Beaconsfield to Birmingham - Valid Routes ?

[coxy]

Good Afternoon All,

I recently travelled from Beaconsfield to Birmingham on a Super Off Peak Return (route via High Wycombe).

My understanding was that I could travel from Beaconsfield to Leamington Spa, then from there either change onto a Cross Country service via Coventry and Birmingham International to reach Birmingham New Street, or remain on my Chiltern service passing through Solihull and Tysley to reach Birmingham Moor Street / Snow Hill.

I've subsequently checked the Routing Guide, and think I might have two further options based upon the following:

1] Beaconsfield is associated with routing points of Princes Risborough and South Ruislip.
2] I therefore used Princes Risborough to determine my permitted routes.
3] Permitted routes are LONDON and RB.

When I look at map RB, it shows the following additional routes

Leamington Spa - Stratford-upon-Avon - Birmingham
Leamington Spa - Coventry - Nuneaton - Birmingham

Please can somebody confirm if the routes via Stratford-upon-Avon and Nuneaton are also valid ??

Regards.
Coxy

 

[SickyNicky]

Edit: Note that I now think the following isn't technically correct, but is how booking engines work. So although the route is probably not technically valid, you should be able to get an itinerary from a booking engine and therefore that itinerary will be valid.

Leamington Spa - Stratford-upon-Avon - Birmingham

Yes - but only by doing a split route check (because the ticket is routed via High Wycombe, we are allowed to check the journeys to and from there as separate routes).

OUTWARD JOURNEY Beaconsfield to Birmingham Moor Street
Mileage 101.98 (Shortest possible 88.16)
Origin Routeing Point – Princes Risborough
Failed fares check

Split Routeing Check:
Segment 1. Beaconsfield to High Wycombe
Permitted: Through train. 
Segment 2. High Wycombe to Birmingham Moor Street
Mileage 97.12 (Shortest possible 83.30)
Origin Routeing Point – Princes Risborough
Passed fares check
Local journey permitted
Local journey to/from terminus: High Wycombe to Princes Risborough
Permitted: Through train. 
Destination Routeing Point – BIRMINGHAM GROUP
Terminus is a routeing point
Through Mapped Route
Checking PRR-G58-LMS-G73-G72-TYS-G02
Traceable on map RB
The following doubleback was encountered:
From Stratford Upon Avon (entirely within STRATFORD U GROUP)

Permitted: Mapped route.

Leamington Spa - Coventry - Nuneaton - Birmingham

Yes. Again, only by virtue of the split route check

OUTWARD JOURNEY Beaconsfield to Birmingham New Street
Mileage 104.94 (Shortest possible 89.54)
Origin Routeing Point – Princes Risborough
Failed fares check

Split Routeing Check:
Segment 1. Beaconsfield to High Wycombe
Permitted: Through train. 
Segment 2. High Wycombe to Birmingham New Street
Mileage 100.08 (Shortest possible 84.68)
Origin Routeing Point – Princes Risborough
Passed fares check
Local journey permitted
Local journey to/from terminus: High Wycombe to Princes Risborough
Permitted: Through train. 
Destination Routeing Point – BIRMINGHAM GROUP
Terminus is a routeing point
Through Mapped Route
Checking PRR-G58-LMS-COV-NUN-G02
Traceable on map RB

Permitted: Mapped route.

 

[maniacmartin]

Yes - but only by doing a split route check (because the ticket is routed via High Wycombe, we are allowed to check the journeys to and from there as separate routes).

I'm guessing this is the rule that applies to journey planners? This contradicts previous correspondence from ATOC that they should only be checked as separate routes if there are no permitted route that pass through the specified via point.

 

[SickyNicky]

I'm guessing this is the rule that applies to journey planners? This contradicts previous correspondence from ATOC that they should only be checked as separate routes if there are no permitted route that pass through the specified via point.

Ah - that's interesting. I didn't know about that correspondence - we just follow the instructions for producing journey planners.

If that's the case then there are NO Permitted routes except on through trains or the shortest route, since the origin fails the fares check.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I agree with maniacmartin - this has come up before: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2290577&postcount=11

 

[coxy]

Thanks for the various replies.

I'm slightly confused as to what a "Split Route Check" is ? Can you please clarify.

