Elsenham to Stamford Hill routeable via Tottenham Hale?

[NickBFS]

NFM06 has an SDS at £11.10 for Elsenham to Stamford Hill.

When entering ESM as origin and SMH as destination in either the NR journey planner or the NXEA website, it gives a routing via the Edmonton Green line.

However, if you force them to route via Tottenham Hale, they accept it and route via LUL between Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters, still with the same fare of £11.10.

I am relatively green with respect to rail faring and routeing, so there might be obvious explanations that escape me but that got me puzzled. Presumably, a ticket from a station somewhere North of Cheshunt to a station on the NXEA network North of Liverpool St would not have a cross-London marker, would it? If so:

1) I was under the impression that I could use LUL between NR stations only if there was a cross-London marker (or the ticket was 'via London'). Is that not correct? Moreover, there is an explicit negative easement (# 99) which prohibits LUL connections between TOM and SVS unless the ticket is marked cross-London.

2) I take it that walking between TOM and SVS is also out of the question given that there is, AFAIK, no recognised OSI between the two.

3) Moreover, how can that fare be routed when it fails the fare check on account of Elsenham-Seven Sisters and Elsenham-Tottenham Hale (both with an SDS of £11.50) being more expensive than Elsenham-Stamford Hill? The only explanation I can think of is that you have to use the shortest distance rule rather than the routeing guide. But, if so, the Edmonton Green route and the Tottenham Hale route cannot both be the shortest (even assuming that you can calculate the distance via TOM by including the TOM-SVS LUL segment, otherwise you would have to route by Hackney Downs and back up to SMH, which would clearly be longer).

What am I missing?

 

[yorkie]

1) I was under the impression that I could use LUL between NR stations only if there was a cross-London marker (or the ticket was 'via London'). Is that not correct? Moreover, there is an explicit negative easement (# 99) which prohibits LUL connections between TOM and SVS unless the ticket is marked cross-London.

Not always, where there is parallel running or duplication of services then tickets are valid interchangeably, e.g. Harrow & Wealdstone to Queens Park.

2) I take it that walking between TOM and SVS is also out of the question given that there is, AFAIK, no recognised OSI between the two.

The lack of OSI between the two only specifically affects PAYG journeys (an OSI effectively makes the PAYG system string together what may otherwise be seen as two journeys into one), it may not necessarily make a paper ticket invalid, but it may depend on the exact circumstances (e.g. a London to Leicester ticket could be used via Corby on a day when there is no Corby-Melton Mowbray service, by cycling or getting a lift between the two).

3) Moreover, how can that fare be routed when it fails the fare check on account of Elsenham-Seven Sisters and Elsenham-Tottenham Hale (both with an SDS of £11.50) being more expensive than Elsenham-Stamford Hill?

All the Fares Check rule tells us is that there appear to be no appropriate RPs for this journey, that indicates there are no mapped routes. Apart from direct trains, which are always valid, that leaves the shortest route, plus routes that are no greater than 3 miles longer, as the only valid routes.

The only explanation I can think of is that you have to use the shortest distance rule rather than the routeing guide.

Rather than the maps? Yes.

But, if so, the Edmonton Green route and the Tottenham Hale route cannot both be the shortest (even assuming that you can calculate the distance via TOM by including the TOM-SVS LUL segment, otherwise you would have to route by Hackney Downs and back up to SMH, which would clearly be longer).

What am I missing?

LUL mileages are taken to be zero for cross-London connections, however a cross-London connection doesn't appear to apply in this case... if there is a negative easement that prevents it, I guess you can ignore it altogether..

The absolute shortest route according to Railmiles is 30 miles 79 chains (call it 31 miles - in any case it's what (was) in the NRT that counts and that only has quarter miles, not chains) so any route you can find that is 34 miles or less should be fine. Have a play with Railmiles and see what you can find.

