What happens when no Routeing Points pass the fares check rule?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nunners

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2018
Messages
121
I've now encountered the situation a few times where none of a journey's routeing points pass the fare check rule, mainly because "No fares defined at NFM64".

What happens here? Are you only allowed the shortest route +3 miles?

What if there is only 1 origin routeing point and 1 destination routeing point and neither are allowed?

Any information on this would be appreciated
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Merseysider

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Messages
4,820
Location
Birmingham
Yes, shortest route is allowed plus any direct (no changes) trains between the two.

Online booking engines will also often allow for a margin of error and may offer routes slightly longer than 3 miles over.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,692
Look for positive easements here, you might find that a sensible route that is >3miles longer than the shortest if the shortest is unreasonable or perhaps not even possible is permitted this way.

Journey planners can be your friend here.
 

Paul Kelly

Verified Rep - BR Fares
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Reading
If there is only one routeing point associated with a station then you don't need to do the fares check as it is obvious that's the one you should use.

If there are multiple routeing point but NFM64 fares are missing so that a check can't be done, I'm not sure there is a clear consensus on the procedure to follow. One option is simply to allow all the routeing points...
 

Nunners

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2018
Messages
121
If there is only one routeing point associated with a station then you don't need to do the fares check as it is obvious that's the one you should use.

If there are multiple routeing point but NFM64 fares are missing so that a check can't be done, I'm not sure there is a clear consensus on the procedure to follow. One option is simply to allow all the routeing points...
Thanks for the help. I assumed that the routeing point would automatically be allowed if it was the only one, but I wasn't sure as it doesn't say this explicitly in the instructions. As you say it's not very clear what to do if there's multiple routeing points, but it would be safest not to use any of them I guess.
Yes, shortest route is allowed plus any direct (no changes) trains between the two.

Online booking engines will also often allow for a margin of error and may offer routes slightly longer than 3 miles over.
Thanks. I've experience some booking engines giving some pretty interesting routes, so trying a few might be a good idea
Look for positive easements here, you might find that a sensible route that is >3miles longer than the shortest if the shortest is unreasonable or perhaps not even possible is permitted this way.

Journey planners can be your friend here.
Thanks, I guess this sort of thing is why the easements were introduced.
 

plugwash

Member
Joined
29 May 2015
Messages
635
If there are multiple routeing point but NFM64 fares are missing so that a check can't be done, I'm not sure there is a clear consensus on the procedure to follow. One option is simply to allow all the routeing points...
And the other option is to allow none of them.................

Which seems to be in at least some cases what NRE does. I ran into this when fiddling around with journeys from London to reddish south, the fastest route was showing up as "not ticketable" in the NRE app (which doesn't split, I imagine the website would have split).
 
Joined
5 Sep 2020
Messages
22
Location
Berkshire
An example journey where the Routeing Points fail the fares check rule is Wokingham to Maiden Newton.

Wokingham is a Routeing Point; the possible Routeing Points for Maiden Newton are Castle Cary and Weymouth Group (Dorchester South, Dorchester West, Upwey, Weymouth).

The Routeing Point calculator:
http://data.atoc.org/rp_calc
rejects both Castle Cary and Weymouth Group.

The shortest route is via Castle Cary. The route via Weymouth Group (eg via Dorchester South and West) is more than 3 miles longer.

In this case the National Rail journey planner allows journeys both via Castle Cary and via Weymouth Group.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,677
Location
Yorkshire
Thirsk to Moorthorpe is a good example; the LNER website won't sell tickets for this journey unless you go via Pontefract Baghill, which has few trains at the best of times, and none at present.

This can be a good topic to discuss at fares workshops.
 

Paul Kelly

Verified Rep - BR Fares
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Reading
The shortest route is via Castle Cary. The route via Weymouth Group (eg via Dorchester South and West) is more than 3 miles longer.

In this case the National Rail journey planner allows journeys both via Castle Cary and via Weymouth Group.
The fares from Wokingham to Maiden Newton are routed READING NOT LOND, which means that journey planners are able to do a split routeing check at Reading (which does have NFM64 fares defined), and thus validate that route.
 
Last edited:
Joined
16 Aug 2017
Messages
204
If there is only one routeing point associated with a station then you don't need to do the fares check as it is obvious that's the one you should use.

