative documentation, but I will try.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In that case i assume it means i was wrong.

Does this mean that the "+London" fare shouldn't really exist now, or (probably better option-) should it replace the "Any Permitted" fare? (At the £38.55 price)

Well, where do I start?!

IMO, if they want to charge a cheaper price for avoiding London, it should be called Route "Banbury" or Route "Not London" (indeed a ticket to Stockport is available as "Route "Banbury", York is "Not London"), and to go via London should be "+ Any Permitted", that makes perfect sense and keeps it in line with all other destinations.

Someone has decided that London should not be a "permitted" route to get to Manchester for some absolutely absurd unknown reason, but it is a permitted route, so someone made a mistake, I can only assume they have an extremely low IQ, to put it bluntly.

 

[Techniquest]

Sorry, but why on Earth would you want to go via London from Oxford to Manchester? If someone had asked me if Oxford to Manchester was valid via London, I'd have said outright it was not.

Even during disruptions due to engineering works on the route between Oxford and Banbury, it wouldn't make sense!

 

[yorkie]

Sorry, but why on Earth would you want to go via London from Oxford to Manchester? If someone had asked me if Oxford to Manchester was valid via London, I'd have said outright it was not.

They may want to visit London on the way back (perfectly valid with a Saver!), maybe visit friends, go shopping - any reason. Even if you take it purely as a means to get there, it could probably be done in 3.5 hrs (at a push) via London versus 3 hours direct - and who wants to sit on a Voyager for 3 hours anyway, if they have a choice?

Even during disruptions due to engineering works on the route between Oxford and Banbury, it wouldn't make sense!

During engineering work or disruptions it might make sense.

 

[Andrew]

Sorry, but why on Earth would you want to go via London from Oxford to Manchester? If someone had asked me if Oxford to Manchester was valid via London, I'd have said outright it was not.

Well you'd be wrong then! (or you might be wrong, depending on interpretation)

Even during disruptions due to engineering works on the route between Oxford and Banbury, it wouldn't make sense!

If I want to avoid being trodden on in the vestibule of a 4-coach Voyager, then I think that's my choice. Especially since, if Virgin West Coast get their way (which they probably will), and the New Cross Country franchisee is trying to cut costs (which they probably will), most XC services will end up being 4 coach voyagers (or worse).

And from the new XC timetable, it seems likely they'll be 1tph to Manchester from Bournemouth with the Reading service going to Newcastle. In which case, especially if Euston - Manchester goes up to 3tph it could well be quicker and comfier to go via London than wait for an overcrowded voyager and then wait again for another overcrowded voyager from the heavenliness that is Birmingham New Street.

And it'd be nice to see how well Pendolinos can cope with their first stop Stoke timings. And, for that matter, have a final fling with the Adelantes (though apparently the 180s may be staying - best FGW news I've heard for a while).

And anyway, this problem isn't unique to Oxford - Manchester. It was a general wondering on the ticket conditions as well as this specific example.

EDIT: Thanks for the responses by the way - very useful.

 

[Techniquest]

You're hoping a bit for a 3.5 hour journey via London there...Please do not forget this is FGW on the OXF - PAD section of that bash, delays and cancellations are frequent and regular!

Nah, I'd rather go the direct way myself on a Voyager than face the problems with Farce to London, pack into a packed Circle line train then onto a potentially packed 390. But that's my choice!

Having been looking at the Routing Guide this evening myself (for a Hereford - Trowbridge run tomorrow, back Sunday), I was amazed to see that it is valid (looking at maps CS and MW FYI) via Worcester, Oxford and Didcot then over to Swindon and down from there! If this is really true, I'll have to try that one out!

 

[Max]

You're hoping a bit for a 3.5 hour journey via London there...Please do not forget this is FGW on the OXF - PAD section of that bash, delays and cancellations are frequent and regular!

