Blackburn to Middlesborough permitted routes-not accepted by CrossCountry

[pjnathanail]

Some time ago I asked for help checking that a ticket between Blackburn and Middlesbrough was valid between Doncaster and Newcastle. Here is the link to that thread: http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=79756

I was advised that using a ticket from Blackburn to Middlesbrough between Doncaster (DON) and Newcastle (NCL) was "valid, but questionable". Expecting to be challenged, my father and I travelled on 1 adult FOR and 1 child FOR at £108.80 and £54.40 each, in first class. At the time I was 15 (I am now 16).

We were challenged after departure from Darlington. The train manager said the ticket was not valid to Newcastle at that time of day because it was not a reasonable route, as described in the ticket examiners handbook. We were charged an additional £14.25, one adult and one child off peak day single at £9.50 and £4.75 each. Although our initial tickets were in FC and we remained in FC to NCL with the conductors permission, we were sold standard class tickets from Darlington to NCL.

I was under the impression that the reasonable routes system and ticket examiners handbook had been superseded by the routeing guide, but the conductor said he had not been trained in the routeing guide and that it did not apply to him.

He gave me the email address of XCs revenue and security manager, who I contacted with regards to the tickets validity. He stated that as the ticket was valid on maps TP+ER, but a route from Blackburn to Middlesbrough could be traced on map TP only it was not valid past Darlington.

I was under the impression you HAD to use both/all maps when using multiple maps to determine permitted routes.

My questions:

Is a First anytime return, route any permitted, from Blackburn to Middlesbrough valid between DON and NCL only?

If so, how should I reclaim my £14.25 given the conductor and revenue manager both agree it is not valid, albeit for different reasons.

Thanks in advance for your help, I'm at a loss as to where to take this one next. Apologies for the long post.

 

[pjnathanail]

according to LM booking engine, Doncaster-Middlesborough via Newcastle is not valid. Also, Blackburn-Middlesborough via Doncaster is not valid

That might be wrong though. It is valid on maps TP+ER so I think I could do:

Blackburn-Halifax-Bradford-Leeds-Wakefield
(change maps from TP to ER)
Wakefield-Doncaster-York-Darlington-Newcastle-Middlesbrough

This includes Doncaster-Newcastle

 

[pjnathanail]

Here is the relevant permitted route identifier

 

[LexyBoy]

Your ticket was valid on a route via Doncaster and Newcastle, and therefore for a journey between these stations. Your best chance of obtaining a refund is likely to be to detail step by step, as concisely as possible, why the ticket was valid on the route used. Then you'll need to debunk the inevitable response and/or try and get through to someone who is prepared to consider your letter rather than just punch a journey into a computer.

Do you still have both the Blackburn-Middlesbrough and Darlington-Newcastle tickets?

The train manager said the ticket was not valid to Newcastle at that time of day because it was not a reasonable route, as described in the ticket examiners handbook.

I wonder what it does say about how to determine reasonable routes in the handbook?

I was under the impression that the reasonable routes system and ticket examiners handbook had been superseded by the routeing guide, but the conductor said he had not been trained in the routeing guide and that it did not apply to him.

You are correct. Just because he may not have been trained in something doesn't mean it does not apply to him. It is not, perhaps, a reasonable route but if a passenger explains why they believe it to be valid the guard should at least make an effort to check this.

He gave me the email address of XCs revenue and security manager, who I contacted with regards to the tickets validity. He stated that as the ticket was valid on maps TP+ER, but a route from Blackburn to Middlesbrough could be traced on map TP only it was not valid past Darlington.

I was under the impression you HAD to use both/all maps when using multiple maps to determine permitted routes.

You are correct and this is perfectly clear from the RG instructions. A route traced on map TP alone would not be a permitted route, unless it was the shortest route/on a direct train/mapped on other map(s) allowed for this journey. Any route which can be traced from origin RP to destination RP without doubling back, and using each map only once and in the order they are specified, is permitted.

In future if using "questionable" routes it can be a good idea to use nearby stations in the same fares cluster as the routeing point, e.g. Darwen-South Bank. The validity and price is the same (obviously double check the routeing guide first), but since the guard is likely to have at best only a rough idea of the location of these stations, it's unlikely to trigger any "off route" bells.

 

[Eagle]

I wonder what it does say about how to determine reasonable routes in the handbook?

