Is walking between nearby stations mandatory?

[algytaylor]

Say I buy a train ticket where the fastest journey involves a connection where you need to walk between two stations (e.g. Wigan North Western & Wigan Wallgate, or Burscough Junction & Burscough Bridge), are you required to make that walking connection? (or rather, is that counted as the shortest route?)

I suppose the question is that, as ludicrous as it would be, could you insist on going Ormskirk - Liverpool - Southport - New Lane to avoid the half mile walk in Burscough to do the same journey?

 

[sheff1]

An Ormskirk to New Lane ticket is valid via Liverpool & Southport. It is also valid walking across Burscough. The choice is down to the user. However, when travelling via Burscough, two tickets (one for each leg) might be cheaper depending on the time of day and whether the journey is a single or return.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An Ormskirk to New Lane ticket is valid via Liverpool & Southport. It is also valid walking across Burscough. The choice is down to the user. However, when travelling via Burscough, two tickets (one for each leg) might be cheaper depending on the time of day and whether the journey is a single or return.

It used to be the case, when taking an Aughton Park (one stop down on Merseyrail) to Manchester journey via Burscough, that splitting at Ormskirk *and* Burscough was cheaper than one split - and that was in BR days!

The through fare from the Northern Line to Manchester is based on travel via Preston or Liverpool, really.

 

[algytaylor]

Thanks both

I occasionally do a similar-ish journey (Chester to Birchwood via Manchester) if I'm going to visit a friend after work, was just curious as to whether it was a legitimate journey or not seeing as I could tramp the mean streets of Warrington to change rather than my convoluted rail journey.

 

[najaB]

Say I buy a train ticket where the fastest journey involves a connection where you need to walk between two stations (e.g. Wigan North Western & Wigan Wallgate, or Burscough Junction & Burscough Bridge), are you required to make that walking connection? (or rather, is that counted as the shortest route?)

I don't really see how the railway could insist on it if there's a viable railway alternative. What if you aren't able to walk?

Edit: As a test I just tried avoiding a Glasgow Queen Street to Central Walk and it allowed a route via Partick.

 

[sdrennan]

there are many journeys which are short walk transfers but they allow for some other cost savings. E.g paisley canal to Paisley Gilmour st is a 10 minute walk but probably over 40 mins with a change at Glasgow. However buying a single has the benefit of allowing a break of journey allowing passengers to depart from one Paisley station and return to other with a day in Glasgow. All for the cost of a single

 

[robbeech]

there are many journeys which are short walk transfers but they allow for some other cost savings. E.g paisley canal to Paisley Gilmour st is a 10 minute walk but probably over 40 mins with a change at Glasgow. However buying a single had the benefit of allowing a break of journey allowing passengers to depart from one Paisley station and return to other with a day in Glasgow. All for the cost of a single

I've changed that for you.

 

[Haywain]

there are many journeys which are short walk transfers but they allow for some other cost savings. E.g paisley canal to Paisley Gilmour st is a 10 minute walk but probably over 40 mins with a change at Glasgow. However buying a single has the benefit of allowing a break of journey allowing passengers to depart from one Paisley station and return to other with a day in Glasgow. All for the cost of a single

Wow - a saving of 30p over a return.

 

[sheff1]

Wow - a saving of 30p over a return.

Rather more than that if the outward journey is in the morning peak

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't really see how the railway could insist on it if there's a viable railway alternative. What if you aren't able to walk?

On an ANY PERMITTED ticket they can't. But on flows where the non-walking route allowed silly detours, they just did away with ANY PERMITTED.

Examples include tickets that require a walk across Bradford: either the ANY PERMITTED is the same price as a ticket to Leeds or, more commonly, the only valid routing is NOT VIA LEEDS. A similar situation exists at St Albans.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've changed that for you.

That's another "fare anomaly" that will be "corrected" quickly.

 

[sheff1]

Examples include tickets that require a walk across Bradford: either the ANY PERMITTED is the same price as a ticket to Leeds or, more commonly, the only valid routing is NOT VIA LEEDS.

Doesn't apply to all flows, despite what a former poster used to claim with monotonous regularity.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Doesn't apply to all flows, despite what a former poster used to claim with monotonous regularity.

I'm sure they've missed a few, but not the obvious ones (that I can see...)

