Routing Question from Woking to Slough

[yorkie]

As I have previously posted before, "Change Approval" authority for the Routeing Guide, must be obtained currently from the DfT.

These powers were previously held by the Strategic Rail Authority from 2001 to 2005 and by the Office of the Rail Regulator from 1996 to 2001.

Yes, but what I am wondering is this:

Do they need to seek permission to correct what they consider to be an "error" such as a bizarre route that was never "intended" to be valid, being valid?

If they do, they've broken the rules many times.

 

[embers25]

Below is the unbelievably wrong response from ATOC.

"Thank you for your enquiry.
The route you describe for a journey from Woking to Slough route Reading not London is not a permitted route. Tickets to Yeovil, Exeter, Bristol or Swindon would be much higher than the cost of your ticket to Slough. Having looked at the Routeing Guide, the route is Woking to Clapham Junction, Clapham Junction to Reading and Reading to Slough. Reading is the ‘intercept point’ on both maps.
I can confirm that on your off peak return you are permitted an overnight break on the outward leg of your journey as long as you begin your journey before 12noon the following day."

My rather frustrated response was as follows:

"Thankyou for your swift response, however based on the online routing guide on your own website I have not violated any conditions. Whilst I agree that Reading is ONE intercept point so are Bath, Bristol and Exeter and I draw your attention to your own document "The National Routing Guide in Detail" which states:


"Many journeys cannot be traced on a single map and need linking with other maps to allow a complete tracing. Sheffield to Inverness has a route CE+ER which means use map CE and then map ER. You may only trace journeys across maps at the points where they touch. CE and ER touch at Nottingham, Grimsby, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds, York, Hull, Goole and Selby so one of those locations must be in the journey."

This along with several other places in your own instructions says that I can trace journeys across any of the intercept points. This fact is used in all your examples. In addition because I am travelling from routing point to routing point I have to compare against no other fares and the fare check rule is not violated as you claim it is because and I quote "Even if another intermediate fare (A–F) is higher than the fare for the whole journey, it does not forbid the route." Just becuase fares to Exeter are more expensive is irrelevant as Exeter is not a routing point for my trip it is merely a map link point I travel through and you NEVER compare map link points unless they are a routing point for your chosen trip which they are not in my case as my ONLY routing points are SLOUGH and WOKING.
To prove this point I will use your own example online of a Plymouth to Cardiff Fare "National Routing Guide in Detail page F15". The Off Peak Day Single is £47.00 yet Plymouth to Chepstow is £47.70 Off Peak Day Single and using your incorrect interpretation of your own guide that means I cannot travel via chepstow however the guide correctly says that I can as the Chepstow fare (like the Exeter one in my case is an irrelevant intermedaite fare). I know this is a close difference (yet still enough) but I could come up with hundreds of cases where your argument about intermediate points being higher fares is disproved.
Trust me I have checked with numerous people online and who work with the railway and they all confirm it is valid based on the current instructions you post on your website. Given all your arguments used are invalid can you please confirm what criteria you base your decision to reject the route on.

My maps link at Exeter, my trip is routing point to routing point so no other fares need be checked, I never double back although I do I circle (tho no worse than the routing through Westbury offered in the exmaple outlined below) and my entire route is mapped using Maps WR+WX.

Just as a side note to further disprove your argument the only permitted route using maps WR+WX is via Clapham Junction to Reading to slough as you say. However, the Off peak day single from Woking to Slough via Reading is £15.00 using that route and Weybridge to Slough via Reading is £16.30 which by your method means NO valid routes exist from woking to Slough (except the shortest which technically are Woking-Ash Vale-North Camp-eading or Woking-Farnboro M-Farnboro N-Reading!!!!!!!!!!
Please can you look again and reread your own document and show me anywhere I am wrong or any condition I have violated. I agree its a crazy route but to say it is invalid is just flat wrong.
I'm sorry for my tone in this email but I cannot believe that your response ignored all criteria stated in your own rules that we have to follow.

Please please can you look again and follow your own instructions as we all have.
One further thing. Based on your theroy that means if I travel from London to Inverness for example I would have to check every station along the way I passed through just in case the fare was more expensive. Thats the whole point of having routing points so intermediate staions don't need to be checked as that would take forever and be impossible. In addition in confirming my only valid route(which I have subsequently proved as invalid using your theory) you also confirm that routes through Guildford or Basingstoke are not allowed however the SWT RJIS system allows both and we both agree these are invalid so their system is proved to be wrong! In addition the link on FRPP to the routing guide doesn't work any more (and it's a fairly new link too) as it links to the old website and not the new one from July 2nd and so stations can't even check if they wanted too without changed the link.

I await your updated response."


However to their credit the people thatresponded to me are still working and I called them at 5pm and right now (6:15pm) they are still trying to decipher if I have a point!! I will update once I get a response. they do at least agree now that my route is mapped and route Basingstoke isn't so we have some progress.
I do like the idea of us being able to sign something confirming our route is valid. I live by SWT Woking Office. Maybe they could draft something I'd happily sign. Also why aren't ATOC notifying SWT they are wrong on break of journey. Hopefully their nice man at their enquiry centre has tho. I didn't call them back today as I'm awaiting ATOC to confirm it first as I'm sure they'll just refer me there anyway.
I'll update further when I hear. They are supposed to be calling me later on tonight.

 

[glynn80]

That route will remain within the guide for all of 5 minutes now...

