National Routeing Guide update

[infobleep]

Where does one get hold of dataset RJRG0323?

Is there much of a disadvantage to not allowing people to travel to Portsmouth via Havant. I guess they must use Cosham and Fareham routes.

 

[bb21]

It's on the Routeing Guide homepage.

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

 

[Paul Kelly]

Where does one get hold of dataset RJRG0323?

You need to pay ATOC £619 per year for monthly updates, plus a £1,036 annual licence fee. Full details here: http://www.atoc.org/download/client... Fee & Datafeeds Charge FY2014-15 v06-00.pdf

 

[kieron]

Is there much of a disadvantage to not allowing people to travel to Portsmouth via Havant. I guess they must use Cosham and Fareham routes.

Possibly. I don't know if anything wasn't allowed by not including that anyway, as there's less than 3 miles between the routes via Eastleigh and via Netley.

As the summary talks about Havant, I think it was because a mistake made the tickets valid there. Possibly to do with CW+XR, which was introduced in May, but introduced no new mapped routes at all.

 

[infobleep]

You need to pay ATOC £619 per year for monthly updates, plus a £1,036 annual licence fee. Full details here: http://www.atoc.org/download/client... Fee & Datafeeds Charge FY2014-15 v06-00.pdf

Thanks for that. Think I'll decline for now. Unless someone else wishes to pay for me!

 

[swt_passenger]

Where does one get hold of dataset RJRG0323?

Is there much of a disadvantage to not allowing people to travel to Portsmouth via Havant. I guess they must use Cosham and Fareham routes.

Cosham and Fareham are on the same (and only) route. You'd have to go through both travelling between Southampton and Portsmouth. The only variation is to go via Eastleigh, but you still end up at Fareham and Cosham just the same.

 

[infobleep]

Cosham and Fareham are on the same (and only) route. You'd have to go through both travelling between Southampton and Portsmouth. The only variation is to go via Eastleigh, but you still end up at Fareham and Cosham just the same.

Is there any reason why people would have wanted to go via Havant? Did it introduce useful combined tickets no longer available, unless you start then at Cosham?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there any reason why people would have wanted to go via Havant? Did it introduce useful combined tickets no longer available, unless you start then at Cosham?

There's three legitimate methods an hour from Southampton to Portsmouth, one all stations SWT, one semi fast by FGW, and between the xx05 FGW and the next xx44 SWT you can change at Fareham or Cosham from SN's xx13 onto the the other SWT all shacks that has come down from Eastleigh.

Paying extra and going with SN, leaving SOU at xx33 and changing at Havant (which then includes a double back through Bedhampton) is similar in overall time to the SWT stopper - but gets you there sooner than the xx44 SWT if you happen to be at Southampton early.

I can't actually see any logical reason to complain about this 'correction'.

 

[infobleep]

Playing devil's advacte for a moment. It denies people a fourth train combination. So they had 4 train possibilities an hour and now they have 3.

In reality it possibly isn't something to complain about. Would Southern have made money out of it when journeys via Havant were allowed?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would Southern have made money out of it when journeys via Havant were allowed?

Would depend on how ORCATS treated the service, as I understand it inconvenience of a change could be a slightly negative factor, they don't just work on the bare overall timings, but some sort of view about whether or not someone would bother making the journey.

 

[infobleep]

Would depend on how ORCATS treated the service, as I understand it inconvenience of a change could be a slightly negative factor, they don't just work on the bare overall timings, but some sort of view about whether or not someone would bother making the journey.

Interesting. Didn't know that.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Response at long last from AGA:

Thank you so much for your patience, unfortunately it took me a lot longer than expected to receive the required information for the relevant department.

Nevertheless, they have confirmed that tickets from Theobalds Grove to London Liverpool Street were not valid via Cheshunt at the time of privatisation in 1996. The three mile rule in the Routing Guide would allow this routing, however, as it is not intended that this routing should be permitted a negative easement was put into the Routing Guide to prohibit this.

If this negative easement hadn't been applied we would have to increase the price of the Theobalds Grove to London Liverpool Street season tickets so that they didn't undercut the Cheshunt to London Liverpool Street season tickets. If this wasn't done passengers travelling from Cheshunt would be able to buy cheaper tickets than those passengers commuting from Theobalds Grove.

Unfortunately they are not aware of exactly how this process was carried out so I would be unable to provide you with any additional information with regards to this.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact Abellio Greater Anglia.

***************************************************

Some expert comment required please.

It would seem they cannot provide evidence that they have not breached the conditions of their contract by implementing the "negative easement"

I can't comment on the rest re privatisation.

 

[yorkie]

Refer the matter to your MP and London Travelwatch. And perhaps contact Watchdog to see if they'd be interested?

The idea that every anomaly has to be removed is absurd; there are loads of anomalies all over the country and no-one says they "have to" remove them by lowering fares. (Yeah, we wish! )

I'll alert Which? too, maybe we can get some of their guys down to a London meal, would you be up for meeting them?

I'll respond in more detail later.

 

[Be3G]

That response doesn't smell right to me. I don't know about now, but the timetable posters at Liverpool Street certainly used to include times for journeys to Theobalds vie Cheshunt years ago. It would seem a bit odd if timetables had been telling passengers to make ‘unintended’ journeys for years.

Edit: yorkie posted before me – by ‘that’ response I meant Greater Anglia's, not yorkie's!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Complain to your MP, Watchdog, and London Travelwatch.

The idea that every anomaly has to be removed is absurd; there are loads of anomalies all over the country and no-one says they "have to" remove them by lowering fares. (Yeah, we wish! )

I'll alert Which? too, maybe we can get some of their guys down to a London meal, would you be up for meeting them?

I'll respond in more detail later.

Happy to meet Which.