"If ticket is held by RJ, it's definitely valid." :P

 

[cuccir]

To quote from the first two points from Section D of 'The National Routeing Guide in Detail':

If the route code has several maps, route tracing must observe the following rules:
1. Tracing must start at one of the ends of the route code.
2. All maps must be used.

Perhaps you might remind the Revenue and Security Manager of this part of the Routeing Guide that he or she has accidentally overlooked?

There's no question that this is a valid route. Both members of staff that you have spoken to so far have made up rules which contradict the contract that you made with TOC involved when you purchased your ticket. I think you need to start playing hardball here.

I agree with LexyBoy that at this stage, your best bet might be a further response to the Revenue and Security Manager, detailing why the ticket is valid. Treat the letter as a last chance for XC to get this right before taking the complaint further. In it, I'd note that the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (your contract with the TOCs) states that your ticket is valid on:

trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide.

and that if XC continued to refuse to comply to their contractual obligations that you would be forced to forward your correspondence and complaint on to Passenger Focus and the Department for Transport. I would also seek assurance that the staff member involved will be swiftly trained as per his legal responsibilities, and again that you will forward your comments on to PF and the DfT if such assurances aren't provided.

I would also CC your letter/email into Cross Country's Customer Services department.

 

[pjnathanail]

Your ticket was valid on a route via Doncaster and Newcastle, and therefore for a journey between these stations. Your best chance of obtaining a refund is likely to be to detail step by step, as concisely as possible, why the ticket was valid on the route used. Then you'll need to debunk the inevitable response and/or try and get through to someone who is prepared to consider your letter rather than just punch a journey into a computer.

Do you still have both the Blackburn-Middlesbrough and Darlington-Newcastle tickets?



I wonder what it does say about how to determine reasonable routes in the handbook?



You are correct. Just because he may not have been trained in something doesn't mean it does not apply to him. It is not, perhaps, a reasonable route but if a passenger explains why they believe it to be valid the guard should at least make an effort to check this.



You are correct and this is perfectly clear from the RG instructions. A route traced on map TP alone would not be a permitted route, unless it was the shortest route/on a direct train/mapped on other map(s) allowed for this journey. Any route which can be traced from origin RP to destination RP without doubling back, and using each map only once and in the order they are specified, is permitted.

Thank you very much, that has cleared up my doubts.

I will reproduce the email conversation I have had with him below. It is clear he has thought through the route, but just thinks you cannot use both maps.

Initial email from me:

Dear X
On the Xth of February 2013 my father and I travelled with CrossCountry trains between Doncaster and Newcastle. We purchased one adult and one child FOR (First anytime return) from Blackburn to Middlesborough, route "Any permitted", to be used between Doncaster and Newcastle only. This is permitted by conditions 13 and 16 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which state:

13. The route you are entitled to take

You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:

(i) a train on which you are able to make your entire journey without changing trains;

(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by scheduled passenger services; or

(iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide.



16. Starting, breaking or ending a journey at intermediate stations



You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) before the destination shown on the ticket. However, these rights may not apply to some types of tickets for which a break of journey is prohibited, in which case the Ticket Seller must make this clear when you buy your ticket.



Upon departure from Doncaster our ticket was checked and accepted with no issues by the train manager, X. However, upon arrival into Darlington he informed us that that was as far as our ticket was valid at that time. As I was not travelling on a through train from Blackburn to Middlesborough, or along the shortest route between the two stations, I had to determine alternative permitted routes. To determine the permitted routes between Blackburn and Middlesborough I consulted the National Routeing Guide, which informed me that the permitted route for the journey was along maps TP and ER, with no doubling back between stations. From these maps, the journey I made was permissible. One permitted route for the journey would be: Blackburn-Halifax-Bradford-Leeds-Wakefield (change maps from TP to ER) Wakefield-Doncaster-York-Darlington-Newcastle-Middlesborough. This route includes the section from Doncaster to Newcastle which my father and I travelled on. At Darlington the train manager told us we would have to alight the train, or pay and additional fare. We opted to pay the fare, which came to a total of £14.25. The reason given for the ticket being invalid was the time of day we were travelling. He explained to us that we were permitted to travel via any route shown in the National Routeing Guide, but only when it was reasonable to do so, and he said that this was described in the Ticket Examiners Handbook. As I understand it, any reasonable route was the old system and that it was replaced by the any permitted route system. This means any permitted route defined by the National Routeing Guide is valid at any time, subject to ticket time restrictions (irrelevant in this case as we were travelling on an anytime ticket). As a result, I believe the tickets we used were valid, and as such I am seeking a full refund of the additional £14.25 we paid. I have attached photos of all the tickets we used, including the additional ones we were sold, to assist you with validating my request. Also, X requested that we asked you to tell him the outcome of this email, in order that he knows the answer for future reference.

