London to Wolverhampton: refused travel

[najaB]

So I will ask again, given that ANY PERMITTED should be valid via Stafford,

Should it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, it does

It doesn't if it would ordinarily be a Permitted Route - all that does is renders the higher priced fare pointless. It's the fact that it isn't a Permitted Route (shortest or mapped) that invalidates it.

If it was cheaper than Any Permitted the effect of that would be to add it as a Permitted Route (on a de-facto basis; technically a zero fare excess would be needed).

It is silly, though, and the obvious way to fix it is to have one routed Birmingham and one routed Stafford.

 

[etr221]

Should it?

Based on what I wrote in my earlier posts, yes.

 

[najaB]

Based on what I wrote in my earlier posts, yes.

And if we base it on the actual rules?

 

[yorkie]

Actually, it does

No. The existence of a higher priced ticket does not invalidate it. Stafford is (surprisingly) not on a permitted route between London and Wolverhampton (even though via Stafford is often the fastest route) and that is the reason why the Any Permitted isn't valid via Stafford (except, of course, on days when there is a through train via Stafford!)

 

[mmh]

Should it?

Looking at the timetable, it definintely should be. Allowing via Stafford gives three evently spaced trains an hour from Euston to Wolverhampton. xx:07 change at Stafford, xx:23 chage at Birmingham International, xx:43 direct

End to end journey time between them only differs a few minutes, but the shortest is via Stafford despite having a 14 minute change. Birmingham International is a 5 minute change. The slowest journey of all three is the direct one, via Stafford the quickest. In a sane world it'd be a perfectly acceptable route with no surcharge for being all of 3 minutes faster than the direct train.

 

[Hadders]

Sadly timing has nothing to do with permitted routes. The following constitute the permitted routes for a journey:

direct trains
the shortest route by rail with a regular passenger service (and routes up to 3 miles longer than the shortest route)
routes defined in the National Routeing Guide

 

[etr221]

But the the NR web site I quoted, states that routes for which a ticket is offered are permitted routes. As Euston-Stafford-Wolverhampton is such a route, it is permitted.

So an EUS-WVH route ANY PERMITTED ticket should be valid via Stafford. How is the holder of such ticket expected to know otherwise?

 

[najaB]

But the the NR web site I quoted, states that routes for which a ticket is offered are permitted routes. As Euston-Stafford-Wolverhampton is such a route, it is permitted.

Wow. I can't tell if that is a genuine post or deliberate trolling. You're referring to this quote from NRE:

Permitted routes cover all the reasonable routes available for making the journey indicated, including all direct services and suitable connecting services. When you book your journey online, any ticket offered in connection with the timetable or itinerary produced by the journey planner will be accepted as a permitted route.

The key phrase is bolded - just because a route is offered in conjunction with one ticket doesn't mean that it's a permitted route for a different ticket.

 

[etr221]

Wow. I can't tell if that is a genuine post or deliberate trolling.

Just seeking an answer to my question, which so far no-one has provided. And - let me point out - my question is not whether Euston-Wolverhampton is a permitted route, or not; nor why this should be (answers to both of which have been given).

You're referring to this quote from NRE:The key phrase is bolded - just because a route is offered in conjunction with one ticket doesn't mean that it's a permitted route for a different ticket.

In this case the 'different ticket' is route ANY PERMITTED (without any qualification or other comment). And both are produced in response to the same journey planner enquiry.
So - if I may repeat my question - the holder of such an ANY PERMITTED ticket might reasonably expect their ticket to be valid: how are they expected to know otherwise?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is why the sensible, easy fix to all this (which won't create any anomalies, unlike making via Stafford Permitted) is to bin the Any Permitted and call it route Birmingham instead.

 

[35B]

Just seeking an answer to my question, which so far no-one has provided. And - let me point out - my question is not whether Euston-Wolverhampton is a permitted route, or not; nor why this should be (answers to both of which have been given).

In this case the 'different ticket' is route ANY PERMITTED (without any qualification or other comment). And both are produced in response to the same journey planner enquiry.
So - if I may repeat my question - the holder of such an ANY PERMITTED ticket might reasonably expect their ticket to be valid: how are they expected to know otherwise?

Assuming a normal passenger without specialist knowledge, by asking “is this permitted”? I know that brings the Euston gateline back in, but “any permitted” is not the same as “any reasonable”.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Assuming a normal passenger without specialist knowledge, by asking “is this permitted”? I know that brings the Euston gateline back in, but “any permitted” is not the same as “any reasonable”.