P.S. Just an aside point, with regard to your letter, unfortunately in my opinion, it is not very clear in terms of the points you are trying to convey.

In my extensive experience dealing with ATOC, you have to spell things out to them, extremely clearly, with links to the specific sections of the guide you are referring to and direct quotations and explanations of where said quotations originated from.

In future I am sure one of the members of this forum would be more than happy to read over a copy of drafts of your letters to ATOC and give you a few pointers.

 

[embers25]

Thanks for the feedback. It was written in a rush during a break as I wanted a quick response however as I mentioned I have talked with them directly to clarify. I agree proof reading would have been useful. More importantly if someone wants to formulate something better ready for when, as I expect, I get knocked back again I'd happilly use it! My problem is what if ATOC just say no and refuse to follow their own rules. Then where do I go? I've emailed passenger focus, do I go to the dft? It seems astounding that no-one actually understands the routing guide at ATOC and they wrote it!

 

[yorkie]

If you need to write to ATOC again, you draft it, but then ask for volunteers to proof read it, then it's still your letter.

ATOC will eventually admit it is a permitted route but will, obviously, have to admit that they made a mistake and they will promise to rectify it at the next edition.

What I'm not sure about is
1) whether they can do little changes like that simply by editing the PDF at any time (physically they can - easily!)
2) whether they can simply say it was a mistake and therefore avoid going through the proper channels

If the answer is yes and yes, then the route could be invalid by about this time tomorrow!

I can't see them writing you a letter endorsing you to go via Exeter on these tickets, although I agree in a way they should until the next RG change (which should be no more frequent than when the fares change), but I can't really see that happening.

 

[glynn80]

My problem is what if ATOC just say no and refuse to follow their own rules. Then where do I go? I've emailed passenger focus, do I go to the dft? It seems astounding that no-one actually understands the routing guide at ATOC and they wrote it!

There are some very knowledgeable staff at ATOC, the problem is that none of them work in the Customer Relations office.

Most of the knowledgeable staff with regard to the Routeing Guide, work for RSP (the administers of the Routeing Guide), a wholly owned subsidiary of ATOC whose primary function is to deal with the capacities outlined within the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement.

 

[Broken Viking]

What I'm not sure about is
1) whether they can do little changes like that simply by editing the PDF at any time (physically they can - easily!)
2) whether they can simply say it was a mistake and therefore avoid going through the proper channels

If the answer is yes and yes, then the route could be invalid by about this time tomorrow!

Aye, this is a very true possibility...But I poked the online copy of the NRRG an hour ago, and the entry that is the very subject of this thread is still listed in the copy that I downloaded - Evidently they havn't updated the site just yet! 8)

To this end, I've downloaded the complete NRRG and packed it into a ZIP archive along with a note to passengers and instruction to ATOC (In the readme file) that this version of the NRRG should be considered as valid and current until at least the 31st December.
Unfortunateley the forum wouldn't let me attach the file to this post as it's a little over the 2Mb size limit, but once I can recover the password to my MSN Live SkyDrive account, I'll upload it there and post a link here.

Later edit: After a lot of poking about, I finally managed to get it uploaded to SkyDrive. All being well, it (And an accompanying MD5 checksum) should be downloadable from Here...Although given that it's Microsoft's online storage service, those who use a browser other than IE might experience difficulties downloading it.
If the URL breaks (I only went and put spaces in it, didn't I? :roll the cut 'n' paste one is http://cid-cae1e0742d874e31.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Public/ATOC and National Rail

So...We now have an official and verified copy of the NRRG for our own reference, and all ATOC can do is request permission to change the NRRG from the DfT - Which will take a fair bit of time at the very least! :razz:

Farewell...And never EVER allow ATOC to beat ye down!
>> Death <<

 

[embers25]

Hey Guys,

Still no ATOC response so I played around and found a route that doesn't even violate their silly rules. Can you proof read and provide advice before I send it later tonight?

Thanks


Dear **** (or preferably this routing manager you all talk of),

I still expect a full refund for my ticket from Woking to Slough and I still expect a response confirming its validity or citing the EXACT place on your website users guide where it EXPLICITLY states that I am forbidden to go that way. However I raise further issues now you've got me thinking...

The National Conditions off Carriage state:

"13. The route you are entitled to take
(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:
(i) a through train;
(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 (details as to how you can obtain this information will be available when you buy your ticket)."

Given SWT guards and the Salisbury Station staff and manager do not even know the routing guide exists surely they violated this condition as they were clearly unable to provide this information (as apparently you so far are too).

Secondly just so you don't try to use the linking maps argument to rule out other cases try an any permitted London to Glasgow ticket where one allowable route is mapped using Map AS. This permits numerous crazy routes including:

London Liverpool Street-Cambridge-Ely-Peterborough-Sleaford-Grantham-Newark-Lincoln-Doncaster-Retford-Newstead-Nottingham-Leicester-Nuneaton-rugby-Coventry-Leamington-Solihull-Birmingham-Stafford-Crewe-Stockport-Stoke-Derby-Sheffield-Chinley-New Mills (bypassing Stockport)-Manchester-Preston-Lancaster-Hellifield-Leeds-York-Middlesborough-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Ladybank-Dundee-Aberdeen-Inverness-Perth-Glasgow.