Oh and VXC are perfectly reliable... :roll:

 

[Techniquest]

Trust me, they are a God-send compared to Farce GW! I've never heard of Virgin turning back an average of 3 trains a week, with the average on 'my bit' of the Farce GW network being one or more a day! Virgin at least offer an explanation for delays, especially at their own stations! Virgin's fleet tend not to break down due to disgustingly poor maintenance as well...

All of these problems do, of course, hit Farce GW all of the time. Do consider yourself lucky not to have to deal with such farcing around whenever out and about up there in Hull Max...

 

[voyagerdude220]

Oh and VXC are perfectly reliable... :roll:

*********Long Post************


Well I once went from Preston to Highbridge, via Reading, and this is how the journey went:

12:29 Preston (10:10 ex Glasgow) to Penzance- depart Preston 56 late- This wasn't VXC's fault- It was because the Voyager- 221121- Had to stand between Lancaster (departed 2 mins late) and Preston, due to a major signal failure around the station.

I consequently missed my connection at New Street (14:33 to Reading-12:54 ex Manchester), but fortunately spotted 221143 (needed for haulage!) in Stafford, as we passed non-stop, calling there on the 13:24 Manchester to Bournemouth. I was happy at the prospect of avoiding changing at New Street. Whilst we joined the GWML at Didcot Parkway, I noticed that the 16:26 Reading to Taunton (16:00 ex Paddington) was showing as starting at Reading. (On the NRES WAP services)

This brought hope to me, and i immediately thought- Somethings up with this train if it's not starting at Paddington- I've got a chance that it's delayed. (I then continued to wish that it was delayed, until we arrived in Reading)

Reading departure boards: 16:26 Taunton- DELAYED. (No time given) yay! At last- FGW have messed up when i wanted them to! :grin:

I ran over to platform 4(?) , asked the platform staff about it, and they confirmed that it was the next train (after the then departing Class 165 left).

So just to conclude..

VXC's Penzance service was on time, until Preston, because of Network Rail messing up. The 221 was surprisingly very quiet in FC (10-15 people) - Even i thought that it would be slightly bussier, with it being the first direct Glasgow-Penzance service. Standard wasn't over crowded. (Although i just looked down coach B)

The TM on 221121 wrote on my ticket for Reading to Highbridge, to allow travel on any train, due to Preston signal problem- I had a FGW First single. (Explanation wasn't needed in the end, as TM never came- I saw him a few times in the buffet- No at seat service)

The HST was very un tidy, "Due to the train being stood in freight lines [ immediately south of Reading] for four hours" It also still had window stickers stating it was a Penzance to London Paddington service via Dawlish, Taunton, Bristol, Bath etc I assume FGW had problems earlier that day, as it was off-diagram.

Return Journey (Normal route):

Highbridge to Bristol: Dreading 143, but i was hoping that a 158 was doing it, due to the new timetable meaning that they were Taunton to Great Malvern services- It was actually an ex-TPX 158, and i just happened to be stood at the front on the platform, where declassified FC was :grin:

Train was on time!

09:59 Bristol to Preston, changing at New Street- Both 221112 & 221 138 were great, very quiet, and highly enjoyable.

 

[devon_metro]

The HST was very un tidy, "Due to the train being stood in freight lines [ immediately south of Reading] for four hours" It also still had window stickers stating it was a Penzance to London Paddington service via Dawlish, Taunton, Bristol, Bath etc I assume FGW had problems earlier that day, as it was off-diagram.

Nothing wrong with that, 0745 from Penzance I believe.

 

[voyagerdude220]

Nothing wrong with that, 0745 from Penzance I believe.

According to http://www.uk-railways.com/London Paddington.doc (list of workings to/from Paddington, with diagram numbers included)
The HST should've worked:
1L38 08:00 Swansea to London Paddington (arrive 11:01)
1C12 11:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple M
1A20 14:00 Bristol Temple M to London Paddington (arrive 15:38).
1C21 16:00 London Paddington to Taunton.
I believe it then works ECS Taunton-Plymouth Laira, on arrival at Taunton.

