Route : Hazel Grove - Edale

[323235]

Today I decided to take advantage of the Northern diverts from Manchester - Sheffield via Stockport by taking the train from Hazel Grove - Edale.

Now I new that the Shortest Distance is direct from Hazel Grove - Edale, however apart from the diverts there are very few trains along the Hope Valley Line to Edale or indeed Sheffield which call at Hazel Grove, I decided therefore to see what the routing guide had to say on the matter.

I also new that there were two fares, a DIRECT one and an Any Permitted. I have always figured that the Any Permitted one is intended if your going via Manchester, which in a majority of cases you have to.

So I started to have a look at the routing guide

Hazel Grove is a routing point in its own right and Chinley is the routing point for Edale so I looked for which maps were the valid ones, the only one shown was GM. The only route this showed was from Hazel Grove to Chinley Direct. In which case the any permitted doesn't seem to actually give any extra validity. Anyway I decided to have a look to see if there were any Easements I could find and found this :

WO3951 Journeys from Sheffield to Buxton line - alow double back between
Hazel Grove and Stockport

As Hazel Grove is on the Buxton Line and Edale is on the Sheffield or Hope Valley Line it seemed like this would work to allow me to do Hazel Grove-Stockport-Edale. Lastly I had a look at the East Coast site which showed Hazel Grove - New Mills Newtown - New Mills Central-Chinley-Edale as the only route it thought I could take, however as this would involve a Walk and a bus ride and would mean me getting to Chinley for the same train I could get from Stockport plus maybe an hour or two later (i'm unsure as I didn't check) , I thought that the most logical route would be by using the easement.

So I went to Hazel Grove station and asked for my ticket, after some problems and some supportive words from the guy who was sitting behind to favour my cause she reluctantly gave me the ticket and said that usually the ticket was only valid via New Mills and that she hadn't seen any diverted trains pass through.

I then proceeded to Stockport with no problems. I got on the xx57 from Stockport to Edale and when the conductor came to check my ticket he said it was fine then seconds later came back and said "Where you going?". I said Edale and he said "Where from?". He made a comment to which I replied I was using an Easement in the routing guide to allow me to Double Back, he didn't seem convinced and wandered off.

After I had spent sometime in Edale I got the train back, which unfortunately for me was being worked by the same Guard. He remembered me and after a few questions became confrontational regarding the potential double back which he said required an extra ticket between Stockport and Hazel Grove. I again made mention of the easement, however as the women previous, he said the route I should have taken was via New Mills Newtown, walk to Central, get the train or in this case a Replacement bus to Chinley to pick up the same train. He said my ticket wasn't valid as the train did not usually go via Stockport and Hazel Grove and didn't call at Hazel Grove.

I made not of the fact that I new a DIRECT ticket wouldn't be appropriate when they weren't diverting, but the conversation still went round and round in circles.

Can someone please give me some assistance with this one as it was a very uncomfortable situation which I didn't much enjoy as I only wanted to go to Edale, not get all this hassle.

In the end on the return journey, I broke my journey at Stockport.

The important question is, was I travelling on an Invalid Route?

 

[Mojo]

I don't quite understand. You say you were going from Hazel Grove to Edale. The easement applies for passengers travelling from Sheffield to stations on the line from Buxton, which you were not doing?

 

[323235]

Ok I misunderstood the easement, that's fine
I thought Hazel Grove was on the Buxton line.
It was my mistake.

 

[yorkie]

Hazel Grove - Edale
Direct CDR £6.60
Any Permitted CDR £12.60

Stockport - Edale
Direct CDR £9.00
Any Permitted CDR £12.60

Route Direct is not defined so we can only assume it means direct trains, or the shortest route (plus, presumably routes up to 3 miles longer, are included). So I don't think it is valid via Stockport.

Any Permitted has to be valid via Stockport, there is no other logical conclusion. I think that the wording of the easement is quite poor, it should not simply be Sheffield but the Sheffield line, I guess that's a mistake. In any case if the Any Permitted is supposed to disallow the shorter and cheaper Stockport route yet allow via Manchester then the fact that the trains are diverted to Stockport on this day would allow them regardless.