At no point do I double back through two stations twice or leave the map or not follow a mapped route. Also obviously Glasgow and London are my routing points and so no other fares matter. However to eliminate even your stupid intermediate fares rule you made up to try to rule out Exeter try:

London Liverpool Street-Cambridge-Ely-Peterborough-Sleaford-Grantham-Newark-Lincoln-Doncaster-Retford-Newstead-Nottingham-Leicester-Nuneaton-rugby-Coventry-Leamington-Solihull-Birmingham-Stafford-Crewe-Stockport-Stoke-Derby-Sheffield-Chinley-New Mills (bypassing Stockport)-Manchester-Preston-Lancaster-Hellifield-Leeds-York-Middlesborough-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow

Now my fare is higher than the fare to any intermediate station I pass through and also more than any intermediate station to station combination even!

OK so this one is valid by even your bizarre rules and its only argument for rejection is that its not reasonable but if you all check you'll find the whole point of the routing guide was to remove "reasonable routes" replacing them with "permitted routes" and so whilst my route is not reasonable it is clearly permitted by your online routing guide and even by even your made up criteria. So how do you claim this one is not valid??

In case you are wondering I am a busy person with better things to do with my time than this however this routing guide is so fundamentally flawed it needs fixing or replacing and when I buy a ticket I enter into a contract with ATOC and you are violating your part of that contract by publishing online a routing guide I am to use and abide by but then turning around and saying oh by the way our on-line version is different but you can't see or have access to that one and also it doesn't match up with the maps in any way (as Woking-Slough showed clearly).

NCOC 13 states "details as to how you can obtain this information will be available when you buy your ticket" however in reality that is a blatant lie as I am not allowed access to the computerised (AMENDED and WRONG) version you all go by and so again you broke your contract with me. I know a previous used justification for the computer being different form the online one was that it is more up to date however the online one is currently July 2nd 2009 so has to be pretty well correct and certainly hasn't been amended yet. I know ever since this guide was created people have argued its flawed (Finsbury Pk-Cambridge from years ago springs to mind) however you've had 10+ years to sort it and you've done very little to improve it instead you just rip people off by banning perfectly valid routes and allowing invalid routes someone in your office decided were valid based on no actual criteria made public. Finally I find it astounding that I got the response I did from Lisa which was so blatantly wrong given she works for you. If your own staff can't follow it what chance does any normal traveller have?

I await your speedy response although I find it amazing that its already 24 hours since I chatted with **** and he told me he would call me back. Surely someone can get an answer within 24 hours and also if its that complicated it takes more than 24 hours why is it used as you can't expect an average travelller to understand it (or most ticket clerks and guards). Also do I need to call 2 weeks in advance just to get a response in time to travel!

Also please note:

(i) I am not going away quietly as I want answers as I am out of pocket and was publicly embarassed because of your breach of contract.

(ii) before you attempt to adjust the online version of the guide we have already made dated copies of it to prove it did back up our argument conclusively.

(iii) based on NCOC 13 you must provide the public access to the routing guide you use and so if you pull it offline I expect a replacement to be immediately available and accessible.

(iv)If you do try to pull this guide offline without replacement please be aware that my friends and I could spend every peak at ticket office windows "checking" valid routes and see how many complaints you get due to the long waits that creates. SWT wish to reduce ticket office hours (Salisbury Travel Centre closed and they normally only have one window for everything) however how can they reduce hours if the ticket office is the only place to get info? I realise you have your enquiry phone line but try wierd journeys and you'd be amazed how many they approve as does your inadequate website nationalrail.co.uk, hence the SWT guards' contempt for you.

(v) Do I really have to go the dft or the press as this is crazy and so easy to fix it's not even funny.

Please sort my refund and sort the guide.

Thankyou

 

[glynn80]

To this end, I've downloaded the complete NRRG and packed it into a ZIP archive along with a note to passengers and instruction to ATOC (In the readme file) that this version of the NRRG should be considered as valid and current until at least the 31st December.

Can you clarify the message you are trying to convey with regard to the guide being valid until the 31st December?

Is this a date you have arbitrarily picked out of the air and decided the guide will be valid until, in your mind, or is this a date that ATOC have set (if so please link to the text that states this)?

If it is a date you have arbitrarily picked out of the air, what authority do you have to claim the guide is valid until this date?

Hey Guys,

Still no ATOC response so I played around and found a route that doesn't even violate their silly rules. Can you proof read and provide advice before I send it later tonight?

Am working on this at present, will post/PM draft when completed.

 

[John @ home]

Can you proof read and provide advice before I send it later tonight?

First thoughts: don't send it later tonight. You have a draft. That's a very good first step.

Consult widely. Take everybody's comments into account. But you don't need to agree with every comment. It's your letter!

If you can identify an individual to write to, that's great. Letters to individuals tend to receive more personal responses.

Decide on one, or a very few, most important questions that you want to ask. Provide all the relevant evidence towards getting an accurate answer to those few crucial questions. The eliminate absolutely everything else.

Don't give opinions. Stick to facts. When you're happy that your letter is the best it's ever going to be, don't send it! Think in spare moments, is there any way I can make it shorter, or improve it in any other way.

When you haven't made any changes to your letter for more than 24 hours, then sit down and read it again quietly. If you still can't think of any more improvements, then it's probably time to send it.

I will work on comments on the substance of your letter soon. Too many interruptions at present.

Hope this helps,
John

 

[glynn80]

Here is a draft response that differs away from the points you were trying to raise, discrediting their argument by bring alternative examples, but instead by asserting in detail, clearly why the Woking to Slough ticket is valid.

I realise it is of some length but in my experience with ATOC you have to raise points, that they are likely to try to counter your argument with, before they have a chance.