London TravelWatch wanted me to go to AGA first which so I should I forward their response and they will take forward or would I need to lead them on the issues and what to do?

Surely ALL three mile routes are anomalies and result in price of ticket issue for them that they have to get over and lump it

 

[Andrew1395]

The 3 mile rule was never in the first printed versions of the Routeing Guide. It only appeared in the worked examples when the Electronic National Routeing Guide was created in the RJIS system. And that was because the electronic version struggled to apply the shortest journey requirement of the National conditions of carriage. Somewhere (I have lost the link) there is an online history of the Routeing Guide. As the 3 mile rule was never part of the BR promise to passengers it was never replicated in the Routeing Guide. So I don't believe you will get very far with any formal challenge

 

[VauxhallandI]

The 3 mile rule was never in the first printed versions of the Routeing Guide. It only appeared in the worked examples when the Electronic National Routeing Guide was created in the RJIS system. And that was because the electronic version struggled to apply the shortest journey requirement of the National conditions of carriage. Somewhere (I have lost the link) there is an online history of the Routeing Guide. As the 3 mile rule was never part of the BR promise to passengers it was never replicated in the Routeing Guide. So I don't believe you will get very far with any formal challenge

I'm sorry but you will have to explain that further for me to understand the relevance

 

[Andrew1395]

The 3 mile rule is not a rule that exists except I the software of the electronic routeing guide. Originally the routeing guide said you used the the first page of each table in the timetable to generate shortest routes. If you do that manually you get different results than those generated by the RJIS system. As the routeing guide was a staff document they added in the 3 mile leeway to stop booking office staff complaining that the new system was generating incorrect results. RJIS resulted in a huge change in the routeing guide. It is the reason why the guide went from having about 15 relaxation of the rules (easements) to about 300 easements which included both relaxations and prohibitions. There is a view that these new negative easements are not enforceable as not part of the original routeing guide. That would also apply to the 3 mile rule.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The 3 mile rule is not a rule that exists except I the software of the electronic routeing guide. Originally the routeing guide said you used the the first page of each table in the timetable to generate shortest routes. If you do that manually you get different results than those generated by the RJIS system. As the routeing guide was a staff document they added in the 3 mile leeway to stop booking office staff complaining that the new system was generating incorrect results. RJIS resulted in a huge change in the routeing guide. It is the reason why the guide went from having about 15 relaxation of the rules (easements) to about 300 easements which included both relaxations and prohibitions. There is a view that these new negative easements are not enforceable as not part of the original routeing guide. That would also apply to the 3 mile rule.

So the introduction of a non enforceable negative easement to remove a non enforceable 3 mile rule, all a little confusing.

 

[yorkie]

The 3 mile rule was never in the first printed versions of the Routeing Guide. It only appeared in the worked examples when the Electronic National Routeing Guide was created in the RJIS system. And that was because the electronic version struggled to apply the shortest journey requirement of the National conditions of carriage.

There have been numerous threads on this.

It is very difficult to say definitively that one route is shorter than another route when the differences between them are small.

This is partly because the National Rail Timetable uses rounding to the nearest quarter mile, as opposed to the electronic data which is more accurate.

You can end up with two routes of a very similar distance, and one might be slightly shorter using one measurement, and the other slightly shorter using another measurement, and also the route may vary slightly by direction or depending on which set of tracks you use!

So it is much more sensible to give a 3 mile leeway than attempt to say that routes that are only a tiny amount longer by one interpretation are not valid, when by another interpretation they are the shortest route.

Somewhere (I have lost the link) there is an online history of the Routeing Guide. As the 3 mile rule was never part of the BR promise to passengers it was never replicated in the Routeing Guide. So I don't believe you will get very far with any formal challenge

But it was/still is in the Routeing Guide, so it can't be removed without DfT permission, and if it wasn't in the original Guide that was because people at the time didn't understand the issues.

I am sure people who create booking engines would be able to object to any such proposals to abolish this rule, because it would invalidate many journeys that could be argued to be the shortest route shown in the National Rail Timetable, which means the booking engines are not showing routes clearly advertised as being the shortest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a view that these new negative easements are not enforceable as not part of the original routeing guide.

I don't think anyone has the view that only the contents of the original Routeing Guide enforceable?

The view that some hold is, I believe, that the DfT must approve any change that reduces the routes available to us.

Negative Easements were sneaked in without, as far as we can tell, DfT approval. For many years they were not officially recognised and the heading of the Easements page confirmed all easements were "relaxations", making any that weren't arguably not enforceable.

However the Easements document now has negative easements clearly defined. Providing they have DfT approval, they are now enforceable.

If they do not have DfT approval and did not consult Passenger Focus, it would be an illegal change (which I'd hope would result in some prosecutions as the rail industry likes to prosecute its customers when they don't adhere to the contract, but there's more chance of pigs flying!)

That would also apply to the 3 mile rule.

The 3 mile rule would require DfT approval if it is to be abolished. At present the 3 mile rule still exists in the Routeing Guide, and I am not aware of any plans to abolish it.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Update:

Well it has been almost five full months trying to get an answer regarding the three mile rule and negative easements from what seems like everybody and still I am yet to get a definitive reply.

Contacted

AGA
Passenger Focus
London Travel Watch
DfT
ATOC

Latest is awaiting a response from ATOC from a mail sent to them on the 11th September 2014.

A five ringed cricus of in defendable rubbish, although I'm sure some one may attempt to!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So I have a reply

Dear John,

Further to my email yesterday I am pleased to provide an update to your query, once again, I apologise for the delay replying to you.

At present I am yet to confirm whether consultation took place with Passenger Focus but I can confirm that the DfT were happy to sign off these changes.

