Valid route advice: Watton-at-Stone to Burgess Hill via Stevenage

[bakerstreet]

This really is disappointing when it bars what can be the fastest route.

That must go against basic railway principles - the benefits of rail is speed.

How can an industry think that this is a problem.

Ok. There may be a fares anomaly.

But there may be a million of those, many of them having developed for perfectly sensible reasons.

What remarkable disdain for your passengers, especially having first accused them of committing an offence. Oh you weren’t guilty of that? You will be next time because we’ve changed the rules.

I’ve been using the coach more and more of late. It’s slower but interaction with staff tends to be nicer and less combative, seats are comfortable, staff are flexible on tickets (eg earlier service) and generally fares make sense.

Such a pity to witness rail’s decline.

 

[miklcct]

This really is disappointing when it bars what can be the fastest route.

That must go against basic railway principles - the benefits of rail is speed.

How can an industry think that this is a problem.

Ok. There may be a fares anomaly.

But there may be a million of those, many of them having developed for perfectly sensible reasons.

What remarkable disdain for your passengers, especially having first accused them of committing an offence. Oh you weren’t guilty of that? You will be next time because we’ve changed the rules.

I’ve been using the coach more and more of late. It’s slower but interaction with staff tends to be nicer and less combative, seats are comfortable, staff are flexible on tickets (eg earlier service) and generally fares make sense.

Such a pity to witness rail’s decline.

Something like this clearly shows that the Routeing Guide is no longer fit for the purpose. Last year, I was advised to contact GTR on the use of a certain great value fare on Gatwick Express because of a limitation in the Oyster system, which wasn't even seen as a loophole by this forum for years (the route I used was a mapped route without deviation and without double backing), with people here recommending it for various uses, and it ended up a negative easement for that fare.

I wish to see the whole Routeing Guide dropped and replaced with something simpler to understand (for both humans and computers)

Unfortunately using coach isn't a viable option because the coach network is not extensive as the rail network - there are only very few routes with hourly departures or more frequent.

 

[yorkie]

This really is disappointing when it bars what can be the fastest route.

That must go against basic railway principles - the benefits of rail is speed.

How can an industry think that this is a problem.

Ok. There may be a fares anomaly.

But there may be a million of those, many of them having developed for perfectly sensible reasons.

What remarkable disdain for your passengers, especially having first accused them of committing an offence. Oh you weren’t guilty of that? You will be next time because we’ve changed the rules.

I’ve been using the coach more and more of late. It’s slower but interaction with staff tends to be nicer and less combative, seats are comfortable, staff are flexible on tickets (eg earlier service) and generally fares make sense.

Such a pity to witness rail’s decline.

Rail Delivery Group state in the Routing Guide that most passengers wish to take the shortest route (notwithstanding the desirability of through trains, which isn't applicable here anyway); they refuse to recognise that people actually want the fastest.

The view seems to be that passengers are there to be charged whatever the TOCs can get away with, and should be highly restricted in terms of routes etc, in order to keep premium routes priced highly without being undercut.

Something like this clearly shows that the Routeing Guide is no longer fit for the purpose. Last year, I was advised to contact GTR on the use of a certain great value fare on Gatwick Express because of a limitation in the Oyster system, which wasn't even seen as a loophole by this forum for years (the route I used was a mapped route without deviation and without double backing), with people here recommending it for various uses, and it ended up a negative easement for that fare.

I wish to see the whole Routeing Guide dropped and replaced with something simpler to understand (for both humans and computers)

Unfortunately using coach isn't a viable option because the coach network is not extensive as the rail network - there are only very few routes with hourly departures or more frequent.

It's not that the routeing guide isn't fit for purpose, though I am sure RDG would want people to believe it should be replaced by something even more restrictive!

This demonstrates how RDG is wrongly being given free reign to unduly restrict passengers.

The idea that if the RG was replaced with something else, that we would suddenly get good value fares and less restrictions on routes, is not only completely unfounded but also fanciful.

In reality, RDG would love to replace the RG with a system that has more rigid rules and is much more prescriptive.