So you have 2 choices:

Any Permitted at £12.60 I believe has to be valid for doubling back, if not then they can provide a taxi if they want! The excess would be £6 (£3 each way).

Or Hazel Grove - Stockport CDR £1.60 + Edale - Stockport CDR £9.00 is cheaper at £10.60
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok I misunderstood the easement, that's fine
I thought Hazel Grove was on the Buxton line.
It was my mistake.

Hazel Grove is on the Buxton line, I would argue, from a passenger point of view at least.

I think that the wording on many of the easements is abysmal. The easements section is an utter disgrace and the person responsible for it should consider their position.

 

[Donny Dave]

Route Direct is not defined so we can only assume it means direct trains, or the shortest route (plus, presumably routes up to 3 miles longer, are included). So I don't think it is valid via Stockport.

Any Permitted has to be valid via Stockport, there is no other logical conclusion. I think that the wording of the easement is quite poor, it should not simply be Sheffield but the Sheffield line, I guess that's a mistake. In any case if the Any Permitted is supposed to disallow the shorter and cheaper Stockport route yet allow via Manchester then the fact that the trains are diverted to Stockport on this day would allow them regardless.

Personally, I don't know why there is "route direct" tickets sold from Stockport, Davenport, Woodsmoor and Hazel Grove to stations on the Hope Valley (barring Dore and Chinley), as there is no direct trains except when diversions are being used! The only way you can complete that particular journey without doubling back is to take the train to New Mills and "enjoy" the hike through town ....

 

[Dewedin]

I think that the wording on many of the easements is abysmal. The easements section is an utter disgrace and the person responsible for it should consider their position.

Customers travelling from Edinburgh to Stirling may not travel via Croy. This
easement applies in both directions.

Some 'easement'! I guess there's loads of these.

Also here's another:

Customers travelling between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh may not
travel via Larbert. This easement applies in both directions

I've done this route! It was offered to me on a TOC website.

 

[Mojo]

Many doubt the validity of these so called "negative easements" because surely the routeing guide is like a flowchart, and you stop reading it once you've found out your route is valid.

1. Is the journey on a through train?
2. Is the journey the shortest possible journey by rail (or within 3 miles of)?
3. Is it a mapped route?
4. Are there any easements?

Therefore nobody would ever find out the existance of a negative easement if the answer to any one of questions 1-3 is "yes."

 

[Ivo]

Anyone care to explain this one...

"During engineering works between Taunton and Bristol journeys may go via Castle Cary, Westbury and Bath. This easement applies in both directions."
"Journeys travelling between Taunton and Bristol Temple Meads may travel via Westbury and Bath Spa. This easement applies in both directions."

??? What's so different between these two? Does it mean that you can always do this, but can only use a train that specifically calls at Castle Cary during engineering works? Or does "journeys" refer to the trains themselves, for no apparent reason?

 

[Mojo]

Easements make no sense and are littered with spelling mistakes and other errors.

"Customers travelling from St Albans Abbey, Park Street, How Wood and Bricket Wood to Hemel Hempstead and beyond may travel via Watford Junction. This easement applies in both directions."
As opposed to?

"Customers travelling from Keynsham via Westbury may also travel via Bath Spa. This easement applies in both directions."
I suppose could go the long way round via Bristol and Taunton?

"Customers travelling from and to Heathrow Terminals 1, 2 and 3 Heathrow Terminal 4 and Heathrow Terminal 5 may doubleback between Southall and London Paddington. This easement applies in both directions."
Oh look, an easement that does absolutely nothing.

"Customers travelling from Burton on Trent to Birmingham New Street and beyond may travel via Tamworth. This easement applies in both directions."
How... erm... kind of you. I suppose I could always have gone the long way round via Derby and Leicester.

"Due to engineering works during the period 23rd to 30th Oct inclusive customers in possesion of tickets routed STROUD AND EVESHAM/STROUD may travel via Bristol Parkway. This easement applies in both directions."
What year might that be then?