Dear ATOC,

I am writing in reply to your recent response dated, 20 July 2009, which stated that my Woking to Slough Off Peak Return, routed Reading Not London, was not valid using a route: Woking to Basingstoke to Yeovil Junction to Exeter St Davids to Taunton to Bristol to Swindon to Reading to Slough.

In the response you mentioned that the cost of tickets from Woking to Yeovil, Exeter, Bristol or Swindon would all have been much higher than the cost of my ticket from Woking to Slough.

I am unsure which part of the routeing guide requires me to check random intermediate stations before confirming a route is a permitted one. So just to clarify to yourselves again, I will outline exactly the reasons for the ticket being valid.

Firstly the ticket I held was a Woking to Slough, Route Reading Not London. This is obviously not an "Any Permitted" fare but one that is "Route Specific". The Routeing Guide explains the proceudures relating to Route Specific fares on Page 2 of Instructions (Section A):


Where the fare specifies a particular route, you may choose only those routes listed in the Guide which pass through the station shown in the route description. The Routeing Guide may have to be used to find out how to reach the station shown in the route description. Where there are other permitted routes, these may also be used for the same journey provided the same or a lower fare applies.


So the above quote from the routeing guide, explains that with my ticket, I can only trace routes in the guide that pass through Reading but that do not pass through London. I am also free to travel via "other permitted routes" (i.e. routes included in the guide that do not pass through Reading and Not London) provided the same or a lower fare applies. Just for context purposes, on the Woking to London flow there is another Route Specific fare that is of lower price, the Route Windsor flow, thus the above describes that I can travel via the permitted routes that carry me through Reading and Not London routes and routes via Windsor.

Now I will move onto the Six Steps located within Instructions (Section A) of the Routeing Guide, I will tackle each one individually.


STEP 1

Use Section B (the “pink pages”) to find the routeing point(s) relating to the origin station. A station may be a routeing point in its own right, or it may be a “related station” and have routeing point(s) associated with it.


Using Section B, I find that the origin station (Woking), is a routeing point, I have thus located the origin routeing point needed to continue onto Step 2.


STEP 2

Use Section B (the “pink pages”) to find the routeing point(s) relating to the destination station. A station may be a routeing point in its own right, or it may have routeing point(s) associated with it.


In the same respect the destination station (Slough), is also a routeing point. Again I have thus located the destination routeing point needed to continue onto Step 3.


STEP 3

Where there is no common routeing point, appropriate routeing points must be selected for the origin station and for the destination station. No more than two routeing points are used to identify any one route for a journey (one for the originating station and one for the destination station).

I have omitted most of Step 3 in quotation, as the majority of the step related to Common Routeing Points, of which there is none in this situation


The above step, basically explains that the routeing points used must be appropriate and that no more than two routeing points can be used to identify any one route. I will use step 4 to check whether the routeing points are appropriate.


STEP 4

Ensuring that the routeing points are appropriate

It is important that account is taken of the fare for the journey being made as the fares manual may restrict the choice of routes by indicating a specific route e.g) Sheffield to London via Chesterfield. This will mean that the other routes listed may not be available at this fare. If the fare is specifically routed in the fares manual, check carefully that the route selected is via this specific route.

You may only use all the permitted routes if the fare is unrouted or the route is described as "any permitted". An "any permitted" ticket cannot be used for travel on a route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a higher priced route specific fare exists. It can be used on any route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a lower priced route specific fare exists.

If you are unsure whether a particular routeing point for the origin station is the correct one compare the fare from that routeing point to the destination with the fare for the throughout journey - it is an appropriate routeing point only if that fare is the same or lower than the fare for the throughout journey from the origin station to the destination station.

Follow the same procedure if you are not certain that a particular routeing point for the destination station is the correct one. Compare the fare from that routeing point to the origin station with the fare for the throughout journey - it is an appropriate routeing point only if that fare is the same or lower than the fare for the throughout journey from the origin station to the destination station.

All fares comparisons must be made using one of the following single ticket types:

• Standard Open Single (SOS)
• Standard Day Single (SDS)
• Saver Single (SVS)
• Cheap Day Single (CDS)

In exceptional circumstances, due to local fares policies, a direct comparison may not be possible. If this is the case and the origin station or destination station has a lower fare of the type selected than all its routeing points, the Standard Single (Day or Open) fares should be used for comparison purposes.


The first paragraph explains that I must take into account the fare for the ticket I am using, an Off Peak Return priced at £22.50. It explains that if other fares (with specific routes) within the same flow are higher than the fare I have purchased, that these routes may not be permitted. In the case of Woking to Slough, there is a higher priced Off Peak Return at £25.50 but as this is Route Any Permitted and does not designate a specific route, it does not further limit my ability to take all routes that pass through Reading and Not London.

The second paragraph only related to Any Permitted fares and is thus irreverent in this situation.

The third, fourth, fifth an sixth paragraphs relate to whether the customer is unsure of whether the routeing points are appropriate for the origin and destination stations. Because in the Woking to Slough flow, both stations are routeing points themselves, there is no question whether or not the Woking and Slough routeing points are the appropriate routeing points to be using with Woking and Slough stations. Thus I can move onto Step 5.

Also just as an aside, this maybe where yourselves at ATOC are becoming confused, thinking that the "fares check" procedure, that is needed to determine whether routeing points are appropriate or not, was actually to be used for intermediate stations along the mapped routes. The whole fares check procedure is not relevant in this sitation as we do not have to determine whether routeing points are appropriate as both stations are themselves routeing points. This is explained in detail in Section F which may clarify some of the points I have raised here.