If anyone has a proposal for a new system, please do post it in the appropriate forum section.

 

[akm]

Aaaaaand, as expected...



(Amusingly enough, not what we were quite expecting, but wonder if this issue prompted this change nonetheless. Perhaps primarily to stop people using LNER with the Travelcards?)

Yeah, when I read "I’ve shared your comments with the relevant manager, so this can be looked into further and we can ensure this doesn’t happen again" in the response and people here were saying 'good result', I personally was thinking there's more than one way of ensuring "this doesn't happen again" and I can guess which way the TOC will pick. The TOC response is now technically* correct, in that "this won't happen again"... Sad to be proved right.

Mind you, should Oval ever get that far, they'll have fun working out how to price things in a way that doesn't make rebooking cheaper, or something.




* the best kind of correct, as the chief bureaucrat once said

 

[dembdaoc]

So they are now saying this route is not permitted? Yet I can this very second still by my tickets with the itinerary showing Stevenage.

 

[embers25]

So they are now saying this route is not permitted? Yet I can this very second still by my tickets with the itinerary showing Stevenage.

Nothing new there. The code used internally to enforce this restriction has probably been written wrongly by Thameslink as it was done in haste. I agree with Yorkie that replacing the RG is a very retrograde step as TOC's would rather just end to end pre-booked singles (like LNER) and no returns or multiple route options with only that train or collection of trains permitted, avoiding any need for routing. It would also avoid revenue allocation issues. The RDG belief that shortest or direct, rather than fastest route is the preference of passengers is the biggest myth. If all routes were the same price, some with baggage/kids/mobility issues would choose direct and the rest would choose quickest. No-one would choose shortest if it wasn't direct or quickest.

 

[Haywain]

So they are now saying this route is not permitted? Yet I can this very second still by my tickets with the itinerary showing Stevenage.

No, because your ticket is to Burgess Hill and that remains valid.

 

[MrJeeves]

For anyone who wonders whether pricing managers really read this forum and also for those who thought Thameslink would take a sensible approach to fixing this

I mean it's probably also the fact that OP contacted Thameslink and made them aware... That is also what happened with another easement added in London in the last few months which had been mentioned countless times on the forum prior to that.

 

[sheff1]

I wish to see the whole Routeing Guide dropped and replaced with something simpler to understand (for both humans and computers)

The original Routeing Guide was a fraction of the size of the current version. A return to that would make things a lot simpler … so obviously will never happen.

 

[Sultan]

I've just used Trainline to book a single ticket from Wattan-at-Stone to Burgess Hill for next week, not split-ticketed, and a £39.90 Anytime Day Single says to go via Stevenage. If that isn't an itinerary then can someone please tell me what is? Unless you enter 'avoid Stevenage' (and why would anyone think to do this) Trainline doesn't show any services via stations south of Wattan. There doesn't appear to be any extra cost for going via Stevenage so there is no loss of income here (perhaps just loss of face by some TOC employees!).

Any magistrate (if it ever got to that stage) would surely take the view that it is reasonable for the average Joe Public (and Joanne) to assume that the route suggested by the Trainline (and other apps) is a valid one (as it gets you there quicker) and if it isn't valid then it shouldn't be shown with that ticket type (the split-tickets being correct which are actually cheaper advance ones).

I wonder what the machine at Wattan says is a valid route? Would it have to say 'not via Stevenage' rather than be an assumpton?

 

[MrJeeves]

I've just used Trainline to book a single ticket from Wattan-at-Stone to Burgess Hill for next week, not split-ticketed, and a £39.90 Anytime Day Single says to go via Stevenage. If that isn't an itinerary then can someone please tell me what is? Unless you enter 'avoid Stevenage' (and why would anyone think to do this) Trainline doesn't show any services via stations south of Wattan. There doesn't appear to be any extra cost for going via Stevenage so there is no loss of income here (perhaps just loss of face by some TOC employees!).