Daniel, MikeWh and various others may be best placed to answer these London-based questions, so I'll leave this one to them

 

[Daniel]

Whilst I am not sure of the specific validity of the route, I can tell you that from the gateline staff point of view, you wouldn't be allowed in if your ticket doesn't have a cross-London marker, (which I doubt it will have).
The Maltese cross indicates that a ticket has been coded to operate an LUL UTS gate. As there is a route changing at Chesunt, I doubt it will print with one.

Again highlighting the fact that I am not tremendously up to speed with the routing guide and such, but just LUL's staff guidelines, if I was presented with an Elsenham to Stamford Hill on the gates at Tottenham, and it didn't have a cross-London marker, I wouldn't allow you to travel.

I'm not specifically saying it's not valid for travel via LUL between TOM & SVS, (although I doubt it is), I'm just saying that's a member of staff, I would interpret it as not valid.
However I stand to be corrected!

 

[MikeWh]

2) I take it that walking between TOM and SVS is also out of the question given that there is, AFAIK, no recognised OSI between the two.

There will never be an OSI between two stations with a direct rail service, in this case being the Victoria Line. There is an OSI between NR and LU at Tottenham Hale, while it appears that the two stations at Seven Sisters share a common gateline.

3) Moreover, how can that fare be routed when it fails the fare check on account of Elsenham-Seven Sisters and Elsenham-Tottenham Hale (both with an SDS of £11.50) being more expensive than Elsenham-Stamford Hill? The only explanation I can think of is that you have to use the shortest distance rule rather than the routeing guide. But, if so, the Edmonton Green route and the Tottenham Hale route cannot both be the shortest (even assuming that you can calculate the distance via TOM by including the TOM-SVS LUL segment, otherwise you would have to route by Hackney Downs and back up to SMH, which would clearly be longer).

What am I missing?

Forget any other considerations, no-one should ever buy an Elsenham to Seven Sisters ticket unless it is not valid for break of journey. Instead they should buy Elsenham to Stamford Hill and save money.

I'm no routeing expert but I too doubt that journeys from outside the Oyster area would be valid between Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters unless engineering work had partially closed one line and a temporary easement put in place. However, journeys within the Oyster area are fully interchangeable at no extra cost unless you mix NR and TfL within zone 1. They are priced by number of zones travelled through whatever the modes used between NR, LU and DLR.

 

[NickBFS]

Thanks, Yorkie. This would tend to confirm my suspiscion that, notwithtanding what the NR and NXEA online fare search engines say, you cannot legitimately route this via TOM.

There is no parallel rail/tube connection between TOM and SVS (via rail, you would have to go down to Hackney Downs and back up).

If SVS/TOM by tube is disallowed, then the shortest route has to be via Edmonton Green. Railmiles shows a route via TOM and South Tottenham which would be less than 3m longer. However, while the tracks are there (although you would have to reverse at South Tottenham junction as the tracks only connect from the South), there is no passenger service on that stretch. The shortest passenger route using TOM (via Hackney Downs) is 34 mi 52ch, which would exceed the 31 mi of the Edmonton Green route by more than 3 miles.

Incidentally, on the 3 miles tolerance, I thought that this only applied when using the routeing guide and when origin and destinations share a common RP. Can you also have a route up to 3m longer when relying on the NRCoC 13(a)(ii) shortest route option?

if I was presented with an Elsenham to Stamford Hill on the gates at Tottenham, and it didn't have a cross-London marker, I wouldn't allow you to travel.

I see where you are coming from. That said, what if I took a printout of the itinerary from the NXEA website that shows that they sold me a ticket supposed to be valid on LUL between TOM and SVS?
Further up-route, as far as NXEA to TOM are concerned, I take it that it would be difficult for them to PF me (or even ask for an excess payment) if NXEA themselves, though their website, had sold me a ticket supposed to entitle me to route via TOM.

There will never be an OSI between two stations with a direct rail service, in this case being the Victoria Line.