STEP 5

Permitted routes

If both stations are routeing points, go to STEP 6.

If one station is a routeing point and the other one is a related station, the permitted route is the shortest route to the routeing point plus the permitted routes between routeing points.

If both are related stations, use the shortest distance to the first routeing point, followed by the permitted routes between the routeing points, then finally the shortest route from the final routeing point.

Where there are local journey easements, these may permit use of a longer route to and from the routeing points.


Step 5, just reinforces the point made in Step 4 regarding stations being routeing points themselves. In this scenario because Woking and Slough are both routeing points, I can move straight onto Step 6 as stated in the first paragraph.


STEP 6

Identify the routeing code using Section C

Section C (the “yellow pages”) show the routeing codes between every routeing point station. Locate the originating routeing point in Column A and the destination routeing point in Column B to locate the routeing codes applicable for your journey (N.B. route permissions are the same in both directions).

If the routeing code is "LONDON", for all journeys via London you will need to cross reference routeing codes applicable "to London" with the code for the "from London" leg of the journey.

If the routeing code is "LONDON", journeys include the cost of cross-London transfer either by London Underground or Thameslink services. In all cases the transfer points should be along the correct line of route given by the ‘permitted route’ map combinations.

The via London, Maltese Cross symbol on a ticket signifies that the ticket may be used via London Underground or Thameslink services. Unless a ticket specifies that the journey must be made via London, passengers are free to use an alternative ‘permitted route’ for their journey as provided by the Routeing Guide.

In some instances (particularly long distance cross country journeys) the Manual will show an "any permitted" fare but without the via London, Maltese cross symbol. Reference to Section C (the “yellow pages”) may show via London to be a permitted route for this journey and in such instances travel via London to include cross-London transfer would be permitted.


Paragraph one explains how to locate the routeing codes. I have, using the yellow pages in Section C, located the two routeing codes between Woking and Slough as: LONDON & WR+WX.

Obviously I can disregard all the routes via LONDON as the ticket I held was routed "Reading Not London".

Paragraphs two, three, four and five; all relate to routes via London or those that include the Maltese Cross. These are an irrelevance for the ticket I held and thus I can move on to Step 7.


STEP 7

Identify the route to which the code(s) refers using the maps

Each code refers to a map. If a single code is indicated the route is via any route on that map from the first routeing point to the final routeing point without doubling back (passing through the same station twice on a single journey).

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.

Example (e) - Darlington to Shrewsbury via permitted route ER+PN+BD. This allows travel from Darlington to York via Map ER, York to Manchester via Map PN and Manchester to Shrewsbury via Map BD.

ALL MAPS NEED TO BE CONSULTED IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER.
DO NOT USE THE MAPS UNTIL YOU HAVE FOLLOWED STAGES 1 - 6.


The first paragraph here relates to a single code, in this circumstance we have two codes WR+WX so this is irreverent.

The second paragraph is very relevant and perhaps the whole argument hinges on this paragraph. It states that I may take any route (without doubling back) on the first map from the origin routeing point until the intercept point and then any route on the second map from said intercept point to the final destination routeing point.

The first map I use to determine the mapped permitted routes is map WX, I can use mapped permitted routes using the routeing codes in either the order they are written in or vice-versa, so long as the sequence is kept. This is highlighted in the The National Routeing Guide in Detail (Section F) on page F8:


3. Maps must be used in strict sequence, first to last or last to first, according to the end of the route code where reading began.


Using map WX I plot the route (without doubling back) from Woking to Farnborough to Basingstoke to Salisbury to Yeovil Junction to Exeter. I am using Exeter as my intercept point and will now consult map WR. From map WR I plot the route Exeter to Taunton to Bristol to Bath Spa to Chippenham to Swindon to Didcot Parkway to Reading to Slough.

The route I have listed above is thus permitted. I have not doubled back and I have passed through Reading station whilst not passing through any London station (as indicated on in the route description on the ticket).

If you wish to dispute any point raised above, please reply to this letter in significant detail using quotes from the routeing guide to fully clarify your position.

Thanks in advance

xxx

 

[yorkie]

Hey Guys,

Still no ATOC response so I played around and found a route that doesn't even violate their silly rules. Can you proof read and provide advice before I send it later tonight?

Is this a letter to ATOC or SWT? I think Glynn80's draft is a good letter that you should consider sending to ATOC.

I think a separate letter should be sent to SWT (please create a draft for us to proof read if you like) that addresses these points

1) the staff being unaware of the RG
2) requesting a refund of the additional fare paid

I would draft this letter now, but don't actually send it until it's been proof read and, most importantly, after AOTC have confirmed it is valid. Otherwise all that will happen is SWT will either disupute the route or ask ATOC themselves if it is valid.

 

[tony_mac]

I don't really understand the need to go into detail on step 4 - both the stations are routeing points, so there can't be any debate on which routeing points to use, can there?

Also, I'm not sure that you do compare the actual fare anymore, but instead have to compare the single fares. It has been badly altered though, and it is difficult to know what it does really mean any more.

edit - you might as well ignore that bit; although I'm still not sure that the fare comparison is needed, but I guess it wouldn't do any harm either way.

I am unsure which part of the routeing guide requires me to check random intermediate stations before confirming a route is a permitted one.