On the issue of policy my colleagues in the Routeing team have provided the following information – in blue below – which I hope will be of use.

Response

The question raised here is whether an easement can override the shortest distance within 3 miles allowance referred to in your correspondence.

We have established that a negative easement cannot override the shortest distance – because the NRCoC says the shortest distance is always permitted and the Routeing Guide Rules say if it's the shortest distance – you don't look at the routeing guide rules.

Instructions for the Routeing Guide (Section A) says:-

WHEN TO USE THE NATIONAL ROUTEING GUIDE
Most customers wish to make journeys by through trains or by the shortest route. In both cases
they will be travelling on a permitted route, provided the correct fare has been paid to reflect
any routeing indicated by the fares manual. Reference to National Routeing Guide data is only
required when a customer is not using an advertised through train or the shortest route.
A through train is advertised in the National Rail Timetable as a direct service which offers travel
between a customer’s origin and destination stations as provided on the ticket that they hold
for the journey being made. This route may not be a permitted route if a change of train is
necessary to complete the journey.
CALCULATING SHORTEST DISTANCES
The shortest route is calculated by reference to the mileages shown in the National Rail
Timetable, available at www.networkrail.co.uk/timetable. These mileages appear in the station
column at the beginning of each major table. To arrive at the throughout distance for travel
between every station by any route, add mileages together for the component parts of the
journey by referring to the relevant timetables.

The National Routeing Guide in Detail (Section F) says:-

Sub section E which you referred to in your correspondence also says:
A journey which follows a route permitted by the Routeing Guide may be forbidden that route by a negative easement.

Therefore an Easement can override the 3 mile allowance, although it cannot override the shortest route. Cheshunt via Theobalds Grove is not the shortest route so the journey can be denied by the Routeing Guide. If the 3 mile allowance was enforceable it would be referred to in the NRCoC.

The Routeing Guide was amended in November 2014 – with agreement by the DfT – to amend the word ‘Always’ which you referred to in your email and published on the internet http://www.atoc.org/about-atoc/rail-settlement-plan/routeing-guide/

New Dataset RJRG0327 published 12/11/2014
ROUTEING GUIDE TEXT
Changes have been made to Section E - The list of Easements
Section F The National Routeing Guide in detail - Page F10 E - Easements has amended text.
Small additions to headings to make clear that worked examples do not use current Routeing Guide data

I trust this answers your query but should you have any further questions please let me know.

****************************************************************

So how much does the lack of Passenger Focus consultation invalidate the easement?

Do the DfT let ATOC change what they like in the NRCOC? Do we have any right to a full explanation of the communications?

 

[PermitToTravel]

If the 3 mile allowance was enforceable it would be referred to in the NRCoC.

I think the use of the word 'enforceable' here says a lot about ATOC's attitude and why they shouldn't be allowed to maintain the guide.

 

[VauxhallandI]

There have been numerous threads on this.

It is very difficult to say definitively that one route is shorter than another route when the differences between them are small.

This is partly because the National Rail Timetable uses rounding to the nearest quarter mile, as opposed to the electronic data which is more accurate.

You can end up with two routes of a very similar distance, and one might be slightly shorter using one measurement, and the other slightly shorter using another measurement, and also the route may vary slightly by direction or depending on which set of tracks you use!

So it is much more sensible to give a 3 mile leeway than attempt to say that routes that are only a tiny amount longer by one interpretation are not valid, when by another interpretation they are the shortest route.

But it was/still is in the Routeing Guide, so it can't be removed without DfT permission, and if it wasn't in the original Guide that was because people at the time didn't understand the issues.

I am sure people who create booking engines would be able to object to any such proposals to abolish this rule, because it would invalidate many journeys that could be argued to be the shortest route shown in the National Rail Timetable, which means the booking engines are not showing routes clearly advertised as being the shortest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think anyone has the view that only the contents of the original Routeing Guide enforceable?

The view that some hold is, I believe, that the DfT must approve any change that reduces the routes available to us.

Negative Easements were sneaked in without, as far as we can tell, DfT approval. For many years they were not officially recognised and the heading of the Easements page confirmed all easements were "relaxations", making any that weren't arguably not enforceable.

However the Easements document now has negative easements clearly defined. Providing they have DfT approval, they are now enforceable.

If they do not have DfT approval and did not consult Passenger Focus, it would be an illegal change (which I'd hope would result in some prosecutions as the rail industry likes to prosecute its customers when they don't adhere to the contract, but there's more chance of pigs flying!)


The 3 mile rule would require DfT approval if it is to be abolished. At present the 3 mile rule still exists in the Routeing Guide, and I am not aware of any plans to abolish it.

In effect it has been abolished as where they choose to they can freely introduce an easement.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Latest correspondence, this time with London Travel watch. They don't seem overly bothered. Do I just give up the ghost?

Dear John

Thank you for your email.

Before writing to you I asked our Director of Policy and Investigation to comment on your email. He gave me the following:

We were not consulted on this change, although it does simplify the ticketing arrangements for these stations considerably and in a way that allows for the use of Oyster / Contactless cards – Cheshunt of course is in a different zone to Theobalds Grove and Waltham Cross. I suspect that the easement is something that was introduced a long time ago when service frequencies were less and where a faster journey would have been possible going via Cheshunt. It also would have been required pre-Oyster to accommodate the needs of people who would travel from one station but come back to another.

I am of the view that these easement would be somewhat anachronistic and difficult for most passengers to understand if it was reintroduced.

I trust this answers your concerns. However, if it doesn’t can you please let me know specifically where it doesn’t and what outcome you are looking for

Regards

Mags

From: Gill, John
Sent: 22 January 2015 14:37
To: Margaret Croucher

Subject: FW: Ref. No: 250457 - further to 249195 and 249136 - National Routing Guide Complaint

Margaret,

I have now received replies from ATOC and DfT regarding this matter so am reverting to London Travel Watch to assist.