Regards.
Cooxy

 

[Paul Kelly]

The main problem is that Princes Risborough fails the fares check as an origin routeing point for Beaconsfield to Birmingham when using NFM64 fares. The routeing guide was changed recently to mandate the use of NFM64 fares (i.e. the fares in force when British Rail was privatised) to determine appropriate routeing points. And in NFM64, a ticket from Princes Risborough to Birmingham was actually more expensive than from Beaconsfield to Birmingham. You can check this at http://data.atoc.org/rp_calc So technically, that means you can not use any of the mapped routes between Princes Risborough and Birmingham - only through trains, the shortest route, or routes within 3 miles of the shortest route are relevant.

For a fare with a geographic route (e.g. "Via High Wycombe"), there is a generally accepted procedure that if that via station does not lie on any permitted routes, then the permitted routes can be determined by doing a split routeing check, i.e. the routes from the origin to the via station, combined with the routes from the via station to the destination can be used for the journey. But this does not strictly apply in your case because High Wycombe lies on the shortest route between Beaconsfield and Birmingham, so it already is on a permitted route.

It's all very complicated and there are different ways of interpreting the rules, which people can debate for hours. Have you been to one of the forum's fares workshops?

 

[Andrew1395]

Any (geographically) routed fare (in this case High Wycombe), you check the route by splitting the Origin to High Wycombe and then the routes High Wycombe to Destination. It is one of the reasons you get odd looking easements to control the journey on the second split, which may result in different permitted routes to say mapped routes from Origin to Destination on non routed fares.

 

[CyrusWuff]

If memory serves, there's a circuitous route negative "easement" that explicitly prohibits use of a ticket to/via Birmingham to travel Leamington Spa - Stratford-upon-Avon - Birmingham; and also to prohibit a ticket to/via Stratford-upon-Avon to do Leamington Spa - Birmingham - Stratford-upon-Avon.

 

[John @ home]

If memory serves, there's a circuitous route negative "easement" that explicitly prohibits use of a ticket to/via Birmingham to travel Leamington Spa - Stratford-upon-Avon - Birmingham; and also to prohibit a ticket to/via Stratford-upon-Avon to do Leamington Spa - Birmingham - Stratford-upon-Avon.

Almost, it's "Easement 000103".

"Circuitous Route

Journeys from or via Birmingham to Stratford-upon-Avon may not go via Leamington Spa. Jouneys from or via Birmingham to Leamington Spa may not go via Stratford-upon-Avon. This applies in both directions."

http://iblocks-rg-publication.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/easement_text.pdf

 

[kieron]

This contradicts previous correspondence from ATOC that they should only be checked as separate routes if there are no permitted route that pass through the specified via point.

That may be so, but we've have a whole new conditions of travel document since then. One which gives absolutely no guidance on which routes you can use with a ticket if it has a "specific route or Train Company" shown on it.

As this includes material changes elsewhere within it, I'd be cautious (after next Friday, anyway) about relying on any clarification which has been provided for an earlier version.

And in NFM64, a ticket from Princes Risborough to Birmingham was actually more expensive than from Beaconsfield to Birmingham.

It wasn't, actually (at least, if the fare list on atoc.org is accurate).

Beaconsfield-Birmingham had "via London" fares which were cheaper than the "via London" fares for Princes Risborough-Birmingham. It also had "via High Wycombe" fares which were dearer than the "via Banbury" fares for Princes Risborough-Birmingham.

I forget where I saw this, but I believe the intention is to only compare prices with matching routes where these are available, even if there's a clear reason for using different points. This is the sort of thing which leads to Routeing Point easements, I suppose.

Almost, it's "Easement 000103".

That only applies to journeys from Stratford or Leamington, of course.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Kieron is right. The fares check actually passes for Princes Risborough, as long as you compare the "VIA BANBURY" fares from there to Birmingham with the "VIA HIGH WYCOMBE" fares from Beaconsfield to Birmingham. (Booking engines don't know these are equivalent - indeed they can never know for sure, since some of the route codes have changed meaning since NFM64 so they can't just apply them to the current journey - so they compare the VIA LONDON fares and this results in a failure of the fares check.)

But the OP doesn't need to worry about that technicality - the fares check passes, and most of this thread is irrelevant to the OP's question - the answer is simply yes (for now, anyway).