London - Liverpool (via Manchester)

[itfcfan]

I'm trying to check a London - Liverpool any permitted ticket is valid for travel via Manchester? I believe it is, but I'm having trouble finding my way around the route maps to confirm.

To be precise, I intend to use the Off-peak return (SVR) ticket costing £81.60:
http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=EUS&dest=LIV&expert=on&flow=1&multi=0&fare=7&tkt=SVR

Thanks in advance for any assistance,

John

 

[Hadders]

Yes it's valid and I can get Virgin Trains EC to sell a ticket routed that way too.

 

[Merseysider]

It's valid. There are quite a few combinations; NO+BM+GC allows Liverpool - Manchester - Trent Valley (or through Birmingham) - Euston and NO+RM+RG allows travel via Reading into Paddington/Waterloo.

 

[OwlMan]

all changed :cry:

ATOC Routeing Guide
New Dataset RJRG0345 published 02/03/2015
Permitted routes between London and Liverpool via Manchester withdrawn.
Map sequence removed LONDON GROUP (G01) and LIVERPOOL GROUP (G18) - removed sequence 'GC+BM+NO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and LIVERPOOL GROUP (G18) - removed sequence 'GC+BM+NR'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and LIVERPOOL GROUP (G18) - removed sequence 'RG+RM+NO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and LIVERPOOL GROUP (G18) - removed sequence 'RG+RM+NR'............

 

[Merseysider]

all changed :cry:

Now that's just ridiculous. Via Manchester is a perfectly reasonable route. It doesn't even undercut any intermediate fares.

Edit: Anyone know if this was a permitted route at privatisation?

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write regarding routeing permissions between Liverpool Lime Street (LIV) and London Euston (EUS).

Via Manchester (MAN) has been withdrawn as a permitted route (Map combinations in the ATOC Routeing Guide GC+BM+NO and GC+BM+NR and RG+RM+NO and RG+RM+NR withdrawn on 2/3/15).

As Regulator, and as per the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, you are required to approve such changes, and confirm that the modification has been done in the correct manner.

LIV-EUS via MAN is an entirely reasonable route, and cannot be claimed as an anomoly, and thus the provisions applying to the withdrawal of erroneous routes do not apply here. Furthermore, the fares for LIV-EUS and MAN-EUS are identical.

Therefore, under the provisions of the FOI Act, I request:

1) Full details of who requested permission for the withdrawal of these Routeing Permissions and their reason for requesting;

2) A copy of all correspondence made concerning the withdrawal of these Routeing Permissions;

3) The reason the DfT saw fit to agree to these withdrawals;

4) What steps will be taken, when, to correct the Routeing Guide and reinstall these Routeing Permissions.

Yours sincerely,
Jake Fassam

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write regarding routeing permissions between Liverpool Lime Street (LIV) and London Euston (EUS).

Via Manchester (MAN) has been withdrawn as a permitted route (Map combinations in the ATOC Routeing Guide GC+BM+NO and GC+BM+NR and RG+RM+NO and RG+RM+NR withdrawn on 2/3/15).

As Passenger Focus is required to be consulted before the approval and implementation of such changes takes place, I trust you will be in a position to comment.

LIV-EUS via MAN is an entirely reasonable route, and cannot be claimed as an anomaly, and thus the provisions applying to the withdrawal of erroneous routes do not apply here. Furthermore, the fares for LIV-EUS and MAN-EUS are identical.

Therefore, under the provisions of the FOI Act, I request:

1) Full details of who requested permission for the withdrawal of these Routeing Permissions and their reason for requesting;

2) A copy of all correspondence held (including a copy of any transcript of any relevant phone conversation, if applicable) by Passenger Focus concerning the withdrawal of these Routeing Permissions;

3) The decision of Passenger Focus (to agree with or oppose the withdrawals) and if applicable, why PF saw fit to agree to these withdrawals;

4) What steps Passenger Focus will take, when, to request and ensure the Routeing Guide is corrected, and these Routeing Permissions are reinstalled.