I agree with you, but I asked this very thing of RDG and they said that the check still has to be done. For the journey I was asking about, it fails, and so only shortest/direct or splits will do.
 

JB_B

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2013
Messages
1,134
I agree with you, but I asked this very thing of RDG and they said that the check still has to be done. For the journey I was asking about, it fails, and so only shortest/direct or splits will do.

Out of interest, was that a response from RDG to a FOI request?

Their answer doesn't seem consistent with the routeing guide section F ( http://iblocks-rg-publication.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nrg_detail.pdf )


Example 2 on page 12 (Par to Pontypridd) doesn’t mention any fare check. [ And, of course, there’s no common routeing point. ] Instead they say...

“Par has one routeing point, Plymouth Group, so no further selection is necessary. Pontypridd has one routeing point, Cardiff Central so no further selection is necessary.”


Given that other examples either consider common routeing points ( fare check not relevant ) or cases with multiple origin and/or destination routeing points (where a fare check is required to select appropriate routeing points), I think that implies that you don't need a fare check in this situation.


[ I should add that this is a historical example - these days both Par and Pontypridd are routeing points in their own right so the question doesn't arise.]
 
Last edited:
Joined
16 Aug 2017
Messages
204
Out of interest, was that a response from RDG to a FOI request?
No, we can ask another way, so I don't think their answer can be quoted here, but it was nothing controversial, just the opinion that we still have to do it.

Their answer doesn't seem consistent with the routeing guide section F ( http://iblocks-rg-publication.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nrg_detail.pdf )
Thanks, I see what you mean about "no further selection is necessary" I'll go back to them and see what they say.
 

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
2,695
No, we can ask another way, so I don't think their answer can be quoted here, but it was nothing controversial, just the opinion that we still have to do it.


Thanks, I see what you mean about "no further selection is necessary" I'll go back to them and see what they say.
The fare check is only necessary to select appropriate routeing points when there is a choice. When there is only one the fare check is not necessary.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,677
Location
Yorkshire
If you ask the same question from different people at RDG, you tend to get different answers ;)

There can't be that many experts left at RDG these days ;)
 

kieron

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2012
Messages
2,713
Location
Connah's Quay
Which seems to be in at least some cases what NRE does. I ran into this when fiddling around with journeys from London to reddish south, the fastest route was showing up as "not ticketable" in the NRE app (which doesn't split, I imagine the website would have split).
I don't know when the next train is due into Reddish South. Which date did you try?
Thirsk to Moorthorpe is a good example; the LNER website won't sell tickets for this journey unless you go via Pontefract Baghill, which has few trains at the best of times, and none at present.
I wouldn't say that was such a good example (assuming it is an example). Thirsk-Moorthrope fares all have a route of "Leeds/York", so any web site should be able to find Moorthorpe-Wakefield Westgate-Leeds-York-Thirsk routes for the ticket. If LNER doesn't find it, the problem doesn't lie with the fare check.

Thirsk-South Milford is a bit better. The Thirsk-South Milford NFM64 fare is cheaper than the Northallerton-South Milford one, and there's no NFM64 fare at all from York. The fares are "via York", so that doesn't help. The shortest route is via Micklefield, which is part of Leeds Group.

As a result, NRE finds fares for travel via Leeds, but not via Selby.
 

plugwash

Member
Joined
29 May 2015
Messages
635
I don't know when the next train is due into Reddish South. Which date did you try?
The train normally runs on saturdays, but I think it's suspended at the moment due to covid.

Just tried the 26th of june, the last saturday that NRE would let me look at.

According to NRE, the 7:20 departure from London which routes to to stockport through Stoke on trent/macclesfield is ticketable on a through ticket to reddish south, but the 07:35 which routes to stockport via crewe/wilmslow is not.
 

Haywain

Established Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
6,657
Thirsk to Moorthorpe is a good example; the LNER website won't sell tickets for this journey unless you go via Pontefract Baghill, which has few trains at the best of times, and none at present.
This is curious. NRE gives results using the same source so I’m puzzled why LNER won’t. I will have to ask the question.
 

kieron

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2012
Messages
2,713
Location
Connah's Quay
The train normally runs on saturdays, but I think it's suspended at the moment due to covid.

Just tried the 26th of june, the last saturday that NRE would let me look at.