In the first attachment ATOC cannot confirm any consultation took place with Passenger Focus (who in turn state I am to contact yourselves not them).

In the second document from the DfT there is a paragraph that states:

“The reason the Department does not hold any further information about the introduction of the negative easement, beyond the information already provided to you on 1st August, is that ATOC did not formally request permission for the change. If the Department’s consent has been sought, then the Department would normally be expected to hold correspondence from ATOC seeking consent, coummincations between the Department and Passenger Focus relating to the application, and the Department’s response to ATOC. However, since in this case the Department’s consent was not sought, it follows that the Department does not hold the information”

There seems to be a merry go round in place between Abellio Greater Anglia, ATOC and the DfT which is making what should be a very simple request a very confusing and labour intensive activity.

I have received no evidence of communications and justifications regarding this easement, bar one suggesting it was done purely for commercial reasons by AGA.

Furthermore it has uncovered another episode where upon the material wording of the Routing Guide has been changed regarding the wording surrounding the three mile rule. This is documented in the first attachment and the ramifications are huge.

Best Regards,

John Gill

 

[kieron]

I thought it may be worth posting something about the most recent changes again. ATOC haven't missed any changes out in their summary, but some of the descriptions are a bit vague.

On Monday, the following changes were made:

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'​

This forbids travel via Manchester, and also travel via Warrington.

To ensure consistancy in map permissions from west Midlands routeing points and Swindon the following amendments were made

Map sequences added
Barnt Green (BTG) and Swindon (Wilts) (SWI) - added sequence 'WO'

Map sequence removed
SMETHWICK GROUP (G63) and Swindon (Wilts) (SWI) - removed sequence 'WM+PB+SB'
Swindon (Wilts) (SWI) and Wolverhampton (WVH) - removed sequence 'SB+PB+WM'
WALSALL GROUP (G59) and Swindon (Wilts) (SWI) - removed sequence 'PB+SB'​

Consistency isn't something ATOC are especially good at, even where it isn't an excuse for removing ticket validity. As for the changes:

Barnt Green-Swindon is now valid via Chippenham.
Smethwick-Swindon is no longer valid via Taunton, leaving the only route via Bristol being the one via Chippenham.
Walsall-Swindon and Wolverhampton-Swindon are affected in the same way.

Easements removed removed following end of engineering works

700562: This positive map easement has been introduced to allow Journeys to Devon and Cornwall to travel via Castle Cary; Yeovil, Honiton and Exeter on Sunday 01 March 2015 only. The easement operates in both directions.​

Straightforward.

Easements changed 3 easement(s) changed

700564: This positive routeing point easement will override fares checking which is preventing journeys being offered via Staines on tickets routed 00486 AP EMT & Connections. This easement applies in both directions.
ADDDED in Weybridge as an applicable location

300407: Customers travelling from Salisbury to London Waterloo may not travel via Southampton Central. This easement applies in both directions.
Deleted Sunday 8 March 2015 as applicable date to accomodate engineering works.

700565: To allow travel on tickets routed to Heathrow Bus, this fare route easement will allow the use of Rail Replacement bus Services via Reading Bus during Easter engineering works 03 to 06 April 2015. this easement applies in both directions
Added in location Heathrow Bus 123​

The last bit of text says what has been done with the easement. 300407 has been deleted. 700564 and 700565 haven't changed in the routeing guide.

On Tuesday, the following changes were made:

Review of the use of Map SC in south London, resulted in the following changes

Map sequence added
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Herne Hill (HNH) - added sequence 'TN+VB'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Herne Hill (HNH) - added sequence 'VB'

Map sequences removed
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Herne Hill (HNH) - removed sequence 'SC'​

There are now mapped routes via Brixton, but you can't also use a train from Croydon to Victoria.
No longer mapped via Sutton, Elephant and Castle, Mitcham Junction or West Norwood.

CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Mitcham Junction (MIJ) - added sequence 'VB+TK'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Mitcham Junction (MIJ) - removed sequence 'SC'​

No longer mapped via London, Sutton, Balham, New Cross Gate or West Norwood.

CROYDON GROUP (G08) and New Malden (NEM) - added sequence 'TN+SU'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and New Malden (NEM) - removed sequence 'SC+SU'​

No longer mapped via Sutton or Mitcham Junction, with a few other routes lost.

CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Surbiton (SUR) - added sequence 'TN+SU'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Surbiton (SUR) - removed sequence 'SC+SU'​

No longer mapped via Sutton or Mitcham Junction, with a few other routes lost.

CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Tulse Hill (TUH) - added sequence 'VB'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Tulse Hill (TUH) - removed sequence 'LB'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Tulse Hill (TUH) - removed sequence 'SC'​

No longer mapped via London, Sutton, New Cross Gate, or both Crystal Palace and Streatham.

CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Wimbledon (WIM) - added sequence 'TN+DK'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Wimbledon (WIM) - added sequence 'VB+TK'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Wimbledon (WIM) - removed sequence 'SC'
CROYDON GROUP (G08) and Wimbledon (WIM) - removed sequence 'SC+SU'​

No longer mapped via Mitcham Junction, Herne Hill, Peckham Rye or Sutton, with a few other routes lost.

Crystal Palace (CYP) and CROYDON GROUP (G08) - added sequence 'VB'
Crystal Palace (CYP) and CROYDON GROUP (G08) - removed sequence 'LB'​

No longer mapped via London or West Norwood.

Crystal Palace (CYP) and Herne Hill (HNH) - added sequence 'VB'
Crystal Palace (CYP) and Herne Hill (HNH) - removed sequence 'LB'​

No longer mapped via London or West Norwood.