Exactly. Even though 'reasonable routes' from BR days were supposed to be maintained, clearly they haven't been in this case (or it wasn't deemed a reasonable route under BR, perhaps because the Stafford service wasn't as good as it is today).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. Even though 'reasonable routes' from BR days were supposed to be maintained, clearly they haven't been in this case (or it wasn't deemed a reasonable route under BR, perhaps because the Stafford service wasn't as good as it is today).

The issue it poses is that Stafford to London is, quite sensibly because it's further away, more expensive than Wolves to London. If you allow those kinds of validity (outside of a fully barriered system with no break of journey allowed), you create all sorts of anomalies.

There would be some logic in the principle that "if you want to go from A-B-C, where B-C is more expensive than A-C, an A-C ticket route B should be issued at the same price as B-C"[1], but that's not how it works and even that wouldn't allow a regular ticket to be used in that way.

[1] Allowing someone without a season to do Bletchley to London via MKC on one ticket is a good example of where this would come in useful.

 

[etr221]

Assuming a normal passenger without specialist knowledge, by asking “is this permitted”? I know that brings the Euston gateline back in, but “any permitted” is not the same as “any reasonable”.

Why should they? - they already 'know' the answer to that question (it is a permitted route, ticket is route ANY PERMITTED, so yes it is). Whether the route is reasonable is no longer relevant.

Exactly. Even though 'reasonable routes' from BR days were supposed to be maintained, clearly they haven't been in this case (or it wasn't deemed a reasonable route under BR, perhaps because the Stafford service wasn't as good as it is today).

Was via Stafford regrded as reasonable under BR? But anyway, the consideration now is whether it is permitted: which it is is.

The issue it poses is that Stafford to London is, quite sensibly because it's further away, more expensive than Wolves to London. If you allow those kinds of validity (outside of a fully barriered system with no break of journey allowed), you create all sorts of anomalies.

The proper solution to which is that either via Stafford should not be permitted, with neither fares or times given; or that the ANY PERMITTED fare should set on the basis that it includes via Stafford, with a lower fare for other routes ('NOT VIA STAFFORD'). Not the current position of ANY PERMITTED not including a permitted route.

There is no reason why ANY PERMITTED should be the normal ticket for any journey - and arguably in most cases it shouldn't be. It is the concept that it is is what creates the anomalies.

There would be some logic in the principle that "if you want to go from A-B-C, where B-C is more expensive than A-C, an A-C ticket route B should be issued at the same price as B-C", but that's not how it works and even that wouldn't allow a regular ticket to be used in that way.

A-C ticket route B should be priced having regard to the fares A-B and B-C; and I wouldn't expect an A-C route ANY PERMITTED to be any cheaper. And I would expect most passengers to be using A-C route NOT B tickets

 

[najaB]

There is no reason why ANY PERMITTED should be the normal ticket for any journey - and arguably in most cases it shouldn't be.

I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. Travelling from Scotland to London, why should tickets not be valid down both the ECML and WCML?

 

[bb21]

Why should they? - they already 'know' the answer to that question (it is a permitted route, ticket is route ANY PERMITTED, so yes it is). Whether the route is reasonable is no longer relevant.

They don't "know". They "assume" it is valid.

When you assume things in life you end up with mistakes, costly ones sometimes.

But I quite agree. It would be a reasonable assumption to make that an Any Permitted ticket should be valid on any through itinerary offered (which renaming the most expensive route on any origin-destination pair Any Permitted with suitable changes to other flows would resolve as Bletchleyite suggested), unless very specifically stated otherwise (eg. any journey not possible on a through ticket with a massive red warning displayed alongside flashing the message "This itinerary is not possible on one ticket." in a size and manner not possible to miss).

But as things stand, that is not how it works, unfortunately. You may want to start a campaign to change things for the better in that respect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. Travelling from Scotland to London, why should tickets not be valid down both the ECML and WCML?

I don't think he meant that. I think he meant that Any Permitted should express all the even vaguely reasonable routes (certainly all the ones that can be quicker at any given time of day), and be priced quite highly to take that into account and avoid creating anomalies (e.g. the Wolves example). Most people travelling from Wolves to Euston would choose a Route Birmingham ticket which would be the logical name for the present Any Permitted.