Many thanks

[Mod Note - Personal Details Removed]

I followed up with:

Dear Bob



I have just checked the routeing guide and according to the permitted route identifier the only permitted route from Blackburn to Middlesbrough shown in the guide is along maps TP+ER, with no doubling back between stations. This means I have to use both these maps (in the order given) to get from Blackburn to Middlesbrough. Although a route can be traced from Blackburn to Middlesbrough on map TP only, which would be off route at Darlington, as I understand the routeing guide instructions you must use both maps TP and ER when travelling on this journey.



The instructions state:

"Where a routeing specifies that a combination of Maps be used (e.g.

ER+PN+BD), the route is via any route on that map from the first routeing

point to intercept point(s) for the next map without doubling back, then via

any route within that map without doubling back. This is repeated until the

final map is reached then via any route within that map until the final

routeing point is reached."



From these instructions and maps TP+ER, the journey I made was permissible using map TP first then map ER with Wakefield as the intercept point. One permitted route for the journey would be: Blackburn-Halifax-Bradford-Leeds-Wakefield (change maps from TP to ER) Wakefield-Doncaster-York-Darlington-Newcastle-Middlesbrough. This route includes the section from Doncaster to Newcastle which my father and I travelled on.

He responded with:

Hi X,



We have double checked the routing guide and the listing shows ER + TP.



Your journey origin is not covered on the ER map but whole journey is covered on TP.



Thus the map which identifies the valid routes for the journey being made is TP, this is because the map reading sequence is ER to TP, which makes the Doncaster to Newcastle leg not a valid route to travel on this ticket to middlesborough via Newcastle.



The permissible routes for this ticket are either York or Darlington to change for middlesborough services.

I do still have all the tickets, and I sent him photos of them too.
Incidentally I need them for a delay repay claim too when I have sorted this-that will be fun!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To quote from the first two points from Section D of 'The National Routeing Guide in Detail':



Perhaps you might remind the Revenue and Security Manager of this part of the Routeing Guide that he or she has accidentally overlooked?

There's no question that this is a valid route. Both members of staff that you have spoken to so far have made up rules which contradict the contract that you made with TOC involved when you purchased your ticket. I think you need to start playing hardball here.

I agree with LexyBoy that at this stage, your best bet might be a further response to the Revenue and Security Manager, detailing why the ticket is valid. Treat the letter as a last chance for XC to get this right before taking the complaint further. In it, I'd note that the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (your contract with the TOCs) states that your ticket is valid on:



and that if XC continued to refuse to comply to their contractual obligations that you would be forced to forward your correspondence and complaint on to Passenger Focus and the Department for Transport. I would also seek assurance that the staff member involved will be swiftly trained as per his legal responsibilities, and again that you will forward your comments on to PF and the DfT if such assurances aren't provided.

I would also CC your letter/email into Cross Country's Customer Services department.

As you can see, I made reference to the NRCoC in my initial email which he has ignored. He has also ignored the reference to the routeing guide instructions.

 

[transmanche]

All looks a bit odd to me. Map TP would cover the 'logical' route: via Leeds and York - and allowing via Darlington if required. But as you say, it shows TP+ER, so both have to be used.

There must be a reason why it's like that - unless it's a mistake. And the only logical reason I can think of making it TP+ER (rather than just TP) is to permit travel via Doncaster and/or Newcastle.

(Not that it explains the trains manager's response, but might explain why booking engines disallow it... does going via Doncaster & Newcastle fail some fares check? That bit often stumps me!)

 

[pjnathanail]

All looks a bit odd to me. Map TP would cover the 'logical' route: via Leeds and York - and allowing via Darlington if required. But as you say, it shows TP+ER, so both have to be used.

There must be a reason why it's like that - unless it's a mistake. And the only logical reason I can think of making it TP+ER (rather than just TP) is to permit travel via Doncaster and/or Newcastle.

There must be something blindingly obvious that we've both missed! (Not that it explains the trains manager's response, but might explain why booking engines disallow it... does going via Doncaster & Newcastle fail some fares check? That bit often stumps me!)