To allow journeys using East Midlands Trains to London and then onwards to Tunbridge Wells to travel on Thameslink services via Herne Hill to East Croydon

Map sequence added
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Tonbridge (TON) - added sequence 'FH+LF+TN'​

Now valid via Herne Hill, including routes from Victoria.

To allow trains to travel between London and Salisbury via Southampton during engineering work

Easement added
700566: On Sunday 8 March 2015, trains between Salisbury and London Waterloo will be diverted via Southampton. Normally tickets on route 00000 Any permitted are not valid via Southampton. This positive map easement will allow them to do so. This easement applies in both directions​

There are already (slightly dearer) "via Southampton" tickets for London-Salisbury, so I don't know if this is intended just to let people save a little on that journey, or if it covers other origin/destination pairs.

Easements removed

300407: Customers travelling from Salisbury to London Waterloo may not travel via Southampton Central. This easement applies in both directions. Removed because it only applied to Any permitted fares and there are no map permissions via Southampton, making the easement pointless.​

Someone must have forgotten that they'd already announced this change.

Despite this, NRE still doesn't like the idea of someone travelling from Guildford to Umberleigh using the diverted train from Woking to Exeter.

 

[adrock1976]

On Monday, the following changes were made:

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'

This forbids travel via Manchester, and also travel via Warrington.

I can reluctantly understand London - Liverpool via Manchester being withdrawn, but via Warrington?

London - Liverpool via Warrington has always to my knowledge been a valid route since the days of the London & Birmingham Railway and Grand Junction Railway when through trains ran to both Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington.

In peace

Adam

 

[kieron]

There were some more changes yesterday:

New Dataset RJRG0348 published 09/03/2015

Changes made following review of Gatwick and Tonbridge routeing point permissions

Map sequence added
DORKING GROUP (G10) and Three Bridges (TBD) - added sequence 'SD'
DORKING GROUP (G10) and Three Bridges (TBD) - added sequence 'SD+XC'​

There is now a mapped route via Horsham.

DORKING GROUP (G10) and Gatwick Airport (GTW) - added sequence 'DK+XE+VB'
DORKING GROUP (G10) and Gatwick Airport (GTW) - added sequence 'SD'
DORKING GROUP (G10) and Gatwick Airport (GTW) - added sequence 'SD+LF'

Map sequence removed
DORKING GROUP (G10) and Gatwick Airport (GTW) - removed sequence 'AR'
DORKING GROUP (G10) and Gatwick Airport (GTW) - removed sequence 'XC'​

Now mapped via Horsham or Croydon.

BRIGHTON GROUP (G04) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'CW+VH'
BRIGHTON GROUP (G04) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'LB+TN'
BRIGHTON GROUP (G04) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'LB+VH'​

No longer mapped via Ashford. Some other routes in London lost, but I don't know if any of them are significant to people.

Gatwick Airport (GTW) and Sevenoaks (SEV) - removed sequence 'LB+VH'
Gatwick Airport (GTW) and Sevenoaks (SEV) - removed sequence 'LB+VR'
Gatwick Airport (GTW) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'LB+VH'
REDHILL GROUP (G60) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'LB+VH'
Three Bridges (TBD) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'LB+VH'​

These are no longer mapped via the south coast between Brighton or Lewes and Hastings. Some other routes in London lost.

Lewes (LWS) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'CW+VH'
Lewes (LWS) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'LB+RA'
Lewes (LWS) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'LB+TN'
Lewes (LWS) and Tonbridge (TON) - removed sequence 'LB+VH'​

No longer valid via Croydon or Ashford.

Changes made following review of map permissions between Merseyside and London


Map sequence added
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Hooton (HOO) - added sequence 'EJ+NC+NO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Hooton (HOO) - added sequence 'EJ+NC+NR'

Map sequence removed
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Hooton (HOO) - removed sequence 'GC+BM+NO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Hooton (HOO) - removed sequence 'GC+BM+NR'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Hooton (HOO) - removed sequence 'LC+NO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Hooton (HOO) - removed sequence 'LC+NR'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Hooton (HOO) - removed sequence 'RG+RM+NO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Hooton (HOO) - removed sequence 'RG+RM+NR'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and HUNTS CROSS GROUP (G70) - added sequence 'EJ+NC+NR'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and HUNTS CROSS GROUP (G70) - removed sequence 'GC+BM+NR'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and HUNTS CROSS GROUP (G70) - removed sequence 'LC+NR'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and HUNTS CROSS GROUP (G70) - removed sequence 'RG+RM+NR'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Huyton (HUY) - added sequence 'EJ+NC+NO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Huyton (HUY) - removed sequence 'GC+BM+XV'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and Huyton (HUY) - removed sequence 'RG+RM+XV'​

These are no longer valid via Manchester or Cheadle Hulme.
They are still valid via Warrington, but not also via Tyseley or Leamington. A few other routes have been lost, but nothing which stands out for me.

LONDON GROUP (G01) and LIVERPOOL GROUP (G18) - added sequence 'EJ+NC+NO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and LIVERPOOL GROUP (G18) - added sequence 'EJ+NC+NR'​

Added routes via Warrington back in, both via Hunts Cross and Earlestown.

LONDON GROUP (G01) and Shotton (SHT) - removed sequence 'LC+JO'
LONDON GROUP (G01) and WREXHAM GROUP (G49) - removed sequence 'LC+JO'​

These are no longer valid via Warrington. This displeases me, as travelling via Warrington means one change rather than two, and usually only takes an extra 10 minutes northbound, with both services being vulnerable to disruption on the WCML, making the better one on the day harder to predict.

For Engineering works over the May Public holidays. The following easements have been published.