"Customers travelling via Norwich using fares routed Irish Ferries may travel via Norwich."
If travelling via Norwich you may travel via Norwich?

"Customers travelling via Clapham Junction to Acton Main Line and Beyond my travel via London Paddington, so long as the fare allows travel vai London Terminals"
The fare allows travel? What? And beyond your what now? I don't want to know...

"Customers travelling from Selly Oak, Bournville, Kings Norton, Northfield and Longbridge via Bromsgrove mat travel via Barnt Green. This easement applies in both directions."
Please remember to wipe your feet on the Bromsgrove mat! And the maps allow that anyway, so no need for an easement.

I'm sure there's many more that don't seem absurd to me when reading through because of the lack of local knowledge. I got bored anyway

 

[Lampshade]

"Customers travelling from Burton on Trent to Birmingham New Street and beyond may travel via Tamworth. This easement applies in both directions."
How... erm... kind of you. I suppose I could always have gone the long way round via Derby and Leicester.

"Customers travelling via Norwich using fares routed Irish Ferries may travel via Norwich."
If travelling via Norwich you may travel via Norwich?

"Customers travelling via Clapham Junction to Acton Main Line and Beyond my travel via London Paddington, so long as the fare allows travel vai London Terminals"
The fare allows travel? What? And beyond your what now? I don't want to know...

"Customers travelling from Selly Oak, Bournville, Kings Norton, Northfield and Longbridge via Bromsgrove mat travel via Barnt Green. This easement applies in both directions."
Please remember to wipe your feet on the Bromsgrove mat! And the maps allow that anyway, so no need for an easement.

I'm sure there's many more that don't seem absurd to me when reading through because of the lack of local knowledge. I got bored anyway

I actually laughed, both at the 'easements' and your responses

 

[Ivo]

Some from me. Some are just plain obvious - and some...

"Journeys to Yeovil Pen Mill may not go via Yeovil Junction and journeys to Yeovil Junction may not go via Yeovil Pen Mill. This prohibition applies in both directions."
Does it really...?

"Journeys from Stockport to Stalybridge may go via Manchester. Journeys via Stockport and Stalybridge may go via Manchester. These easements apply in both directions."
As opposed to what? Denton?

"Journeys from or via London to Bicester North may not go via Bicester Town and journeys from or via London to Bicester Town may not go via Bicester North. This prohibition applies in both directions."
This one too...?

"Cheap Day Single and Return tickets for travel between Newark Northgate and London or Newark Castle and London are not valid for journeys via Nottingham. This applies in both directions."
And here's me thinking Castle to St Pancras is direct via Nottingham...

"Tickets routed Retford for Lincoln-London or Saxilby-London are also valid on permitted routes that do not pass through Retford. This easement applies in both directions. (Not implemented or tested yet. To go live on 23rd May 2004"
And... what year are we in?

"Tickets routed Any Permitted for journeys Lincoln-London and Saxilby-London are not valid via Retford. This prohibition applies in both directions. (Not implemented or tested yet. To go live on 23rd May 2004)"
So... Any Permitted is not valid via Retford, but Retford routes are permitted elsewhere? And are we still in 2004, after the above?

"Journeys to Wick may double back between Thurso and Georgemas Junction. This easement applies in both directions."
Last I checked, trains did that anyway...!

"Journeys from Harpenden, Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Leagrave, Harlington and Flitwick to stations north of Leicester on tickets routed Not London are valid only via Bedford, Kettering and Leicester. This easement applies in both directions."
As opposed to what? Changing at Bedford, for Milton Keynes?

"Journeys from St Albans, Harpenden, Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Leagrave, Harlington and Flitwick to Manchester and via Manchester made on tickets routed Not London may go via Bedford. This easement applies in both directions."
What do you mean, may go via Bedford? What else can you do? Use the Abbey Line?

"Journeys from Wellingborough to Luton and beyond may travel via Bedford
(Midland). This easement applies in both directions."
Obviously this person has never travelled on the Midland Main Line then...!

"During engineering works between Plymouth and Tiverton Parkway journeys may avoid Exeter. This applies in both directions."
Care to explain how?