5) If applicable, any further information of value.

Yours sincerely,
Jake Fassam

 

[andythebrave]

Why don't we suggest that London to Manchester via Stoke is some sort of illicit permitted route and watch what happens
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now that's just ridiculous. Via Manchester is a perfectly reasonable route. It doesn't even undercut any intermediate fares.

Edit: Anyone know if this was a permitted route at privatisation?

Don't know. But I recall travelling legitimately from Manchester to Euston via Liverpool to catch the sleeper (Man sleeper being full) in 1987 on a Manchester to London ticket.

 

[Merseysider]

Why don't we suggest that London to Manchester via Stoke is some sort of illicit permitted route and watch what happens
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Don't know. But I recall travelling legitimately from Manchester to Euston via Liverpool to catch the sleeper (Man sleeper being full) in 1987 on a Manchester to London ticket.

In a similar vein, the 0338 from Liverpool to Manchester allows an earlier arrival at Euston than waiting for the first direct VT from Liverpool. Similar story in the other direction late at night.

 

[Hadders]

It's been a permitted route since the year dot. Completely and utterly ridiculous if this has been removed.

 

[Merseysider]

It's been a permitted route since the year dot. Completely and utterly ridiculous if this has been removed.

It'll be back. Might take a while though.

Removing slightly debatable routes without following correct procedure is one thing, but removing entirely reasonable routes without justification is another.

What's next ATOC? Are you going to remove routeing permissions from Wigan to London via Manchester because Wigan gets direct WCML services?

 

[Starmill]

Hi ATOC

Why not try removing London to Glasgow via Crewe? We can't have that being valid now can we. You might be losing money!

 

[Merseysider]

Hi ATOC

Why not try removing London to Glasgow via Crewe? We can't have that being valid now can we. You might be losing money!

Don't give them ideas
I've got Virgin's Twitter team to look into it, and PF have allocated me a "Senior Policy Advisor" for the case

 

[itfcfan]

I feel guilty for even raising the question, given the result.

It's crazy that a route that seems perfectly reasonable, that has been valid for many years, can be removed in one day (presumably) because of someone reviewing this forum.

Is reducing (reasonable) options for their passengers/customers really what ATOC want to place their focus?!

 

[Starmill]

Welcome to the Railway industry!

 

[crehld]

I feel guilty for even raising the question, given the result.

It's crazy that a route that seems perfectly reasonable, that has been valid for many years, can be removed in one day (presumably) because of someone reviewing this forum.

Is reducing (reasonable) options for their passengers/customers really what ATOC want to place their focus?!

It goes both ways, however. There are examples where routes that should be permitted in the routing guide have been left out in error - they've been raised on here and ATOC have swiftly remedied the situation.

That said are numerous examples on this forum where such routing questions are asked and action is swiftly taken by ATOC. But in this case the route is completely reasonable, so its removal is baffling. We wait to hear the results of JakeF's enquries.

 

[Merseysider]

enquiry@atoc.org
customer.relations@virgintrains.co.uk
tpecustomer.relations@firstgroup.com
getintouch@eastmidlandstrains.co.uk
customer.relations@northernrail.org
comment@merseyrail.org

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write regarding the withdrawal of permitted routes between Liverpool and London.

On 02/03/15, the ATOC Routeing Guide was modified to the effect that map sequences GC+BM+NO and GC+BM+NR and RG+RM+NO and RG+RM+NR were removed. This means passengers from Liverpool for London may no longer travel via Manchester.

As Virgin are the lead operator for this flow, I trust this matter will be within your remit to address. In addition, I have copied in Northern Rail, Transpennine Express and East Midland Trains, who all provide services between Liverpool and Manchester and are thus involved to a lesser degree.

I have also copied in Merseyrail, as many of their passengers purchasing tickets from stations associated with Liverpool Group to London will be starting their journey on the Merseyrail network, and I understand that Merseyrail would not want their local passengers disadvantaged on long-distance journeys.