As I understand it (although as its the routeing guide that might not count for much) a fares check is not required when the origin and destination are routeing points. It is a very weird route, the only thing I can think of is what the conductor said:

In the evenings you cannot go from Darlington to Middlesborough so the only route would be via Newcastle.

 

[soil]

according to LM booking engine, Doncaster-Middlesborough via Newcastle is not valid. Also, Blackburn-Middlesborough via Doncaster is not valid

The LM booking engine uses an unpublished set of maps that are not subject to any DFT approval or oversight.

The permitted route specified therein is NP + YM

NP (North Penines) looks like the current TP map, with Hellifield - Leeds added on, Kirkham & Wesham - Preston added, and then Pontefract - Goole, York-Darlington/Middlesbrough/Newcastle, and everything southwest of Huddersfield removed.

YM: York to Middlesbrough is then
Newcastle - Durham - Darlington - York
Darlington - Middlesbrough - York
York - Selby - Hull
York - Scarborough
York - Pontefract

So they've eliminated the loop back to Middlesbrough from Newcastle, and there's also no loop back to Doncaster from Leeds.

The contractual maps are here:

http://www.atoc.org/about-atoc/rail-settlement-plan/routeing-guide

and on these the route is entirely valid.

 

[cuccir]

As I understand it (although as its the routeing guide that might not count for much) a fares check is not required when the origin and destination are routeing points.

Correct.

It's worth noting that in his response to you, the Revenues and Security manager has got himself back-to-front: ER+TP is the validity for Middlesbrough to Blakcburn, but TP+ER is the validity for Blackburn to Middlesbrough. This is why he or she can't find the origin point on the first map and may be where they've got confused?

Either way, they've had multiple chances to get this right. Forward this on to the Cross Country Customer Services and Passenger Focus immediately, complete with a succinct explanation as to why the route is valid. It may be worth raising the name of the of the Small Claims Court in your response, to try and provoke them into acting...

 

[soil]

Hi X,

We have double checked the routing guide and the listing shows ER + TP.

Your journey origin is not covered on the ER map but whole journey is covered on TP.

Thus the map which identifies the valid routes for the journey being made is TP, this is because the map reading sequence is ER to TP, which makes the Doncaster to Newcastle leg not a valid route to travel on this ticket to middlesborough via Newcastle.

The permissible routes for this ticket are either York or Darlington to change for middlesborough services.

This is wrong in many ways:

(a) the listing actually shows TP+ER
(b) the order is not important, TP+ER actually means TP then ER, or ER +TP, per page F8 of the Routeing Guide: http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/RSPDocuments/nrg_detail.pdf

"As the permitted routes are the same in both directions of travel it
makes no difference which way round the journey is looked up. Sheffield to
Inverness has exactly the same permitted routes as Inverness to Sheffield and the
same is true of every other listed journey."

This is actually not the case in the current printed Section C - the routes are reversed in opposing directions, but my guess is (a) reflects that XC are looking at an old printed routeing guide in which this was the case.

Either way, they're wrong.

(c) When more than one map is specified, you must ALL listed maps, just TP is not valid, per Step 7 of the NRG "ALL MAPS NEED TO BE CONSULTED IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER"

 

[pjnathanail]

Thank you for all your help so far
I have given him his "last chance" by sending him this:

For tickets from Blackburn to Middlesborough, as opposed to the other way round, the listing is actually TP+ER, not the other way round. The journey origin is on map TP and the destination is on map ER. The instructions from the guide in my last email make it clear that you should use all the maps, and as such I believe my route was valid. At the bottom of step seven, the instructions state that "all maps should be consulted in sequential order". Because my ticket was from Blackburn to Middlesborough it was correct to consult map TP first then map ER, and I have to use both maps, not just TP. As such, I still believe it is valid. Could you confirm this?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks peter,

We seem to have a difference of opinion, I will forward this to ATOC for a definitive answer.

A commendably fast response.
Anyone have any idea what ATOC will say?

 

[142094]

In the evenings you cannot go from Darlington to Middlesborough so the only route would be via Newcastle.

I don't understand this bit - the last train from Newcastle to Middlesbrough via Hartlepool is 21.18, whereas the last train from Darlington to Middlesbrough is 22.38 on a weekday.

 

[pjnathanail]

I don't understand this bit - the last train from Newcastle to Middlesbrough via Hartlepool is 21.18, whereas the last train from Darlington to Middlesbrough is 22.38 on a weekday.