Any magistrate (if it ever got to that stage) would surely take the view that it is reasonable for the average Joe Public (and Joanne) to assume that the route suggested by the Trainline (and other apps) is a valid one (as it gets you there quicker) and if it isn't valid then it shouldn't be shown with that ticket type (the split-tickets being correct which are actually cheaper advance ones).

I wonder what the machine at Wattan says is a valid route? Would it have to say 'not via Stevenage' rather than be an assumpton?

You haven't bought a tracvelcard.

The new change only prevents you using travelcards via Stevenage.

Would it have to say 'not via Stevenage' rather than be an assumption?

Unless the fares are changed rather than the routeing guide, no, the machine wouldn't say anything different.

 

[Sultan]

You haven't bought a tracvelcard.

The new change only prevents you using travelcards via Stevenage.


Unless the fares are changed rather than the routeing guide, no, the machine wouldn't say anything different.

Ah, so it's only if you use a Travelcard? Similar to my local station, West Byfleet, where a travelcard into London Waterloo is not valid via Woking, which can be faster sometimes. Not so relevant these days as there are 2 semi-fast ones (30 years ago it would only be the slow stopper).

 

[Hadders]

You would hope that when the Hertford Loop is closed for engineering works that a temporary easement will be introduced allowing passengers from Watton at Stone using a Travelcard to London to travel via Stevenage. This would avoid a rather tortuous bus journey to Alexandra Palace.

 

[infobleep]

You would hope that when the Hertford Loop is closed for engineering works that a temporary easement will be introduced allowing passengers from Watton at Stone using a Travelcard to London to travel via Stevenage. This would avoid a rather tortuous bus journey to Alexandra Palace.

I suspect they won't do that but then at times like this I am cynical.

 

[Watershed]

I suspect they won't do that but then at times like this I am cynical.

Realistic rather than cynical, I'd say! Few TOCs take the effort to ensure temporary easements are added for engineering works.

 

[MikeWh]

Mind you, should Oval ever get that far, they'll have fun working out how to price things in a way that doesn't make rebooking cheaper, or something.

Actually Oval will make things easier. You cannot be off-route as long as you remain within the PAYG area, and the rules say touch in at the start and out at the end and the system will calculate the fare. The problem with doubling back like this is that break of journey means you can get to the further out station cheaper than you should be able to. With PAYG you are charged the full fare if you decide to exit at Stevenage, or the lower Watton-at-Stone fare if you end up there.

A similar situation exists on GWR where tickets from London to Twyford via Reading are priced like Reading, but if you use PAYG you will only be charged to Twyford as long as you remain on the station at Reading.

 

[infobleep]

Realistic rather than cynical, I'd say! Few TOCs take the effort to ensure temporary easements are added for engineering works.

However when engineering works last a week.... but I take your point.

Actually Oval will make things easier. You cannot be off-route as long as you remain within the PAYG area, and the rules say touch in at the start and out at the end and the system will calculate the fare. The problem with doubling back like this is that break of journey means you can get to the further out station cheaper than you should be able to. With PAYG you are charged the full fare if you decide to exit at Stevenage, or the lower Watton-at-Stone fare if you end up there.

A similar situation exists on GWR where tickets from London to Twyford via Reading are priced like Reading, but if you use PAYG you will only be charged to Twyford as long as you remain on the station at Reading.

I was thinking this about project Oval. I assume with PAYG it would be difficult to use the station facilties at your change point, unless the barrier was open.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Actually Oval will make things easier. You cannot be off-route as long as you remain within the PAYG area, and the rules say touch in at the start and out at the end and the system will calculate the fare. The problem with doubling back like this is that break of journey means you can get to the further out station cheaper than you should be able to. With PAYG you are charged the full fare if you decide to exit at Stevenage, or the lower Watton-at-Stone fare if you end up there.

A similar situation exists on GWR where tickets from London to Twyford via Reading are priced like Reading, but if you use PAYG you will only be charged to Twyford as long as you remain on the station at Reading.