I think that I might add, for reinforcement,

'This would mean that there are no permitted routes for some journeys and it would be onerous for passengers to check fares for all possible intermediate stations'

I think the kisses at the end are a little too friendly

 

[glynn80]

I don't really understand the need to go into detail on step 4 - both the stations are routeing points, so there can't be any debate on which routeing points to use, can there?

I thought about this myself but I was trying to think through the eyes of someone who has no in depth knowledge of the routeing guide. The fact that Steps 1-3 do not state that, if the station is a routeing point, that routeing point is appropriate and also because there are other issues to raise in step 4 (such as fares check), I left the detail in.

I think that I might add, for reinforcement,

'This would mean that there are no permitted routes for some journeys and it would be onerous for passengers to check fares for all possible intermediate stations'

Agreed, perhaps as a new paragraph after:

"I am unsure which part of the routeing guide requires me to check random intermediate stations before confirming a route is a permitted one. So just to clarify to yourselves again, I will outline exactly the reasons for the ticket being valid."

I think the kisses at the end are a little too friendly

Lmao .

 

[embers25]

Thankyou for the proof reading and assistance in formulating a far more clear response. I was going to wait until SWT responded before contacting them. Also I need the ATOC response first for back up. I've sent the email and will call them tomorrow evening if I hear nothing back as thats given them since Friday to answer and surely no-one should reasonably(!) expect to wait this long for a correct response as otherwise noone would travel (ahhh maybe thats their paln to save needing new extra carriages). To be fair I haven't given up on SWT seeing sense yet and for all I know the nice man I spoke to on Sunday may have already called Salisbury. I'll certainly be checking with everyone there next time I pass thru

 

[Broken Viking]

Can you clarify the message you are trying to convey with regard to the guide being valid until the 31st December?

Is this a date you have arbitrarily picked out of the air and decided the guide will be valid until, in your mind, or is this a date that ATOC have set (if so please link to the text that states this)?

If it is a date you have arbitrarily picked out of the air, what authority do you have to claim the guide is valid until this date?

That message about validity of the current NRRG is a suggestion to users to disregard and not acknowlege any changes made to the online copy of the NRRG hosted on ATOCs website between now and that date. It's intended primarily as a safeguard of my own creation to prevent ATOC arbitarily changing the routeing guide for their own ends (I.E: Whenever an NRRG "hack" is found) without following due process and seeking the necessary approval from the DfT for such a change. However, the suggestion that the current version of the NRRG should be considered valid until the 31st December is one of my own, and has no official standing.

To clarify, the text in question is intended to suggest the following:

• To rail users:
  It is possible that - Insted of requesting and obtaining proper approval from the DfT for permission to change the NRRG beforehand - ATOC may try to tamper with the "public" version of the NRRG by editing the documents hosted on their website and removing any "good" routes that might have been found during recent times.
  However, to effect a legitimate change to the NRRG, ATOC first have to seek permission for such changes from the Department of Transport...And therefore the only changes to the NRRG that can be considered legitimate are those that are directly authorised by the DfT.
  
  Therefore: Until a new version of the NRRG - As explicitly sanctioned by the DfT (Who should publicise both that sanction and the fact that the NRRG is being revised) - Is officially released, this archive and the documents within may stand as a copy of the latest legitimate version of the NRRG.
  Given the amount of time estimated for ATOC to authorise a new NRRG with the DfT and to have it published - And to prevent any attempt by ATOC to mislead the general public by tampering with the publicly downloadable version of the NRRG in the interim - It is suggested that this archive and the documents within are retained and regarded as a formal up-to-date version of the NRRG until the next DfT-authorised official release, which should arrive no earlier than the 1st January 2010CE.
  .
• To ATOC, ATOC members, and the DfT:
  Following recent discussions concerning abnormal routeing on the railway network that appears to be permitted by the NRRG - Taking also into account ATOCs recent decision to switch to using an online-only version of the NRRG that could easily be changed in an arbitary fashion, with no prior public notice or accountable trace of such changes - Concerns have recently been raised by several people that attempts to modify the only publicly available version of the NRRG may be made in an attempt to invalidate routes that the latest legitimate and DfT-sanctioned version of the NRRG appears to permit. These concerns have been raised without prejudice by regular users of the National Rail Network.
  
  To preserve the latest official version of the NRRG, and to prevent any such arbitary changes from going unseen by the travelling public, backup copies of the current official version of the NRRG have been taken, archived, and have been authenticated by means of MD5 checksums to allow the travelling public to immediateley identify any changes that may be made to the publicly available version of the NRRG.
  
  Although we acknowlege that changes may be made to the NRRG from time-to-time, we (The travelling public) feel that any changes made to the NRRG at this time may be inadvisable, especially as they may complicate matters currently being undertaken. Therefore we kindly ask ATOC and the DfT to ensure that the current official version of the NRRG is maintained - Unedited - For a sufficient amount of time, that any forthcoming changes to the NRRG are properly authorised with the DfT before being effected, and that all users of the National Rail Network are given sufficient advance notice of any forthcoming changes. The person who has composed this archive recommends that the earliest date for any new issue of the NRRG to come into effect should be the 1st January 2010CE.

Actually...Whilst I'm on the subject of copies of the NRRG and MD5 checksums; If anyone else has downloaded parts of the NRRG between the 2nd July and 08:00 yesterday morning (NOT from the archive that I posted), would they mind running MD5 sums over them and posting the results in this thread for accountability purposes? It's a simple process and I can post tools and instructions here if need be - Although using different MD5 checksummer programs on different platforms and getting the same MD5 results might go further to reinforcing the fact that the copies of the NRRG that we possess are valid ones.

