With the development of GBR are there opportunities to simplify the Routing Guide?

[Starmill]

But presumably the Routeing Guide's mechanism would remain present in the background, as there has to be *something* that tells the journey planner what to return. I can see sense in simplifying the public terms and conditions to "if the journey planner returns it then it's valid" rather than the Guide being the determiner (similarly I could see sense in moving away from having separate textual peak restrictions and making the "unpublished" ones the actual ones that apply, so instead of reading a restriction code to see if you're valid on a walk up you'd type it into some sort of planner) but there still needs to be the thing in the background to make the planners work.

Yes. But currently every implementation of the data feeds is a little bit different, because it's an enormous, complex set of data, and because some of it has to be processed into a usable format by the retailer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. But currently every implementation of the data feeds is a little bit different, because it's an enormous, complex set of data, and because some of it has to be processed into a usable format by the retailer.

Moving away from the Guide itself could of course allow changes to it in the background to simplify it. There would be a lot of sense, for example, in making it recursive*, which would be a pain for someone looking it up in a book, but is easy for an IT system to process. The RG itself was designed for staff interpretation (even though many ignore it and just stick to reasonable routes) and any replacement doesn't necessarily have to be.

* BR's "Book of Routes" was to some extent if I recall. But it does make a fair bit of sense that if Ormskirk to Manchester is valid via Liverpool, that it should just be valid on all the valid routes from Liverpool to Manchester rather than having a separate list for Ormskirk routeing point.

 

[Starmill]

Moving away from the Guide itself could of course allow changes to it in the background to simplify it. There would be a lot of sense, for example, in making it recursive*, which would be a pain for someone looking it up in a book, but is easy for an IT system to process. The RG itself was designed for staff interpretation (even though many ignore it and just stick to reasonable routes) and any replacement doesn't necessarily have to be.

* BR's "Book of Routes" was to some extent if I recall. But it does make a fair bit of sense that if Ormskirk to Manchester is valid via Liverpool, that it should just be valid on all the valid routes from Liverpool to Manchester rather than having a separate list for Ormskirk routeing point.

That idea would be far better.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The routeing guide is not being done away with in the next NRCoT and the data (and the public link to it) will still be there

 

[Starmill]

In this case two tickets should be offered, because by doubling back

So for some journeys like this the price would double, or even triple. Is that what you want?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2025 ==

The process is exactly the same as travelling on the London Underground using a tube map, where double-backing is not a normal circumstances and is only used when engineering works or disruptions render certain platforms unavailable.

That's wrong. There are a large number of examples where this happens on the railway. London Underground isn't similar.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2025 ==

you are travelling further than the destination of your ticket which isn't something normally allowed. If you sometimes allow it, it will just cause confusions.

It is allowed. Very frequently. There are literally hundreds of possible examples on common journeys. If you don't believe me, tell me which trains I need to use to get from St James Park to Axminster with no doubling back?

 

[Andrew1395]

All journey planners need rules to determine an output. Whether that relates to route, price, interchange times, etc, etc. Those rules need to be expressed in a data set, and maintained and amended whenever the physical options change. For example if the lowest price ticket has a geographical restriction that cannot be met due to engineering works. Then you will need a rule to allow the computer to deliver an output. Scrapping the routeing guide (in electronic form), would deny as many routes as it would allow new opportunities.

On doublebacks. They are a dozen or so rules that explain when it is allowed on a local journey. The rule basically says it is always allowed when the customer is not making a financial gain (paying less than they should when looking at September 1996 prices). Change the rule to say current prices. That factor alone would change tens of thousands of outputs created by journey planners.

On a different (but related to the idea of scrapping stuff). i once went to a meeting where it was suggested that ORCATS should be scrapped, and instead we use what TfL use with Oyster/Prestige. The senior chaps were surprised that TfL used ORCATS as their inspiration for the behavioural model when computing In Prestige how a customer from Euston went to Russel Square. Was it Northern to Kings Cross and Piccadilly to Russell Square OR Euston Square to Kings Cross and then Piccadilly to Russel Square. Was it Northern to Leicester Square and then Piccadilly to Russell Square? TfL had a business need for deciding what the split was. Independent of what the customer paid. Allocation of income and journeys is as much about cost management and investment as it is about day to day revenue apportionment. An ORCATS like solution for TfL was the way to met that need.

One final thing. I guess that in excess of 9 out of 10 passengers are unaware of the Routeing Guide and manage to complete their journeys Despite that lack of awareness. The majority of journeys (by volume) are pretty straightforward. For them the priorities are price, speed, options with the fewest (and easiest interchanges). So going from Bushey to Huddersfield. They will probably be very happy with journey planning options via Euston, Kings Cross and Leeds. If there are currently or should in the future, be options via Watford Junction and Manchester Or St Pancras and Leicester is not often of much concern.

 

[MikeWh]

The process is exactly the same as travelling on the London Underground using a tube map, where doubling back is not a normal circumstances and is only used when engineering works or disruptions render certain platforms unavailable.

No it's not! Central London to Neasden is often done via Wembley Park even though the latter is in a higher zone. Likewise to Chiswick Park via Acton Town. I'm sure some people might well do West Ham to Upminster Bridge via c2c as well.

 

[yorkie]

The process is exactly the same as travelling on the London Underground using a tube map, where doubling back is not a normal circumstances and is only used when engineering works or disruptions render certain platforms unavailable.

Most regular passengers use journey planners. There are normal journeys where it is quicker to double back.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2025 ==

I think a double back should be disallowed under any circumstances, as it will create break of journey loopholes, unless you want to ban break of journey completely.

What's your main purpose for doing this? Is there any material benefit, or is it just a personal crusade to "eliminate loopholes" (not that you could ever actually achieve this)

You would make many journeys impossible, at least on one ticket. The idea that a passenger from Watford High Street to Bellshill should be forced to purchase 3 separate tickets is absurd.

Planner - Results - FastJP

fastjp.com

06:44 - 12:34
Watford High Street to Bellshill
3 changes - Watford Junction, London Euston, Glasgow Central
5hrs 50mins

There is no "loophole" here; you appear to be trying to inconvenience people for no apparent tangible benefit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2025 ==

It should be scrapped, allowing the shortest route, any route within 3 miles and “any reasonable” route.

Is the idea that a document would be created to define "reasonable"? If so, it could perhaps be called the Routeing Guide. Perhaps it could be an underground document, not visible to the public... except when it inevitably becomes available under FOI.

I do not see how this is any sort of benefit to passengers.

The rules will always need to exist; the question is whether you allow people to see the underlying rules, or if they are kept hidden.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2025 ==

I seem to recall a 1960s? BR equivalent of the Routing Guide which was a very short document. We now have a very complex version which has grown like topsy to protect individual TOC revenues. As we move back to a single rail provider is there a case for simplifying the routing guide and if we did what benefits would it provide to passengers?

I suspect that the 'powers that be' would like an excuse to "simplify" it, by removing permitted routes; there is very little appetite among those in charge to provide benefits to passengers.