"Journeys from Totnes, Paignton, Torquay, Torre, Newton Abbot, Teignmouth, Dawlish, Dawlish Warren and Starcross to stations north of Tiverton Parkway may travel via Exeter St Davids. This easement applies in both directions."
Where else are they supposed to go? For a swim across the Exe?

Some time later...

"Customers travelling from Henley-on-Thames, Shiplake, Wargrave and Twyford to Southall and beyond may travel via Slough. This easement applies in both directions."
Does "may" permit travel via Ascot as well then?

And then there's this...

"Customers travelling from Richmond to St Margarets and beyond may not travel via Twickenham. This easement apllies in both directions."
So let me get this straight. Richmond to St Margarets via Twickenham is not permitted. Fine. But Richmond to stations beyond St Margarets via Twickenham isn't permitted either? What are you supposed to do, walk?

Okay, that's enough of me. If anyone cares to explain the last one...!

 

[Lampshade]

"Journeys from Stockport to Stalybridge may go via Manchester. Journeys via Stockport and Stalybridge may go via Manchester. These easements apply in both directions."
As opposed to what? Denton?

Yes

"Customers travelling from Richmond to St Margarets and beyond may not travel via Twickenham. This easement apllies in both directions."
So let me get this straight. Richmond to St Margarets via Twickenham is not permitted. Fine. But Richmond to stations beyond St Margarets via Twickenham isn't permitted either? What are you supposed to do, walk?

Okay, that's enough of me. If anyone cares to explain the last one...!

Saying Richmond to St Margarets isn't valid via Twickenham is common sense, it's like saying London to York via Aberdeen isn't permitted. If doubling back between Richmond and Clapham Junction was allowed you could go via Wimbledon and/or Surbiton.

 

[A60K]

Saying Richmond to St Margarets isn't valid via Twickenham is common sense, it's like saying London to York via Aberdeen isn't permitted. If doubling back between Richmond and Clapham Junction was allowed you could go via Wimbledon and/or Surbiton.

No, it's like saying Wimbledon to Earlsfield isn't valid via Clapham Junction - it's completely pointless given the rest of the rules of the guide. You would need a billion 'easements' like that to be consistent, otherwise what's the point in putting it in?

 

[Mojo]

Some of them you have quoted Ivo aren't as stupid as they sound; if you followed the routeing guide fully it would not be possible to do those journeys at all, hence the need for easements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some journeys still do not have easements and are therefore impossible, eg. Kings Norton to the South West is not do-able unless you either catch the 06.57 from Kings Norton to Barnt Green and have a >30 Min connection or unless you take the train into Birmingham, walk to Moor Street (or train to Smethwick GB) and then catch a train to Worcester.

 

[tony_mac]

The National Rail Enquiries website tells you to travel via Stockport; it's always worth checking that first. As it claims to be the 'definitive ' source of information for the public, then you should be able to rely on anything that it tells you is valid.

If unsure then I would alternatively check the website of the TOC concerned. They can't lawfully advertise it as a valid route on their website and then deny it when you are on the train. (Northern Website also says to travel via Stockport).

Telling you to walk and take a replacement bus adding over an hour to your journey is extremely poor customer service.

 

[Daimler]

Easements make no sense and are littered with spelling mistakes and other errors.

"Customers travelling from St Albans Abbey, Park Street, How Wood and Bricket Wood to Hemel Hempstead and beyond may travel via Watford Junction. This easement applies in both directions."
As opposed to?

Does this mean that those people travelling from Garston and Watford North aren't allowed to travel via Watford Junction, as they're unaccountably left out from this 'easement'?

 

[Ivo]

The point I made with the Twickenham one is that it says Richmond to St Margarets is not permitted via Twickenham, which is perfectly fine. But it also says "beyond St Margarets". Well, the station after St Margarets is Twickenham, and literally half a mile up the road (you can see one from the other). So if you travel beyond St Margarets, this would suggest backtracking to Barnes and using the Hounslow Loop to either Whitton or Feltham to avoid Twickenham...