Dear Gods! I spend far too much time typing out froth on this board nowadays...But if it stops other people from suddenly being kicked in the balls by ATOC, then it's well worth the effort!

Farewell for now...
>> Death <<

 

[RochdalePioneers]

I must say this has been an interesting thread. First off good luck to Embers - you have done no wrong!

Secondly - and my main point - what kind of joke is the Rail ticketing system? In my opinion the route taken is patently bonkers but clearly valid. Surely in the old days of any reasonable route it would have been not allowed, but has been created post privatisation along with a system not thought through. Its in the routeing guide and it appears that noone knows how it works - this is insane.

And its not just routes its ticket prices as well. I went Thornaby - Croydon last week and saved £16 splitting my Anytime Return at York vs a ticket all the way through. How can this be? A total overhaul of the fares system is needed - a national fares structure based on distance not set by operators to avoid nonsense like I encountered. A simple route engine that can be used by staff and punters alike.

The loser here is the railway vs other modes of transport. As John Q Public I don't understand the ticket, its complex and expensive, I'll drive instead.

 

[glynn80]

And its not just routes its ticket prices as well. I went Thornaby - Croydon last week and saved £16 splitting my Anytime Return at York vs a ticket all the way through. How can this be? A total overhaul of the fares system is needed - a national fares structure based on distance not set by operators to avoid nonsense like I encountered.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the point raised above. It is an outdated and ill informed view from my perspective.

A distance-based pricing model sounds good on paper but does not work in reality because it cannot spread demand in the same way other pricing models are able to.

Moreover distance-based pricing wouldn't remove all anomalies in practical terms. If we take flows such as Glasgow to London and Edinburgh to London. Currently these flows are set by Virgin and NXEC and there is an agreement in place that the walk-on prices on these flows will remain identical. Using a distance based pricing model however, the fare to Glasgow would be more expensive than the fare to Edinburgh (due to the ECML being shorter than the WCML), even though the Glasgow to London fare has permitted routes via Edinburgh.

Finally on flows such as Lancaster to Carlisle, which route do you calculate the distance under, the shortest route, even if there are parallel routes with much greater distance? If the distance for the above flow was calulcated via Penrith, the fares on the Cumbrian Coast would be in disarray because any fares from Lancaster to north of Sellafield (which is of almost equal distance to that of Lancaster to Carlisle via Penrith) would be purchased cheaper if they were issued to Carlisle (the Cumbrian Coast is a permitted route on Lancaster to Carlisle fares).

Even in the latter part of BR days fares were set by the Business Sectors (InterCity, Network SouthEast and Regional Railways) and pricing by strict distance had given way to selective pricing by route quality and market as long ago as 1968.

 

[yorkie]

I agree the current system is a shambles but there is no easy solution.

...a national fares structure based on distance not set by operators to avoid nonsense like I encountered. A simple route engine that can be used by staff and punters alike....

How would you price Peterborough to Derby?

 

[embers25]

Ok I now have a response from fGW and it confirms I was right!!!!!!

"I have now received the response from our Fares Manager and I can confirm that your Off Peak ticket is not valid for travel via Bristol Parkway. There appears to have been an error with the ATOC routing guide and this is now being corrected, I apologise for the confusion this has caused."

How can ATOC still deny this given fGW admit it was an error and note it is already being corrected.
I am passing this on to ATOC and SWT!

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Are we really saying that a zonal fares structure couldn't be created? London to Glasgow or Edinburgh via either route would be the same price - who suggested charging by the mile? Tickets bought for parts of that journey in combination (London to Manchester, Manchester to Edinburgh) should add up to the same as the whole length to stop this nonsense of splitting tickets.

It can't be that hard. It already exists on some flows where X to West Yorkshire costs a pound or so more than X to Leeds - a perfect example of zonal pricing thats logical

 

[yorkie]

By ´distance based´ I assumed that to mean the same as ´by the mile´.

As for a zonal system, I´d like to see a demonstration of how that would work. Edinburgh and Glasgow couldn´t be in the same zone, so you´d have to say that for long didtance journeys those zones don´t affect the price and that would be difficult to implement. The fare from London to Glasgow/Edinburgh is theoretically the same and has been since InterCity days but the issue is that the conditions are quite different depending on which route you take. Simplification confused the issue when the ticket names changed as Business Saver had to become Off Peak.

If you could draw up a proposal to do a zonal system that would achieve your aims I´d be interested to see it. If it was possible to implement a fully national zonal structure then it could potentially be used for ´Pay as you go´ cards.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

And its the conditions that are the issue - allow operators to set them and we end up with one ticket having the same rules meaning different things on similar tickets. Why should an off peak ticket have different validity periods out of Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross? Do members of the public care who runs the train? Should they carry round a big book full of rules (which the operator may not recognise anyway?)

I don't have all the answers clearly, but clearly what we have doesn't work. Is anyone arguing for its retention?

 

[yorkie]

I don't have all the answers clearly, but clearly what we have doesn't work. Is anyone arguing for its retention?

Not in its present form. But the problem is caused by the privatisation process and I think that with the current situation of inter-available fares and private companies setting prices means that it is inevitable that these anomalies will occur. Yes, fares could be set nationally but that would undermine privatsation to such an extent that it would be unworkable.