Added 700567: During engineering works over the May Bank holiday weekend 02 - 04 May 2015, an hourly Manchester to London Euston service will start from Liverpool Lime Street. Normally tickets between Liverpool and London are not valid via Manchester. This map easement allows that routeing for the duration of the engineering works. This easement applies in both directions.

Added 700568: During engineering works over the Spring Bank Holiday weekend 23 to 25 May 2015, an hourly Manchester to London Euston service will start from Liverpool Lime street. Normally tickets between Liverpool and London are not valid via Manchester. This Map eassement allows that routeing for the duration of the engineering works. This easement applies in both directions.​

Yes, these are almost identical.

Added 700569: Due to engineering works between 23 and 25 May 2015 on the WCML, between Preston Brook Tunnel and Crewe Coal yard, permitted routes will require amending to allow Journey Planners to find journeys for trains that will be diverted via Frodsham and the Chester Routeing Point to Crewe. This Map easement will apply in both directions.​

What I understand from this is that some tickets will be valid via Chester and Frodsham then which aren't normally valid that way. I'm not clear on which they are, but maybe this will be updated before May.

 

[kieron]

There was one update to the routeing guide on Friday, and another yesterday.
Friday's one was as follows:

New Dataset RJRG0349 published 13/03/2015

To allow journeys to Norwich from Runcon and Wigan Group G34 using Fare Route 00452 VTWC & CONNECTIONS, map permissions were required via London

Map sequence added
Norwich (NRW) and Runcorn (RUN) - added sequence 'EA+LC'
WIGAN GROUP (G34) and Norwich (NRW) - added sequence 'EW+EA'​

Add mapped routes via Colchester and London. The reference to VTWC & CONNECTIONS tickets is because most of the flexible tickets available using these routeing points have a "not London" route.

Partial review of Lincoln and Sleaford Routeing point permissions resulted in the following amendments. Primarily to remove circuitutous routes.

Map sequence added
BIRMINGHAM GROUP (G02) and Lincoln (LCN) - added sequence 'DG'


Map sequences removed
BIRMINGHAM GROUP (G02) and Lincoln (LCN) - removed sequence 'BY+DG'​

No longer mapped via Coventry.

Bletchley (BLY) and Lincoln (LCN) - added sequence 'ES+BG'
Bletchley (BLY) and Lincoln (LCN) - added sequence 'ES+DG'
Bletchley (BLY) and Lincoln (LCN) - removed sequence 'TV+BG'
Bletchley (BLY) and Lincoln (LCN) - removed sequence 'TV+CE+DG'
Bletchley (BLY) and Lincoln (LCN) - removed sequence 'TV+CE+SH'
Bletchley (BLY) and Lincoln (LCN) - removed sequence 'TV+EM'​

No longer mapped via Sheffield, Lichfield or Birmingham. A few other routes have been lost, but nothing which stands out to me.

Lincoln (LCN) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - added sequence 'BG+EB'
Lincoln (LCN) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - added sequence 'BG+ES'
Lincoln (LCN) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - added sequence 'DG+ES'
Lincoln (LCN) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'BG+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Milton Keynes Central (MKC) - removed sequence 'SH+CE+TV'​

No longer mapped via Sheffield, Lichfield or Wilnecote. A few other routes have been lost.

Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - added sequence 'BG+ES'
Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - added sequence 'DG+ES'
Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TL'
Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+WM'
Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'EM+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'SH+CE+TL'
Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'SH+CE+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Northampton (NMP) - removed sequence 'SH+CE+WM'​

No longer mapped via Sheffield, Lichfield, Birmingham, Melton Mowbray or Bletchley. A few other routes have been lost.

Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - added sequence 'BG+ES'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - added sequence 'DG+ES'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TL'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+WM'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - removed sequence 'EM+TL'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - removed sequence 'SH+CE+TL'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - removed sequence 'SH+CE+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugby (RUG) - removed sequence 'SH+CE+WM'​

No longer mapped via Sheffield, Lichfield, Birmingham or Melton Mowbray.
Now mapped via Leicester - Nuneaton - Coventry - Rugby.

Lincoln (LCN) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - added sequence 'DG+TV'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+CN'
Lincoln (LCN) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - removed sequence 'DG+CE+TL'​

No longer mapped via Sheffield, both Tamworth and Walsall, or both Lichfield and Walsall.

Lincoln (LCN) and Tamworth (TAM) - added sequence 'BG+BY'
Lincoln (LCN) and Tamworth (TAM) - added sequence 'DG'
Lincoln (LCN) and Tamworth (TAM) - removed sequence 'BG+WM'
Lincoln (LCN) and Tamworth (TAM) - removed sequence 'DG+CE'​

No longer mapped via Sheffield or Rugby.
Now mapped via Lichfield, and via Bedworth.

Milton Keynes Central (MKC) and Sleaford (SLR) - added sequence 'EB+BG'
Milton Keynes Central (MKC) and Sleaford (SLR) - removed sequence 'TV+CE+DL'
Milton Keynes Central (MKC) and Sleaford (SLR) - removed sequence 'TV+EM'​

No longer mapped via Lichfield. A few other routes have been lost.

STAFFORD GROUP (G65) and Lincoln (LCN) - removed sequence 'TL+EM'​

No longer mapped via Melton Mowbray. The mapped routes which go via Rugeley and Stoke have also gone.

Lincoln (LCN) and Nuneaton (NUN) - added sequence 'BG'​

No change. Both of the routes on BG are available on EM anyway.

Review of permissions between Oxford and Loughborough, resulted in the following amendments. Primarily to include travel via Derby.

Map sequence added
BANBURY GROUP (G58) and Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) - added sequence 'BB+DG'​

Now mapped via Derby and Tamworth, as stated.