According to NRE, the 7:20 departure from London which routes to to stockport through Stoke on trent/macclesfield is ticketable on a through ticket to reddish south, but the 07:35 which routes to stockport via crewe/wilmslow is not.
Thanks. I had looked at dates after the timetable change, but the web site I'd used didn't find anything. I think it was just having a bad day.

Anniesland-London's a strange one. There's no NFM64 fare. The flexible tickets are "Any Permitted" or "via York", but the advance tickets are all "AP Rugby". You can buy an advance ticket for travel via Birmingham, but there is no flexible ticket it can be upgraded to.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,677
Location
Yorkshire
Anniesland-London's a strange one. There's no NFM64 fare. The flexible tickets are "Any Permitted" or "via York", but the advance tickets are all "AP Rugby". You can buy an advance ticket for travel via Birmingham, but there is no flexible ticket it can be upgraded to.
I've not looked into this in any detail , so not looked at any other source, but very briefly the Routeing Point calculator disagrees:


WestertonWESAllowed by exact match at NFM64: SOS from WES to EUS on route 00000: £69.00 is NOT more expensive than SOS from ANL to EUS on route 00000: £69.00.
HyndlandHYNAllowed by exact match at NFM64: SOS from HYN to EUS on route 00000: £69.00 is NOT more expensive than SOS from ANL to EUS on route 00000: £69.00.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,677
Location
Yorkshire
Why couldn’t it be upgraded to the Any Permitted fare?
Without wishing to put words in @kieron's mouth I think the implication was that the Any Permitted fare might not have any mapped routes, and going via Birmingham would be more than 3 miles longer than the shortest route.
 

JB_B

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2013
Messages
1,134
Sorry, my mistake. I meant Maryhill rather than Anniesland.
... the missing NFM64 fares for Maryhill will equally affect journeys to/from Kelvindale since Maryhill is meant to serve as the substitute for Kelvindale for fare checks (via the new stations file).
 

Andrew1395

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2014
Messages
479
Location
Bushey
I think the routing guide instructions were written in ignorance of the oddities in the fares data that can result in an associated station not finding a routing point that passes the fare check. The authors assumed that if there was only one routing point then obviously it would pass, and the check was not to exclude all, but to reject those deemed by pricing not to be a reasonable route.

When the very first electronic national routing guide engine was built, it became clear that the fares data was riddled with ambiguities, loopholes, errors - call them what you will. In response the software was written, and specification laid down that the fares check was undertaken for every journey. Routing Point easements enabled a Routeing Point to be linked to a station that was left bereft. Circuitous route easements removed those that pricing allowed but were deemed inappropriate.

However as new Routeing Guide engines have been built, it maybe that they have not followed the original in undertaking a fares check on every journey.
 

Paul Kelly

Verified Rep - BR Fares
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Reading
Routing Point easements enabled a Routeing Point to be linked to a station that was left bereft.
For that to procedure to work, every time a new routeing point was added to the routeing guide, a thorough analysis would need to be undertaken to identify whether any stations were left "newly bereft" as a result of the changes to routeing points and to identify whether any new routeing point easements were needed. Otherwise you'd just be waiting for passengers to complain why their usual itineraries are not coming up in journey planners, which isn't a very customer-friendly experience. But I suspect the amount of work that would be involved in such a check meant it was probably rarely done very thoroughly.
 

Andrew1395

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2014
Messages
479
Location
Bushey
For that to procedure to work, every time a new routeing point was added to the routeing guide, a thorough analysis would need to be undertaken to identify whether any stations were left "newly bereft" as a result of the changes to routeing points and to identify whether any new routeing point easements were needed. Otherwise you'd just be waiting for passengers to complain why their usual itineraries are not coming up in journey planners, which isn't a very customer-friendly experience. But I suspect the amount of work that would be involved in such a check meant it was probably rarely done very thoroughly.
I don’t think that there were many new routeing points created when the electronic national routeing guide was first created. A lot of new ones appeared about ten years ago, but none recently, so it’s fairly stable.

The history of routeing guide easements probably shows the impact of technological change. Prior to ENRG, easements were simply manual text instructions for staff (and a few customers who had an interest), to read and apply. There were very few indeed. Looking at the current list, a lot are routeing point easements, which probably support a theory of a reactive rather than proactive approach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top