The further complication here, as noted already, is that when P5 at Stevenage was aided (benefit gained: 2tph vice 1tph), they did it by plumbing it in separately to the other four platforms (through a hideous set of steps surrounded by metal fencing that feels that it is straight out of the Bronx ... er .... wandering off topic slightly....) so you always have to go out and in through barriers to make the change. Oval might be programmed to permit this without bumping up the fares.... who knows? I wouldn't be so sure. A further problem that Oval introduces is a major lack of transparency on what fares will be charged on journeys of this kind: the RG, as displayed through the National Rail app, does, for all its fauilts, provide you with a permitted fares & routes for journeys of this kind online!

To the OP, re the threat of prosecution, please recall that all the Inspector can do is take details of the potential issue and report it to their HQ for potential prosecution. You would then be invited by GTR to give your side of the story ie. in this case the likely defence would be 'but, your honour, the industry's systems, which I checked, tell me that this is indeed a valid route!' and more fool GTR if they did attempt to prosecute! Anyway, the point is that the Inspector has no power to prosecute solely on his/her say so. So just keep travelling as you are now!

 

[Hadders]

The further complication here, as noted already, is that when P5 at Stevenage was aided (benefit gained: 2tph vice 1tph), they did it by plumbing it in separately to the other four platforms (through a hideous set of steps surrounded by metal fencing that feels that it is straight out of the Bronx ... er .... wandering off topic slightly....) so you always have to go out and in through barriers to make the change. Oval might be programmed to permit this without bumping up the fares.... who knows? I wouldn't be so sure. A further problem that Oval introduces is a major lack of transparency on what fares will be charged on journeys of this kind: the RG, as displayed through the National Rail app, does, for all its fauilts, provide you with a permitted fares & routes for journeys of this kind online!

To the OP, re the threat of prosecution, please recall that all the Inspector can do is take details of the potential issue and report it to their HQ for potential prosecution. You would then be invited by GTR to give your side of the story ie. in this case the likely defence would be 'but, your honour, the industry's systems, which I checked, tell me that this is indeed a valid route!' and more fool GTR if they did attempt to prosecute! Anyway, the point is that the Inspector has no power to prosecute solely on his/her say so. So just keep travelling as you are now!

If interchanging at Stevenage then you do have to pass through two gatelines, which in the Oval world would allow a higher fare to be charged. This sort of thing happens frequently across the London PAYG area. For example, when travelling from Finsbury Park to Streatham Common the default fare assumes direct travel via the Thameslink core. A cheaper fare is available if you avoid Zone 1 by touching on the pink readers when interchanging at Highbury & Islington and Stratford. It is possible to travel via the Underground and take a train from Victoria - if you do this then a higher fare is charged.

I don't understand the comment about knowing what fare is charged - they're all on the TfL website as well as independent websites like Oysterfares.com and LTfares.com.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I don't understand the comment about knowing what fare is charged - they're all on the TfL website as well as independent websites like Oysterfares.com and LTfares.com.

Usually when you purchase a ticket you are told what it costs, and pay for it, at the time of purchase.

That clearly isn’t the case with contactless, so you have to make a conscious effort beforehand to research the fare due - particularly once a contactless area moves beyond a relatively simple zonal fare system.

 

[Hadders]

Usually when you purchase a ticket you are told what it costs, and pay for it, at the time of purchase.

That clearly isn’t the case with contactless, so you have to make a conscious effort beforehand to research the fare due - particularly once a contactless area moves beyond a relatively simple zonal fare system.

Ok but this query isn’t specific to Watton at Stone.

 

[akm]

Actually Oval will make things easier. You cannot be off-route as long as you remain within the PAYG area, and the rules say touch in at the start and out at the end and the system will calculate the fare. The problem with doubling back like this is that break of journey means you can get to the further out station cheaper than you should be able to. With PAYG you are charged the full fare if you decide to exit at Stevenage, or the lower Watton-at-Stone fare if you end up there.

A similar situation exists on GWR where tickets from London to Twyford via Reading are priced like Reading, but if you use PAYG you will only be charged to Twyford as long as you remain on the station at Reading.

Easier for the passenger, yes. By "they'll have fun" I meant the pricing manager will have work to do, which they might or might not find fun...