BIRMINGHAM GROUP (G02) and Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) - added sequence 'BB+DG'
BIRMINGHAM GROUP (G02) and Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) - removed sequence 'BY'​

No longer mapped via Coventry.

Didcot Parkway (DID) and Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) - added sequence 'BB+DG'​

Now mapped via Derby and Tamworth.

Review of Loughborough permissions resulted, in changes to ensure that permissions to Crewe included via Stoke on Trent and permissions to Stoke on Trent were not via Crewe. Permissions along the Trent Valley also amended. Other routeing points amended to bring consistancy.

Map sequence added

Map sequence removed​

Coventry (COV) and Leicester (LEI) - added sequence 'BI+BG'
Coventry (COV) and Leicester (LEI) - removed sequence 'BI+BP'
Leicester (LEI) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - added sequence 'BG+TO'
Leicester (LEI) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - removed sequence 'BP+TL'​

No change.

Crewe (CRE) and Ely (ELY) - added sequence 'BV+AB'
Crewe (CRE) and Ely (ELY) - removed sequence 'BJ+AB'
Crewe (CRE) and Leicester (LEI) - added sequence 'BV+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Leicester (LEI) - removed sequence 'BJ+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) - added sequence 'BV+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) - removed sequence 'BJ+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Peterborough. (PBO) - added sequence 'BV+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Peterborough. (PBO) - removed sequence 'BJ+BP'​

Now mapped via Stone.

Crewe (CRE) and Melton Mowbray (MMO) - added sequence 'AC'
Crewe (CRE) and Melton Mowbray (MMO) - added sequence 'BV+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Melton Mowbray (MMO) - removed sequence 'BJ+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Melton Mowbray (MMO) - removed sequence 'EM'​

No longer mapped via Corby.
Now mapped via Stone.

Crewe (CRE) and Norwich (NRW) - added sequence 'BV+AB'
Crewe (CRE) and Norwich (NRW) - removed sequence 'BJ+AB'​

It was already mapped via Stone if you also went via London. Now it's mapped via Stone on some routes avoiding London.

Crewe (CRE) and Oakham (OKM) - added sequence 'AC'
Crewe (CRE) and Oakham (OKM) - added sequence 'BV+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Oakham (OKM) - removed sequence 'BJ+BP'
Crewe (CRE) and Oakham (OKM) - removed sequence 'EM'​

No longer mapped via Kettering.
Now mapped via Stone.

Ely (ELY) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - added sequence 'AB+BJ+TL'
Ely (ELY) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - removed sequence 'AB+BV'​

No longer mapped via Crewe.
Now mapped on the line from Rugeley to Stoke avoiding Stafford.

Leicester (LEI) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - added sequence 'AC'
Leicester (LEI) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - added sequence 'BG+BJ+TL'
Leicester (LEI) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - removed sequence 'BP+BV'
Leicester (LEI) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - removed sequence 'EM'​

No longer mapped via Crewe or Corby.
Now mapped on the line from Rugeley to Stoke avoiding Stafford.

Leicester (LEI) and Tamworth (TAM) - added sequence 'BP+XB'
Leicester (LEI) and Tamworth (TAM) - removed sequence 'BP+WM'​

No longer mapped via Coventry.

Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Lichfield Trent Valley (LTV) - added sequence 'BG+TL'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Lichfield Trent Valley (LTV) - added sequence 'BG+TO'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Lichfield Trent Valley (LTV) - removed sequence 'DG+CE'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Lichfield Trent Valley (LTV) - removed sequence 'EM'​

No longer mapped via Melton Mowbray or Birmingham.
Now mapped via Nottingham.

Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Nuneaton (NUN) - added sequence 'AB'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Nuneaton (NUN) - added sequence 'BG'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Nuneaton (NUN) - removed sequence 'EM'
Melton Mowbray (MMO) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - added sequence 'AC'
Melton Mowbray (MMO) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - removed sequence 'EM'​

No longer mapped via Corby.

Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Oxford (OXF) - added sequence 'DG+BB'​

Now mapped via Derby.

Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - added sequence 'BG+TL'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - added sequence 'BG+TO'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - removed sequence 'CN'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Rugeley Trent Valley (RGL) - removed sequence 'CN+LM'​

No longer mapped via Stafford, Birmingham, Stoke or Melton Mowbray.
Now mapped via Nattingham and via Burton-on-Trent.

Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Tamworth (TAM) - added sequence 'BG+TL'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Tamworth (TAM) - added sequence 'BG+TO'
Loughborough (Leics) (LBO) and Tamworth (TAM) - removed sequence 'BG+CE'​

No longer mapped via Sheffield or Birmingham.
Now mapped via Polesworth.

Norwich (NRW) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - added sequence 'AB+BJ+TL'
Norwich (NRW) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - removed sequence 'AB+BV'​

No longer mapped via Crewe unless you go through London.
Now mapped using the line from Rugeley to Stoke avoiding Stafford, even for journeys not involving London.

Oakham (OKM) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - added sequence 'AC'
Oakham (OKM) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - added sequence 'BP+BJ+TL'
Oakham (OKM) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - removed sequence 'BP+BV'
Oakham (OKM) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - removed sequence 'EM'​

No longer mapped via Crewe or Kettering.
Now mapped on the line from Rugeley to Stoke avoiding Stafford.

Peterborough. (PBO) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - added sequence 'BP+BJ+TL'
Peterborough. (PBO) and Stoke On Trent (SOT) - removed sequence 'BP+BV'​

No longer mapped via Crewe
Now mapped on the line from Rugeley to Stoke avoiding Stafford.

Leicester (LEI) and Rugby (RUG) - removed sequence 'BP+WM'​

No longer mapped via Birmingham and Coventry, leaving only the shortest route.