 

[Kite159]

That's another "fare anomaly" that will be "corrected" quickly.

There is another pair of stations in the south Glasgow area which are less than 10 minutes walk apart where some part time commuters can save by buying an anytime single between, breaking their journey in Glasgow city centre before resuming it later on in the evening.

Although there is probably nothing which can be done other than removing the fare as it is the same price as "Station A" to Glasgow Central

 

[sdrennan]

there are lots of these anomolies and as break of Journey is always allowed on anytime tickets it is unlikely they will be removed. Staff all know of these and there are many others. I agree I would not bother about this for off peak as more restrictive but at 5.70 for a return vs 3.60 it is a reasonable saving if you do it often

 

[Andrew1395]

Walks are in timetable data as fixed links. But they are not "railway lines with mileages" or are impacted by fares data. What they do is help journey planning. But they do not form part of shortest route calculations. That's why you get people get very vexed about them. Sometimes they want to include a fixed link walk in their argument why a route is valid and sometimes they want to ignore it. Southend, Windsor and Canterbury come to mind.

 

[Starmill]

A similar situation exists at St Albans.

Well. Kind of. If you turned up at Mill Hill Broadway (among many other examples) and asked for a ticket to Park Street...

 

[Starmill]

Sometimes they want to include a fixed link walk in their argument why a route is valid and sometimes they want to ignore it.

Who is "they", in this context? Nobody is at liberty to create or remove fixed links when they want to buy their ticket? For example can you tell me why there is no fixed link from Coatbridge Central to Coatbridge Sunnyside despite it being a relatively short and easy walk that facilitates extra journeys? Why was the fixed link between New Cross and New Cross Gate removed and then added again? You seem to know about this?

The shortest route is the shortest route is the shortest route. That's it. A route may be shorter than the shortest route or not, but this won't affect what the shortest route is. Nobody can or does sometimes take fixed links into account and sometimes not, as you suggest.

 

[tony_mac]

On an ANY PERMITTED ticket they can't. But on flows where the non-walking route allowed silly detours, they just did away with ANY PERMITTED.

That's certainly not true everywhere - and there can be some large fare anomalies. I guess maybe I shouldn't give a specific example, just in case somebody is actively taking advantage...

But, as usual, I just don't think the repercussions of walking were thoroughly considered when the rules were written. I don't believe that there was a general intention to create valid routes because they are shorter than the shortest entirely route by rail - there are enough mentions of just 'the shortest route' in the various documents.
In some cases, it makes perfect sense that walking would be expected (e.g., Wigan), but less so in others. I'm not sure that the fares demonstrate a completely consistent approach was taken either.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's certainly not true everywhere - and there can be some large fare anomalies.

Oh definitely. RDG get rid of them as and when they spot them. The obvious ones are mostly covered off, but there are loads of not-obvious ones.

 

[Haywain]

RDG get rid of them as and when they spot them.

RDG don't generally touch fares, other than in the TfL areas, so it will be TOCs that get rid of anomalies.

 

[button_boxer]

In some cases, it makes perfect sense that walking would be expected (e.g., Wigan)

In the Wigan case the walk from NW to Wallgate is shorter than the distance between platforms at some other stations.

 

[yorkie]

Sometimes they want to include a fixed link walk in their argument why a route is valid and sometimes they want to ignore it. Southend, Windsor and Canterbury come to mind.

Without knowing what fare "they" have argued is valid by a particular route, I couldn't possibly say if "they" are correct or not, but it should be straightforward to work it out in most cases.

I am sure you will be aware of this already, but for the benefit of anyone who is unsure, if a route involves any of the walks you mention (or any other recognised fixed link), it will be a permitted route if it is shorter than the shortest route, the same distance as the shortest route, or up to 3 miles longer than the shortest route, or if it is a mapped route.

I don't believe that there was a general intention to create valid routes because they are shorter than the shortest entirely route by rail - there are enough mentions of just 'the shortest route' in the various documents.

There was that intention and this is documented explicitly in the electronic routeing guide rules.

An example of a fare that requires a walk would be Halifax to Shipley route "Not via Leeds"; if people wish to take the shortest route by rail - which is via Leeds - they require the "Any Permitted" fare.

I agree it is unwise to highlight anomalies here though (hence why I chose my example carefully).