Fair enough, I didn't check this I'm just going on what the conductor said.
He may jus have been making it up, like the rest of the rules

 

[yorkie]

pjnathanail - I have sent you a PM

 

[RochdalePioneers]

"We seem to have a difference of opinion" = I don't care what the rules say I am right and if ATOC correct me I will be angry and give you a refund ex gratia rather than by rights

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[GadgetMan]

"We seem to have a difference of opinion" = I don't care what the rules say I am right and if ATOC correct me I will be angry and give you a refund ex gratia rather than by rights

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Or

I believe my interpretation is correct but I am happy to be corrected by ATOC and will rightfully refund any money owed and apologise for the inconvenience.

 

[furlong]

Do you believe an "easement" in law can be used to impose a restriction?

600083 Customers travelling from[...] Middlesbrough [...]via Darlington may not travel via Northallerton. This easement applies in both directions.

(It does not add 'on the section of journey between Middlesbrough and Darlington'.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If you succumb to the view that so-called negative easements have validity, then I'd suggest that particular one forces the route to be Northallerton-Yam-Middlesbrough and rules out Darlington and Newcastle.

But then, Middlesbrough-York still has fares with a more-expensive ANY PERMITTED route as well as NOT VIA DARLNGTN ones...

 

[pjnathanail]

Do you believe an "easement" in law can be used to impose a restriction?

600083 Customers travelling from[...] Middlesbrough [...]via Darlington may not travel via Northallerton. This easement applies in both directions.

(It does not add 'on the section of journey between Middlesbrough and Darlington'.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If you succumb to the view that so-called negative easements have validity, then I'd suggest that particular one forces the route to be Northallerton-Yam-Middlesbrough and rules out Darlington and Newcastle.

But then, Middlesbrough-York still has fares with a more-expensive ANY PERMITTED route as well as NOT VIA DARLNGTN ones...

Interesting, I missed that
So did XC, because they think the ticket is valid to Darlington so I don't know what the outcome will be.

 

[soil]

The actual easement:

"Customers travelling from/via Middlesbrough to/via Darlington may not travel via Northallerton. This easement applies in both directions"

The text is not really coherent.

In the database it's implemented thus:
Journeys DAR - MBR must not contain NTR
Journeys MBR - DAR must not contain NTR
Journeys from MBR via DAR and YRM (Yarm) must not contain NTR
Journeys to MBR via DAR and YRM must not contain NTR
Journeys to DAR via MBR must not contain NTR
Journeys from DAR via MBR must not contain NTR
Journeys via DAR, MBR and YRM must not contain NTR

So this journey doesn't match any of those rules, since it is TO MBR but is not via both DAR and YRM.

This is a 'circuitous route' easement, and given the relatively better service to Darlington than MBR, it seems logical that they have not prohibited YRK - DAR - MBR, only MBR - YRM - NTR - DAR

So the journey is not actually caught by this easement, albeit it may appear on the face of it that it is, although the text is so confusing that perhaps not.

I've obviously avoided the question of whether the easement is actually enforceable. I suspect not, and think it is probably a convenience for booking engines, i.e. to stop these tickets being sold to the 'novice' traveller, but without technically invalidating them.

 

[pjnathanail]

The actual easement:

"Customers travelling from/via Middlesbrough to/via Darlington may not travel via Northallerton. This easement applies in both directions"

The text is not really coherent.

In the database it's implemented thus:
Journeys DAR - MBR must not contain NTR
Journeys MBR - DAR must not contain NTR
Journeys from MBR via DAR and YRM (Yarm) must not contain NTR
Journeys to MBR via DAR and YRM must not contain NTR
Journeys to DAR via MBR must not contain NTR
Journeys from DAR via MBR must not contain NTR
Journeys via DAR, MBR and YRM must not contain NTR

So this journey doesn't match any of those rules, since it is TO MBR but is not via both DAR and YRM.

This is a 'circuitous route' easement, and given the relatively better service to Darlington than MBR, it seems logical that they have not prohibited YRK - DAR - MBR, only MBR - YRM - NTR - DAR

So the journey is not actually caught by this easement, albeit it may appear on the face of it that it is, although the text is so confusing that perhaps not.

I've obviously avoided the question of whether the easement is actually enforceable. I suspect not, and think it is probably a convenience for booking engines, i.e. to stop these tickets being sold to the 'novice' traveller, but without technically invalidating them.

That's good news, although I'm not quite sure how my journey isn't effected given its from Middlesborough and via both Drakington and Northallerton.