STAFFORD GROUP (G65) and Lincoln (LCN) - removed sequence 'TL+EM'​

In case you missed it before, I suppose.

Yesterday's was:

New Dataset RJRG0350 published 18/03/2015

A review of permissions in South Essex has resulted in the following changes.

Map changed

Map UP - LONDON TO UPMINSTER AND PITSEA; Links to London (G01) removed.
Link to Stratford London (G74) added.
Map renamed UPMINSTER AND PITSEA​

They have added links from Stratford to Barking and Ebbsfleet, as well as a link between Highbury and Surrey Quays. Nothing has been affected by this but not by other changes.

They haven't removed the link to London or renamed the map, though.

Easements added

700570: Tickets for journeys between Southend Central and London are not permitted via Southend Victoria. this easement applies in both directions​

Any of them? As in, a journey which can't be made with any ticket or combination of tickets?
However it is they detect people making such a journey, given that the two named stations are in easy walking distance of each other.

Map sequence added

Barking (BKG) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'UP'
Barking (BKG) and Wickford (WIC) - added sequence 'UP+CO'​

No effect.

ROMFORD GROUP (G37) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'CO+UP'​

Now mapped via London. One door closes, and all that.

Map sequences removed

LONDON GROUP (G01) and Upminster (UPM) - removed sequence 'UP'​

No effect.

Colchester(COL) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'CO+UP'
Colchester. (COL) and Pitsea (PSE) - removed sequence 'CO+TS'
Ipswich (IPS) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'EA+UP'
Ipswich (IPS) and Pitsea (PSE) - removed sequence 'EA+TS'
Manningtree (MNG) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'EA+UP'
Manningtree (MNG) and Pitsea (PSE) - removed sequence 'EA+TS'
Marks Tey (MKT) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'CO+UP'
Marks Tey (MKT) and Pitsea (PSE) - removed sequence 'CO+TS'
Norwich (NRW) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'EA+UP'
Norwich (NRW) and Pitsea (PSE) - removed sequence 'EA+TS'
Pitsea (PSE) and Stowmarket (SMK) - added sequence 'UP+EA'
Pitsea (PSE) and Stowmarket (SMK) - removed sequence 'TS+EA'
Pitsea (PSE) and Witham (WTM) - added sequence 'UP+CO'
Pitsea (PSE) and Witham (WTM) - removed sequence 'TS+CO'
​

No longer on a mapped route via Romford-Upminster-Barking-Grays-Pitsea.

Pitsea (PSE) and Shenfield (SNF) - added sequence 'UP+CO'
Pitsea (PSE) and Shenfield (SNF) - removed sequence 'TS+CO'
Pitsea (PSE) and Wickford (WIC) - added sequence 'UP+CO'
Pitsea (PSE) and Wickford (WIC) - removed sequence 'TS+CO'
​

No longer mapped via Rainham.
No longer on a mapped route via Romford-Upminster-Barking-Grays-Pitsea.

STRATFORD LONDON GP (G74) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'CO+UP'
STRATFORD LONDON GP (G74) and Pitsea (PSE) - added sequence 'UP'
STRATFORD LONDON GP (G74) and Pitsea (PSE) - removed sequence 'CO+TS'​

No longer mapped via Rainham.

Amendments to map permissions from Slough to South Yourkshire has resulted in the following changes

Map sequence added

Doncaster. (DON) and Slough (SLO) - added sequence 'WH+XB+RG'


Map sequences removed
Doncaster. (DON) and Slough (SLO) - removed sequence 'RH+RG'​

No longer mapped via Stratford upon Avon or Bedworth.

Slough (SLO) and Worksop (WRK) - added sequence 'BB+SH'
Slough (SLO) and Worksop (WRK) - added sequence 'LW+XB+TL+BG+EM'
Slough (SLO) and Worksop (WRK) - removed sequence 'MW+EM'
Slough (SLO) and Worksop (WRK) - removed sequence 'MW+SH'
Slough (SLO) and Worksop (WRK) - removed sequence 'MW+BP+EM'​

No longer mapped via Wolverhampton.
A few other routes have been gained or lost (for instance, you can't use the WCML all the way from Lichfield to Nuneaton), but nothing outstanding.

For Engineering work on the LSW Mainline

Easements added


700571: This positive fare route easement will allow retail systems to offer journeys on tickets routed 00635 WOKING during engineering works when services do not operate through Woking.​

Excellent. Does it affect ticket validity, though?

Easements removed

000015: Passengers travelling from Worthing and stations west of Worthing to Polegate and stations east of Polegate may go via Haywards Heath.This easement applies in both directions.
This Local easement is superfluous and is not operating.​

Is it? What else allows these passengers to double back through Wivelsfield?

700553: During engineering works, in January upto 15 February 2015, tickets from Byfleet & New Haw priced on fare route 00628 may travel via Staines
Expired
700563: This positive map easement will allow journeys via Westbury, Swindon and Bristol Parkway that would normally be routed via Westbury, Bath Spa, Bristol, during engineering work on Sundays 08 and 15 March, until approximately 16.00 when the normal route will reopen. this easement applies in both directions.
Expired
700566: On Sunday 8 March 2015, trains between Salisbury and London Waterloo will be diverted via Southampton. Normally tickets on route 00000 Any permitted are not mapped via Southampton. This positive map easement will allow them to do so. This easement applies in both directions
Expired​

Expired, as they say.

 

[Merseysider]

If a normal read half of the stuff ATOC put out, said normal would surely think said Association had gone a little 'cuckoo'.

This local easement is superfluous and not operating.

tickets from Byfleet & New Haw priced on fare route 00628 may travel via Staines

This positive fare route easement...

 

[bb21]

Why do I sense that XC had a lot of input in this update?