The OSI table on London Reconnections does mention OSIs between St Pancrast Intl and Euston and between Kings Cross and Euston, though.

There is an OSI between NR and LU at Tottenham Hale, while it appears that the two stations at Seven Sisters share a common gateline.

That's correct.

Forget any other considerations, no-one should ever buy an Elsenham to Seven Sisters ticket unless it is not valid for break of journey. Instead they should buy Elsenham to Stamford Hill and save money.

Agreed (in fact my destination IS 7 sisters ) but my problem is that it seems that I am forced to route via the slow omnibus trains on the Edmonton Green line rather than the fast services from Bishop's Stortford or Stansted Airport to Tottenham Hale.

I'm no routeing expert but I too doubt that journeys from outside the Oyster area would be valid between Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters unless engineering work had partially closed one line and a temporary easement put in place.

I suspected as much, hence why I asked. I guess I could buy an ESM-SMH ticket online just to see whether it has a cross-London marker on it (unlikely) and then excess it to TOM instead of SMH at a station.

To be honest, if I can't get it as an RP-based routing (rather than a shortest route routeing), this is going to be pretty academic for me as I want to route it via SSD and this wouldn't be possible on the shortest route principle (as this would add 6 mi and involve back-tracking between SST and SSD). I might as well get an ESM-TOM ticket (only 40p more anyway) and finish the trip by surface means. I was just curious to see whether I could make it work and to test my understanding of how it works.

 

[Daniel]

I see where you are coming from. That said, what if I took a printout of the itinerary from the NXEA website that shows that they sold me a ticket supposed to be valid on LUL between TOM and SVS?

Normally in that situation, where the passengers shows a printout from an NR website telling them to travel via LU, most gateline staff would let you through, taking into consideration that the passenger has been told to go that way and is just following instructions.
However, fairly recently there was an error with TheTrainLine where tickets valid on LU were not having the cross-London marker printed on them. A bulletin was eventually circulated throughout LU informing staff not to allow customers through the gates on a ticket without the maltese cross, even on a route known to be valid. Although to my knowledge this problem has now been rectified, the instruction may be remembered by some staff and may cause you problems, even if you show them documentation for it.

 

[MikeWh]

There will never be an OSI between two stations with a direct rail service, in this case being the Victoria Line.

The OSI table on London Reconnections does mention OSIs between St Pancrast Intl and Euston and between Kings Cross and Euston, though.

OK, let's add unless the walking involved in taking the train is more than the actual distance. By the way, the OSI table on my site (link below) is a little more friendly in that 'London' is stripped off all the NR terminals so they sort in the same place as their Underground counterparts.

 

[John @ home]

Welcome to the forum, NickBFS. An excellent first set of questions!

if you force them to route via Tottenham Hale, they accept it and route via LUL between Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters, still with the same fare of £11.10.

This is the case for the family of ticket selling sites powered by Atos Origin. I suspect this indicates that negative "Easement" 99 has not been included in the decision tree.

An alternative, but interesting, approach is taken by the family of ticket selling sites powered by thetrainline. This responds to requests for Elsenham - Stamford Hill via Tottenham Hale by offering journeys via Hackney Downs or, on occasion, London Liverpool Street. My guess is that here the software calculates that Elsenham - Tottenham Hale is part of the shortest route, knows that the shortest route is always valid, applies negative "Easement" 99, then gets the passenger from Tottenham Hale to Stamford Hill as quickly as possible avoiding the Underground.

2) I take it that walking between TOM and SVS is also out of the question given that there is, AFAIK, no recognised OSI between the two.

No, I don't agree. OSI (out-of-station interchange) is a concept particular to Oyster Pay-as-you-Go. We have confirmation in writing from ATOC that there is nothing to prevent a customer using a route that involves a walk between stations.