As Liverpool to London via Manchester is an entirely reasonable route, does not undercut any intermediate fare and has been permitted for years, I can only hope that this negative alteration to the rights of passengers will be reversed in a timely manner.

Yours faithfully,
Jake Fassam

Formally raising hell

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Edit: Anyone know if this was a permitted route at privatisation?

Looking in my copy of the '96 Routeing Guide (the old paper one), it would be fair to say..."Not really".

The only maps for Liverpool Group-London Group were LM and CS, but they do offer two options.

Liverpool-Crewe-Manchester-Stoke-London
Liverpool-Crewe-Wigan/Preston-Bolton-Manchester-Stoke-London

Not sure either could be argued to be 'reasonable'.

 

[Merseysider]

Looking in my copy of the '96 Routeing Guide (the old paper one), it would be fair to say..."Not really".

The only maps for Liverpool Group-London Group were LM and CS, but they do offer two options.

Liverpool-Crewe-Manchester-Stoke-London
Liverpool-Crewe-Wigan/Preston-Bolton-Manchester-Stoke-London

Not sure either could be argued to be 'reasonable'.

Indeed, the issue with those routes is the detour north, when one should really be heading east or south.

In fact; I don't see how Liverpool - Manchester - London is any different to York - Harrogate - Leeds - London, the latter of which is permitted.

And no ATOC, you can't put a negative easement in barring travel via Harrogate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dear Jake,

Thank you for your email regarding the withdrawal of permitted routes between Liverpool and London.

There permissions were originally put in place to allow travel via Manchester during the period of the West Coast Modernisation.

The request to change the permissions came about as we were planning an easement for engineering diversions for Mayday and Spring Bank holiday as Virgin will be extending Manchester services to Liverpool via Huyton.

Permission for these amendments have been given by the Department for Transport and have been confirmed with Passenger Focus.

Best regards,
Jonathan


Jonathan Pace
Customer Relations Manager
Association of Train Operating Companies

Make of this what you will...

 

[crehld]

The request to change the permissions came about as we were planning an easement for engineering diversions for Mayday and Spring Bank holiday as Virgin will be extending Manchester services to Liverpool via Huyton.

So... why not just keep the permitted route as is?

 

[Merseysider]

So... why not just keep the permitted route as is?

My thoughts exactly. Even if this is only a temporary change, there has been nothing done to compensate in the meantime. Incompetence or something worse?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email.

Please can you clarify if these permitted route withdrawals are either:

a) Temporary changes, in which case has/will anything been done to still accomodate LIV-EUS via MAN?

b) Permanent changes, in which case there will be no further modification to reallow LIV-EUS via MAN, except for passengers using planned direct VT on LIV-HUY-MAN-EUS (which would be allowed under the "Direct Trains" rule?)

Whilst I appreciate ATOC may not be subject to the FOI, I would appreciate clarification on the matter for the avoidance of doubt regarding the intentions behind these withdrawals of permitted routes.

Kind regards
Jake Fassam

The plot thickens...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dear Jake,

Thank you for reply.

I can confirm that it is a permanent change however there will be temporary easements at weekends during the engineering works.

Best regards,
Jonathan

Well, ain't that fabulous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for the clarification.

I understand the ATOC Routeing Guide Instructions (page six) include scope for a Disputed Routeing Procedure.

I quote: "These routes have been included to reflect all the travel options that were previously legitimately available to customers when travel was deemed to be valid via ‘any reasonable route’."

I infer from this that LIV-MAN-EUS is no longer considered a "reasonable route".

Would yourself or ATOC be happy to discuss the withdrawal further, entering into a review (dispute) of the change?

Kind regards,
Jake Fassam

The conversation continues

 

[Aldaniti]

Jake - good luck with your correspondence. It's only through people like yourself that these organisations sometimes find it difficult to ride roughshod over the interests of passengers. Would you also ask ATOC what a Mayday holiday is?

 

[Merseysider]

Dear Jake,

Thank you for your further reply.