And I do agree with that - if we want to restrict routes on a given ticket (as is justified in this case to avoid a fares anomaly) this should be done on the ticket where we can read it, not in the obscurity of the Routeing Guide.

 

[najaB]

I don't think he meant that. I think he meant that Any Permitted should express all the even vaguely reasonable routes (certainly all the ones that can be quicker at any given time of day), and be priced quite highly to take that into account ...

So, again, I should have to pay through the nose to get a return ticket valid down one coast and back to the other?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, again, I should have to pay through the nose to get a return ticket valid down one coast and back to the other?

Once again, I don't believe he is suggesting you shouldn't be able to - the example is fundamentally different.

Another example of what he is suggesting might be found in Milton Keynes, where there is a good argument that the Any Permitted ticket from Bletchley to Euston should allow the double back onto a VT at MKC and be priced the same as MKC to Euston, but that there should also exist a "route Not MKC" ticket not allowing this which is the one most people would use.

 

[etr221]

They don't "know". They "assume" it is valid.

Which is why I put know in quotes.

As - essentially - does everybody travelling on a train not specifically identified on their ticket.

(I will leave it to others to discuss whether there a circumstances in which a ticket would not be valid on a train specifically identified on it).

I don't think he meant that. I think he meant that Any Permitted should express all the even vaguely reasonable routes (certainly all the ones that can be quicker at any given time of day), and be priced quite highly to take that into account and avoid creating anomalies (e.g. the Wolves example). Most people travelling from Wolves to Euston would choose a Route Birmingham ticket which would be the logical name for the present Any Permitted.

And I do agree with that - if we want to restrict routes on a given ticket (as is justified in this case to avoid a fares anomaly) this should be done on the ticket where we can read it, not in the obscurity of the Routeing Guide.

Correct and agreed.
If you want the flexibility of a London-Scotland ticket valid by either East or West Coast routes (rather than one or the other), you must be prepared to pay a premium for it - how much that premium should be is another matter entirely.

 

[causton]

If you want the flexibility of a London-Scotland ticket valid by either East or West Coast routes (rather than one or the other), you must be prepared to pay a premium for it - how much that premium should be is another matter entirely.

...
Why?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you want the flexibility of a London-Scotland ticket valid by either East or West Coast routes (rather than one or the other), you must be prepared to pay a premium for it - how much that premium should be is another matter entirely.

Not agreed. Better to just have one set of walk up fares for that journey and split them according to passenger counts. TOCs can compete with Advances or simply on passenger numbers.

This isn't the same thing as the Wolves example under discussion as both routes are obvious ones and don't cause a fare anomaly.

 

[mmh]

Not agreed. Better to just have one set of walk up fares for that journey and split them according to passenger counts. TOCs can compete with Advances or simply on passenger numbers.

This isn't the same thing as the Wolves example under discussion as both routes are obvious ones and don't cause a fare anomaly.

Glasgow to King's Cross isn't obvious at all, and I imagine since it went to one direct train a day only enthusiasts or the very occaisional person making use of Break of Journey will ever be going via the east coast - it's always slower at any time of day, even going from Queen Street for a faster connection to Edinburgh. Likewise why would someone go from Edinburgh either via Glasgow or Birmingham?

Wolverhampton though is definitely not clear cut. Via Stafford is the quickest of 3 journey planner suggested routes, with only 4 minutes difference between any of them. It'll only be the quickest way because of how good a London service Stafford has these days, but why shouldn't the passenger be allowed to take advantage of that good service? What benefit is it to anyone to say that one journey an hour should be more expensive than the other two?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wolverhampton though is definitely not clear cut. Via Stafford is the quickest of 3 journey planner suggested routes, with only 4 minutes difference between any of them. It'll only be the quickest way because of how good a London service Stafford has these days, but why shouldn't the passenger be allowed to take advantage of that good service? What benefit is it to anyone to say that one journey an hour should be more expensive than the other two?

Primarily the avoidance of anomalies, given that the vast majority of passengers are going to choose the hourly direct service (or LNR Only if saving money). Most people won't put a change in even if it's quicker as it's a risk of not being quicker if it goes wrong. That's mainly just commuters (who, if they want that availability, can purchase a London to Stafford season and do it all they like) who get used to connections that are reliable and which are not (e.g. the classic Euston-Bletchley changing at Leighton which is very highly reliable and always same platform for solid operational reasons).