25 September 1998

Qu.9: Can a journey involve a walk between stations?
Some journeys must involve a walk between stations; for example, the fare from Watford Junction to Harpenden is routed "St Albans Abbey" - this must involve a walk between St Albans Abbey and St Albans. As regards permitted routes in the Routeing Guide, there is nothing to prevent a customer using a route that involves a walk between stations (one is not breaking the "no doubling back" rule by doing this).

you have to use the shortest distance rule rather than the routeing guide.

Agreed. There is no mapped route Elsenham - Stamford Hill.

the Edmonton Green route and the Tottenham Hale route cannot both be the shortest

The relevant distances in the National Rail Timetable were:

Elsenham - Cheshunt = 21.5 miles
Cheshunt - Tottenham Hale = 7 miles
Cheshunt - Seven Sisters = 9 miles
Seven Sisters - Stamford Hill = 0.5 miles

Given that "walking" between stations is deemed to have zero length, the shortest route is Elsenham - Tottenham Hale - (walk) - Seven Sisters - Stamford Hill (where "walking" includes travel by bus, car, ambulance etc.).

Elsenham - Cheshunt - Edmonton Green - Seven Sisters - Stamford Hill is also a permitted route because it is not more than 3 miles longer than the shortest route. (NRG page F9).

I can tell you that from the gateline staff point of view, you wouldn't be allowed in if your ticket doesn't have a cross-London marker.

There are some tickets valid for cross-London transfer which don't include the '+' marker. These do indeed cause problems with LU staff at gatelines, which have been reported here previously. The National Routeing Guide Instructions make it clear that travel via London, including cross-London transfer, would be permitted in these instances.

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. ...

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.

if I was presented with an Elsenham to Stamford Hill on the gates at Tottenham, and it didn't have a cross-London marker, I wouldn't allow you to travel.

Negative "Easement" 99 makes it clear that it is the railway industry's intention that a Elsenham - Stamford Hill ticket should not be allowed by Underground Tottenham Hale - Seven Sisters.

99 Connecting journeys on the Underground between Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters are only permitted on tickets showing the cross-London marker. This applies in both directions.

Whether the concept of a negative "Easement" would survive a reference to the Office of Fair Trading is another matter.

no-one should ever buy an Elsenham to Seven Sisters ticket unless it is not valid for break of journey.

It's not quite as simple as that. Elsenham to Stamford Hill is cheaper for FDR, FDS, CDR and SDS fares; Elsenham - Seven Sisters is cheaper for SDR and CBA (Super Off-Peak Day Return). The position would need to be checked after each fares revision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

on the 3 miles tolerance, I thought that this only applied when using the routeing guide and when origin and destinations share a common RP.

That's derived from page F7 of the NRG. The statement on page F9 is not restricted in that way.

Journeys on direct trains or taking the route of shortest distance or a distance longer by no more than 3 miles are always following a permitted route.

in fact my destination IS 7 sisters ... I want to route it via SSD

I would not recommend trying to use an Elsenham - Stamford Hill ticket on a Stansted Airport - Tottenham Hale train.

 

[NickBFS]

Welcome to the forum, NickBFS. An excellent first set of questions!

Thanks, John. Helpful answer. This makes things clearer in my mind.

We have confirmation in writing from ATOC that there is nothing to prevent a customer using a route that involves a walk between stations.

I am rather bemused by this one. There clearly are situations where walking between stations can make sense (TOM-SVS being one) but Tim Stevens's answer leads to rather startling results. The implication would be that you could buy a ticket to any station from your departure point which is at least as far (minus 3 miles) from origin as where you really want to go and use that to reach your destination.
For instance, you could buy a ticket from Stansted Airport to Waterbeach, North of Cambridge (distance: 29 3/4 miles) at a cost of £10.50 for an SDS and use it to go from Stanted Airport to Tottenham Hale (30 3/4 miles and normal cost of £17.70), arguing that you will walk between Tottenham Hale and Waterbeach.
Heck, you could even buy a ticket between any two points in the whole country of a sufficient length, say Glasgow QS to Linlithgow and use it between any two stations of equivalent distance, eg, SSD-TOM: you'd say I'll walk from GLQ to SSD, take the train from SSD to TOM and then walk from TOM to LIN.
I know that these are absurd examples but they would seem to follow from what he said in the letter.
I looked up the example he gave. I don't know what the fare manual said then (13 years ago!) but, currently, all WFJ-SAC tickets are "+London" so the expectation would be that one would go down to London and back rather than forcing a walk between St Albans Abbey and St Albans. So I am none the wiser on this one.