Is it to do with the differing text viewable by the public and used by booking engines?

 

[maniacmartin]

The actual easement:

"Customers travelling from/via Middlesbrough to/via Darlington may not travel via Northallerton. This easement applies in both directions"

The text is not really coherent.

In the database it's implemented thus:

I don't think the database version of the easements is relevant at all. As to the text version of the easement, I believe that it would apply if we were required to consult negative easements (given the easement applies in both directions).

Whether we are required to consult them or not has been debated numerous times. I'm more inclined to believe we are not.

 

[furlong]

Is it to do with the differing text viewable by the public and used by booking engines?

That line of argument would be that the contractual text contains an unintentional ambiguity, and that it was supposed to say something that matches what the quoted booking engine has actually implemented.

 

[LexyBoy]

Didn't spot that one! Probably because I can't spell Middlesbrough

 

[yorkie]

I don't think the database version of the easements is relevant at all. As to the text version of the easement, I believe that it would apply if we were required to consult negative easements (given the easement applies in both directions).

Whether we are required to consult them or not has been debated numerous times. I'm more inclined to believe we are not.

This just shows what a farce "negative easements" are.

Firstly, they should not be enforceable in my opinion, due to the definition of an easement in the Routeing Guide as a "relaxation" allowing additional routes. Plus there's the fact the name of them is an oxymoron!

Secondly, there is no way the easement is intended, enforceable, or sensible exactly as worded, as taking Middlesbrough - York for example, not only is Middlesbrough to York valid via Darlington, but that is the intended route that any holder of the "Any Permitted" ticket would take! Anyone who travels between Middlesbrough to York and avoids Darlington would get the "Not via Darlington" ticket!

If the rail industry thinks it can sell tickets at a premium via Darlington, tell us there are relaxations called "easements", then have an easement that is negative and dis-allows the route you just paid a premium for, then I think it's time someone took this matter to the Courts.... (except, as we all know, the TOCs would always cave in and not let it get that far, as they are rightly concerned they may lose!)

 

[W230]

This just shows what a farce "negative easements" are.

Firstly, they should not be enforceable in my opinion, due to the definition of an easement in the Routeing Guide as a "relaxation" allowing additional routes. Plus there's the fact the name of them is an oxymoron!

I'm glad you mentioned this about negative easements as I clicked on the link to the routing guide and was more than confused by 'easements' that made the journey more restrictive!

If the rail industry thinks it can sell tickets at a premium via Darlington, tell us there are relaxations called "easements", then have an easement that is negative and dis-allows the route you just paid a premium for, then I think it's time someone took this matter to the Courts....

There was a corporate magazine lying around in the mess room earlier in the week with an article about how ATOC have helped to simplify the ticketing system since privatisation. I wasn't convinced...

 

[bb21]

While I can understand the concept of negative easement, the way it is implemented is almost farcical.

If a journey such as Blackburn to Newcastle can be impacted by an easement involving neither the word Blackburn nor Newcastle, does that mean each time a passenger wishes to travel, having figured out a mapped route, he should consult a 16-page document containing on average 30 or more easements per page and examine each one of them diligently in case one might forbid the journey being made? How tiresome and complicated does that make rail travel?

 

[soil]

I agree, there is no reason to consult the easement list, they are intended for computerised use, for a booking engine using a fundamentally different set of maps not made available to the public, and for this reason nobody should even bother to consult them.

 

[tony_mac]

does that mean each time a passenger wishes to travel, having figured out a mapped route, he should consult a 16-page document containing on average 30 or more easements per page and examine each one of them diligently in case one might forbid the journey being made? How tiresome and complicated does that make rail travel?

Firstly, said passenger must read the ticket to find the NRCoC apply.
Then he must find a copy; no, not available at stations - you have to find a computer to look it up. Go to the National rail website, click on 'terms and conditions' - no, it isn't there, try again. Actually, I don't know how you do find it without doing a text search.

In it, it mentions the routeing guide. Is that available from the same 'National Rail' site? No - you have to go to another site, run by the same people.
Once you arrive at the ATOC website you gain have to play guess the link.
What is the first one? 'About Us'; then 'Rail Settlement Plan' - not exactly obvious!
You can search for it, but not if you use the normal English spelling of 'routing'.

Now you have finally got the routeing guide, you have read through several hundred 'easements' which are often meaningless and wrong (as above)...

Rant over - beware of the leopard!