 

[Max]

All of these problems do, of course, hit Farce GW all of the time. Do consider yourself lucky not to have to deal with such farcing around whenever out and about up there in Hull Max...

I know FGW are having a lot of problems at the moment, but I wouldn't have thought Northern were doing much better. Cancellations are frequent up here, more than they used to be in my opinion, and a small problem early in the day can have a huge impact on trains later on (normally at the evening peak!).

 

[Techniquest]

I know FGW are having a lot of problems at the moment, but I wouldn't have thought Northern were doing much better. Cancellations are frequent up here, more than they used to be in my opinion, and a small problem early in the day can have a huge impact on trains later on (normally at the evening peak!).

At the moment? FGW have problems every single day! And not one of them is through their fault of course...(NOTE: Extreme sarcasm at the end there)

Cancellations are frequent enough here too, so much more than they should be and ever have been. One little tiny problem ****s up FGW all day...Then the Bristol drivers make it ****ing worse!

The day FGW goes without majorly ****ing up somewhere on its network (through their own fault, problems caused by NR are frequent, regular and often) will be miraculous. However, with their driving policies and maintenance schemes, this will never, ever happen...

I'd rather have Northern run GW than Farce!

 

[RJ]

I've seen tickets before which clearly state "NOT LONDON" under the route part.

 

[Andrew]

Yes, but we're talking about "ANY PERMITTED". I've never seen a ticket which says ANY PERMITTED and NOT LONDON on it.

 

[Techniquest]

Indeed. It's either one or the other of those two. 'DIRECT' shows up now and again, but 'Any Permitted' is the norm. Unless it's a cheap ticket only valid via one route, with said route stated.

I did think it was a tad odd to see 'Not London' on a Hereford - Cholsey CDR recently. Why would you go via London, especially as it is also Route Evesham!

 

[Andrew]

Is Hereford - London valid via Birmingham? In which case NOT LONDON makes some, though little, sense. Oxford Swindon CDRs exist with routes READING and NOT READING which seems odd, but makes some sense since fewer services call at Didcot than Reading.

EDIT: Forget what I said about Birmingham if the ticket is also marked route EVESHAM!

 

[yorkie]

Oxford Swindon CDRs exist with routes READING and NOT READING which seems odd, but makes some sense since fewer services call at Didcot than Reading.

Well the general rule is "no doubling back through a station, except for interchange purposes within a Station Group", however there are easements that allow doubling-back in other circumstances....

Journeys via Swindon and Didcot or via Swindon to Didcot and routed Not London may double back between Reading and Didcot. This easements applies in both directions.

In theory the tickets you describe could be marked "Reading" (thus explicitly allowing doubling back) and "Any Permitted" however I assume they chose not to use "Any Permitted" because if they had done so it would have caused confusion with the easement above, therefore they chose to explicitly state "Not Reading", although the easement seems to think they are routed "Not London" (which seems daft; "Not Reading" makes more sense!)

 

[87015]

Ticketing Query:
Do CDR time restrictions apply on Bank holiday mondays?

 

[Oracle]

It used to be surely that BHs were Sunday timetables and weekend rules applied as to ticketing?

 

[Mojo]

It used to be surely that BHs were Sunday timetables and weekend rules applied as to ticketing?

I don't know if Cheap Day Returns can be used on Bank Holidays before 0930, but Off-peak Travelcards can be used, so the same may apply.

As to what day of the timetable (TT) is, it depends on the TOC and the line in question, and obviously engineering works also need to be taken into consideration. FGW operated a Saturday service on the Bank Holiday at the start of the month, and before the December 2006 TT change, the Severn Beach Line used to have a Monday-Friday service with the first two trains having the headnote 'BHX' (Bank Holidays eXcepted.)

 

[yorkie]

Ticketing Query:
Do CDR time restrictions apply on Bank holiday mondays?

No, they are valid at any time.