Without the clarifications that were sought from him in later correspondance (and which, surprise surprise, he never gave...), it seems to me difficult to determine to what extent walking can be taken into account in calculating acceptable routings.

One thing for sure, I would not try my chances with an SSD-WBC ticket on a Stansted Express to TOM. I think that it would be a hard sell to an RPI.

Negative "Easement" 99 makes it clear that it is the railway industry's intention that a Elsenham - Stamford Hill ticket should not be allowed by Underground Tottenham Hale - Seven Sisters.

Yes. I looked again in NFM06 and routing is "any permitted" rather than "+any permitted", so no cross-London marker, as expected.

That's derived from page F7 of the NRG. The statement on page F9 is not restricted in that way.

Got it. Thanks. I can see it now.

I would not recommend trying to use an Elsenham - Stamford Hill ticket on a Stansted Airport - Tottenham Hale train.

Indeed. Without an RP-based routeing in the RG, this one is dead in the water.

I think I'll risk getting enough raised eyebrows at SSD with a (legitimate) ESM-TOM without risking a more than highly dubious ESM-SMH.

 

[John @ home]

There clearly are situations where walking between stations can make sense (TOM-SVS being one) but Tim Stevens's answer leads to rather startling results.

Agreed. You give good examples using the 3-mile rule. I was thinking of other examples with parallel routes. ATOC's answer indicates one can "walk" between the routes. So, with a London - Edinburgh ticket, is London - York - (walk) - Manchester - Edinburgh permitted? Probably. But where does one draw the line? Is London - Berwick-upon-Tweed - (walk) - Watford Jn - Edinburgh permitted? Unlikely, one would think, but it seems to be implied by ATOC's answer.

currently, all WFJ-SAC tickets are "+London" so the expectation would be that one would go down to London and back rather than forcing a walk between St Albans Abbey and St Albans.

Agreed for Watford Jn - St Albans tickets. But the example given was Watford Jn - Harpenden route St Albans Abbey. These tickets remain available in NFM 07.

 

[NickBFS]

Agreed for Watford Jn - St Albans tickets. But the example given was Watford Jn - Harpenden route St Albans Abbey.

So it was. Another case of reading without due care and attention.

 

[t0ffeeman]

This thread reminds me of a journey I used to do between Greenford and High Wycombe. I'd use the Central line to South/West Ruislip and Chiltern from there.

The fares are now "any Permitted" NO + set by FGW !! and a dearer +London set by Chiltern.

Using Elsenham example one would assume the "Any Permitted" would not be vaid on the Central line, which begs the question, how does one complete the journey?

 

[swt_passenger]

^^^^

Is it a dual NR/LU fare availability route? NR's planner routes you via Central Line, it should only do this if there was an agreement, and in this case a '+' isn't relevant, just like for instance travel from Stratford to Liverpool St, which has had long term dual ticketing.

Of course now that the NFM preamble sections aren't publicly available you can't look this sort of thing up anymore, so we'll have to rely on someone with FRPP access...