Having liaised with colleagues, in this instance, as approval for this withdrawal was sought and agreed by both the Department for Transport (DfT) and Passenger Focus (PF) – a process whereby both the DfT and PF agree that this is a fair and reasonable request – the option to invoke the Disputed Routeing Procedure (DRP) does not apply as this permission supersedes the procedure.

Whilst I appreciate this may not be the answer you were hoping for I trust it explains the situation.

Best regards,
Jonathan

Looks like they really don't want Scousers in Manchester :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Jake - good luck with your correspondence. It's only through people like yourself that these organisations sometimes find it difficult to ride roughshod over the interests of passengers. Would you also ask ATOC what a Mayday holiday is?

Thanks! I'll keep at it

 

[YorkC]

Are you going to FOI PF/DfT about this?

 

[Starmill]

This is bordering on amusing. I wonder if they realise that a huge majority of staff have never even heard of the routeing guide, so changes to it will not affect what is permitted in practice.

 

[First class]

If travel via London>Chester>Birkenhead>Liverpool or London>Warrington BQ>Huyton>Liverpool is permitted then I think that removing the route via Manchester is reasonable, especially if they did follow the correct procedures and considering the route was likely not permitted under BR.

The reality is probably ORCATS is behind this. Removing validity via Manchester probably increases the VWC fare allocation.

 

[YorkC]

Thing is that this is a million miles away from being the most unreasonable route that was previously permitted. To take the first example that I checked, the RG maps (and booking engines are willing to sell tickets on) routes from Paddington to Liverpool via Reading and Birmingham.

I know that the RG doesn't necessarily operate on the removal of routes that are most circuitous, but if the issue is whether or not the route is reasonable (and here that's obviously not the real justification) then you wouldn't be starting with this one.

 

[Merseysider]

This is bordering on amusing. I wonder if they realise that a huge majority of staff have never even heard of the routeing guide, so changes to it will not affect what is permitted in practice.

Indeed, if one of the stations looks familiar and you're not going in the complete wrong direction then it'll typically get passed.

If travel via London>Chester>Birkenhead>Liverpool or London>Warrington BQ>Huyton>Liverpool is permitted then I think that removing the route via Manchester is reasonable, especially if they did follow the correct procedures and considering the route was likely not permitted under BR.

The reality is probably ORCATS is behind this. Removing validity via Manchester probably increases the VWC fare allocation.

National Rail Enquiries seems to think that LIV-WBQ-EUS is forbidden. I haven't got time to check the RG at present, perhaps someone else could check if routeing permissions via Warrington have been withdrawn?

Are you going to FOI PF/DfT about this?

Yes, please see Post #5 for my emails to them

Edit: Once I receive responses to my FOIs to both PF & DfT, and if no satisfactory outcome has been reached, then I will contact several MPs. I live in Manchester and have a second address in Merseyside so it might get interesting. Especially as it's General Election time soon!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for explaining the limitations of the DRP.

I am currently awaiting responses to FOI requests made to both Passenger Focus and the Department for Transport, and correspondence with all affected TOCs, (VT, NT, TPE, EMT, ME).

Along with the information you have provided me at this preliminary stage, once I receive correspondence from aforementioned parties I will be in a position to reply to yourself more thoroughly.

Kind regards,
Jake Fassam

I intend to hear what PF/DfT have to say before this goes further with ATOC

 

[All Line Rover]

You may find the attachment, dating from just over a year ago, to be of interest.

 

[YorkC]

That's pathetic from PF. They're supposed to be the people protecting passenger rights, and there they are, worrying about revenue anomalies.

 

[Merseysider]

You may find the attachment, dating from just over a year ago, to be of interest.

Thank you for providing the attachment. At least we know that this forum wasn't responsible for the change.

The proper thing to do, instead of completely removing permissions, is to create a 'via Manchester' fare slightly higher than the fare from Manchester, and have the Any Permitted fare remain the same (or renamed 'not Manchester'.)

But I suppose Virgin just can't be arsed.

 

[Hadders]

There is a difference in the SOS and SOR fares between London and Manchester and London and Liverpool but the SVR fares are identical.