I don't think there is any other pricing model that will make sense other than a market-based one based on supply and demand, a distance or zonal based system is not going to work.

Before privatisation the fares were not perfect but there were a lot less anomalies, and the more time goes on in the privatised railway world the more anomalies there are likely to be created, for example just recently an Anytime return from York to a station beyond Doncaster became cheaper than an Off Peak return from York to Doncaster and at present trends Sheffield Anytimes will be cheaper than Doncaster Off Peaks soon.

I think it is impossible to have any system where TOCs are free to set their own fares, but for fares to be inter-available and for anomalies to be eliminated.

I also don't campaign for anomalies to be removed because the TOCs generally do this by increasing the cost of the cheaper tickets (obviously!)

 

[glynn80]

Ok I now have a response from fGW and it confirms I was right!!!!!!

"I have now received the response from our Fares Manager and I can confirm that your Off Peak ticket is not valid for travel via Bristol Parkway. There appears to have been an error with the ATOC routing guide and this is now being corrected, I apologise for the confusion this has caused."

Section B and Section C of the Routeing Guide were updated yesterday ("Posted on Website: 22/07/2009") but the WR+WX map combination is still present and currently still a permitted route...

 

[Mystic Force]

The question is what is the difference between a change and a mistake. Can they self declare anything they want as a mistake and then change it without approval?

 

[embers25]

So at long last ATOC have admitted they were wrong and I was right (see below). My route is apparently an anomally that will be fixed however they won't refund my ticket as I wasn't excessed. The fact that SWT wouldn't let me use it at all and obviously, as in this case, what could it have been upgraded to? They leave me to now fight SWT! I refused to accept this and asked for a refund or to be allowed to use my return portion via Exeter as I had bought it in good faith.
I also pointed out the nationalrail is renowned for being wrong and not being accepted as proof of validity so what do I do next time this happens as obviously there are many many anomalies. I shall await their response. At least they said sorry and admitted fault. It's a start.

"Thank you for your emails regarding a journey from Woking to Slough via Salisbury, Exeter, Taunton, Bristol, Swindon and Reading.
I have looked into this route in more detail and confirm that this is a permitted route in accordance with the National Routeing Guide and maps WR+WX. However, this is clearly an anomaly as it was never intended that this journey should be allowed by such an circuitous route. We will correct this with the next update of the Routeing Guide and also amend our retail information systems at stations.
I am very sorry that you were incorrectly advised about this matter by a number of train company staff including my assistant. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience caused. You may wish to contact South West Trains about this matter as you appear to have encountered the problem on the South West Trains leg of your journey. The address to write to is as follows:
Customer Service Centre, South West Trains, Overline House, Blechynden Terrace, Southampton SO15 1GW

With regard to your request for a refund, this will be considered if you were charged an excess fare although this does not appear to be the case. If you believe you are entitled to a refund, this will be considered by the South West Trains.
If you are uncertain about a permitted route for a future journey, may I suggest that you please ask at the station before you commence the journey or you can contact National Rail Enquiries on 08457 484950 or use their Journey Planner at www.nationalrail.co.uk.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Your complaint, whilst regrettable, does help the train companies monitor and improve the services they provide."

 

[yorkie]

The question is what is the difference between a change and a mistake. Can they self declare anything they want as a mistake and then change it without approval?

THat is my concern too. I don't see any way we can stop them, other than referring the matter to the ORR/DfT/Passenger Focus. We may need to involve the media in a campaign against ATOC if they are going to not play by their own rules and change the RG on a whim.

We must not let ATOC get away with this!

 

[mark_hammond75]

South West Trains not knowing about the Routing Guide, and then trying to cover it up ? Sounds awfully familiar to me….I am still awaiting a conclusion to my Three Bridges to Newport problem… http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=22516

However, at least ATOC have agreed that the route was valid.

Dear Mr Hammond

Thank you for your email and letter regarding a journey from Three Bridges to Newport (South Wales) via Southampton. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

In noting your comments, I agree with you that the Routeing Guide allows this journey as a 'permitted route'. However, this is clearly an anomaly as it was never intended that this journey should be allowed by such an circuitous route and we will correct this with the next update of the Routeing Guide. I also confirm that the ATOC website is the definitive version of the National Routeing Guide for obtaining information on permitted routes.

You also ask about travelling via Cosham. First Great Western have not set a fare to allow travel via this route. I assume this is because in the past it has always been considered that the majority of customers would travel via London and there has been little demand for travel via Cosham. I will convey your views to First Great Western on this matter as it may be that they will consider setting fares by this alternative route.

This raises an interesting point- how are they going to correct this ‘anomaly’? I was using the London Group to Newport route of BD+MW+WX. Do ATOC intend to remove this as a permitted route? If they did, then travel would no longer be allowed from London to Newport via Southampton – something that even National Rail Enquiries agree is a permitted route. The Customer Relations Manager at ATOC assures me that come the next Routing Guide update this ‘anomaly’ will be addressed…

 

[yorkie]

For them to say that it was never "intended" to be valid, can we therefore have a list of routes that ARE intended to be valid for all possible routes?

If such a list does not exist, then they are making it up as they go along. If such a list does exist, then they have to make it public surely?

My concern is that when anyone tries to do a slightly more 'exotic' route using the RG, ATOC will simply turn round and say that the route was never intended to be valid and that it will be removed, so all the time they are removing more and more routes, and they seem to be accountable to no-one!

As far as I'm concerned, ATOC have declared war on us. This is a war we simply must win.