 

[t0ffeeman]

Never classed it as a dual route myself. Though it must have had something to do with the then local service to South Ruislip and beyond from Paddington via Hanger Lane & Perivale whose platforms must have closed in the 1970s (guess)

 

[barrykas]

Interavailable routes from NFM07 (Current):

NR tickets on LU:

• Amersham - Harrow-on-the-Hill and intermediately
• Harrow-on-the-Hill and Marylebone valid on the Met between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Baker Street, but not at intermediate stations
• Barking and West Ham, valid on the District and H&C, but not at intermediate stations
• Barking and London Terminals, valid on the District to Tower Hill, but only intermediately at West Ham, also valid on the DLR between Limehouse and Tower Gateway
• Upminster and Barking, valid on the District, but not at intermediate stations
• Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington
• Finsbury Park and London Terminals, valid on the Victoria and Piccadilly between Finsbury Park and King's Cross St. Pancras, but intermediately at Highbury & Islington only, also valid between King's Cross St. Pancras and Moorgate via the Circle/H&C/Met and Northern Lines, but intermediately only at Old Street
• West Hampstead Thameslink OR Kentish Town and London Thameslink Group stations (London St Pancras Intl, Farringdon, City Thameslink, London Blackfriars, London Bridge, Elephant & Castle), valid on LU between West Hampstead / Kentish Town and Kings Cross-St Pancras Und / Farringdon / Blackfriars / London Bridge / Elephant & Castle via any reasonable route but NOT intermediately, and also NOT where tickets are routed ‘FIRST CAPITAL CONNECT ONLY’, ‘LDN NOT UNDERGROUND’ or ‘NOT UNDERGROUND’
• West Hampstead Thameslink OR Kentish Town and Barbican Und / Moorgate Und, valid on LU between West Hampstead / Kentish Town and Barbican / Moorgate, for tickets with an origin / destination of Barbican Und or Moorgate Und ONLY, via any reasonable route and intermediately only at Farringdon.
• Between Richmond and Stratford and intermediately at any North London Line station, valid on LU by any reasonable route combination of LU services, but not for exit at any intermediate LU station.
• Between West Brompton and Willesden Junction (via West London Line), via District and Bakerloo Lines interchanging at Paddington
• Harrow & Wealdstone and Queens Park and intermediately
• Between Queens Park and Zone U1 or beyond, valid on LU From Queens Park to Zone 1 or beyond (Bakerloo Line)
• Stratford and Liverpool Street, but not intermediately
• West Ruislip and South Ruislip

Also:

Singles and Returns ONLY, which include validity between Seven Sisters / Tottenham Hale/ Walthamstow Central and Zone U1 or beyond are also valid on LU/DLR services via the Victoria Line from Seven Sisters / Tottenham Hale/ Walthamstow Central to any station in Zones 1 to 3.

LU Tickets on NR:

• Amersham and Marylebone
• Finsbury Park and Kings Cross/Moorgate
• Watford Junction and Euston
• Richmond and Stratford (via North London Line),
• Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction (via West London Line)
• Gospel Oak and Barking
• Seven Sisters / Tottenham Hale / Walthamstow Central, and Liverpool Street
• Stratford and Seven Sisters/Tottenham Hale
• Stratford and Liverpool Street
• Upminster and Fenchurch Street / Liverpool Street but not at Forest Gate or Maryland.
• West Ruislip and South Ruislip
• West Hampstead Thameslink and Elephant & Castle / London Bridge

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This thread reminds me of a journey I used to do between Greenford and High Wycombe. I'd use the Central line to South/West Ruislip and Chiltern from there.

The fares are now "any Permitted" NO + set by FGW !! and a dearer +London set by Chiltern.

Using Elsenham example one would assume the "Any Permitted" would not be vaid on the Central line, which begs the question, how does one complete the journey?

Looking at the Routeing Guide, High Wycombe has Greenford as a routeing point, so the only permitted route would be via the New North Main Line...Which could be a problem, given the lack of platforms on the Main Line at Greenford, combined with the virtually non-existent service.

In practice, therefore, such a ticket would have to be valid on the Central Line to South or West Ruislip, changing there for Chiltern.

Cheers,

Barry