Stourbridge Jnct - London - Valid via Oxford?

[Essexman]

I have Stourbridge Junction to London Terminals off peak return ticket with route 'via Birmingham'.

Is this valid to return via Oxford (from either Paddington or Marylebone)?

I understood that it was (but not via Worcester) however I can't find any way to check and if I put via Oxford into Cross Country booking engine it says invalid station.

 

[Watershed]

I have Stourbridge Junction to London Terminals off peak return ticket with route 'via Birmingham'.

Is this valid to return via Oxford (from either Paddington or Marylebone)?

I understood that it was (but not via Worcester) however I can't find any way to check and if I put via Oxford into Cross Country booking engine it says invalid station.

It's valid via Oxford into Paddington, or via Bicester North into Marylebone.

However, going to Marylebone via Bicester Village is not a permitted route if you have come to Oxford via Birmingham. It is only permitted if you have gone via Evesham, for which you would need a change of route excess (obtainable on the train).

One of many inconsistencies in the system!

 

[Essexman]

Thanks.
Inconsistent as you say.
So it will need to be via Paddington & Oxford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2021 ==

I wonder if this anomaly goes back to before the Marylebone route to Oxford reopened?

 

[kieron]

It's valid via Oxford into Paddington, or via Bicester North into Marylebone.

However, going to Marylebone via Bicester Village is not a permitted route if you have come to Oxford via Birmingham. It is only permitted if you have gone via Evesham, for which you would need a change of route excess (obtainable on the train).

Sorry, it's not valid into London Marylebone on either route now, because of the following easement:

700948 (Circuitous Route) Journeys from or via Princes Risborough to or via London stations are not valid via Oxford. this circuitous route easement applies in both directions​

A Stourbridge Junction-Worcester-Oxford-Bicester Village-London Marylebone journey involves going via Princes Risborough, to London and via Oxford, so isn't valid with a through ticket.

The ticket would be valid for travel into Paddington via Oxford, though, either via Birmingham or Worcester.

 

[Watershed]

Sorry, it's not valid into London Marylebone on either route now, because of the following easement:

700948 (Circuitous Route) Journeys from or via Princes Risborough to or via London stations are not valid via Oxford. this circuitous route easement applies in both directions​

A Stourbridge Junction-Worcester-Oxford-Bicester Village-London Marylebone journey involves going via Princes Risborough, to London and via Oxford, so isn't valid with a through ticket.

The ticket would be valid for travel into Paddington via Oxford, though, either via Birmingham or Worcester.

It really is a mystery to me why Chiltern/RDG see the need to restrict the use of Marylebone-Oxford services strictly to Oxford-London ticket holders. Surely it would be better to have that flexibility, indeed many permitted routes now have map combinations which specifically exist to cater for this option?

Madness.

 

[CyrusWuff]

It really is a mystery to me why Chiltern/RDG see the need to restrict the use of Marylebone-Oxford services strictly to Oxford-London ticket holders. Surely it would be better to have that flexibility, indeed many permitted routes now have map combinations which specifically exist to cater for this option?

Madness.

It may even be at GWR's behest, so you can't do a journey like Princes Risborough - Oxford - Paddington on a Princes Risborough - London ticket.

 

[Watershed]

It may even be at GWR's behest, so you can't do a journey like Princes Risborough - Oxford - Paddington on a Princes Risborough - London ticket.

That wouldn't have been possible though, because Oxford would fail the fares check.

 

[CyrusWuff]

That wouldn't have been possible though, because Oxford would fail the fares check.

Except both Princes Risborough and London Group are Routeing Points, so no fares check would be necessary for such a journey.

Having said that, Princes Risborough to London Group only has valid routes on Map CI, which limits you to Princes Risborough - High Wycombe - Marylebone or Princes Risborough - Aylesbury - Amersham - Marylebone.

 

[JB_B]

It may even be at GWR's behest, ...

The data shows that easement 700948 was raised by Chiltern. Do TOCs sometimes ask other to TOCs to raise easements on their behalf? ( I don't know. )

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Ugh, so it's no longer possible to do a Cotswold Line–Marylebone journey without splitting tickets? That sucks.

 

[Watershed]

Ugh, so it's no longer possible to do a Cotswold Line–Marylebone journey without splitting tickets? That sucks.

Not officially, no.

Of course, if you travel by a route not permitted by your ticket, you become entitled (albeit also obliged to pay!) a change of route excess.

Quite how Chiltern would calculate such an excess if, say, a Moreton-in-Marsh to London Terminals ticket holder presented at Marylebone would be an interesting question.

I rather suspect the ticket would just be accepted as-is, at least until (if ever) these changes flow through to the frontline staff.

 

[Haywain]

Of course, if you travel by a route not permitted by your ticket, you become entitled (albeit also obliged to pay!) a change of route excess

That is only true where a fare exists for the alternative route. If it doesn’t you are liable to buy a new ticket for the element of the journey not covered by the ticket held - in the case mentioned that would be an Oxford to Marylebone ticket.

 

[Watershed]

That is only true where a fare exists for the alternative route. If it doesn’t you are liable to buy a new ticket for the element of the journey not covered by the ticket held - in the case mentioned that would be an Oxford to Marylebone ticket.

I'm not so sure. The NRCoT is vague on this, as with so many other areas, but states:

you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using

So possibly there would have to be some attempt at calculating the cost of a Moreton-in-Marsh to Oxford ticket, plus an Oxford to London Terminals (ironically there isn't even a dedicated Chiltern only fare for that flow!).

That may, in some circumstances, be cheaper anyway.

This negative easement is a total mess as there will still be journeys that remain permitted in 'contravention' of it, by virtue of being the shortest route.

 

[Haywain]

I'm not so sure. The NRCoT is vague on this, as with so many other areas, but states:

So possibly there would have to be some attempt at calculating the cost of a Moreton-in-Marsh to Oxford ticket, plus an Oxford to London Terminals (ironically there isn't even a dedicated Chiltern only fare for that flow!).

That may, in some circumstances, be cheaper anyway.

This negative easement is a total mess as there will still be journeys that remain permitted in 'contravention' of it, by virtue of being the shortest route.

You are wrong. The excess fare procedures are clear, stating:
“If no through fare, charge the appropriate Single fare for the part of the journey not covered by the ticket held.”

 

[Watershed]

You are wrong. The excess fare procedures are clear, stating:
“If no through fare, charge the appropriate Single fare for the part of the journey not covered by the ticket held.”

That's an internal industry document. It's not something passengers are given access to or even directed to, and accordingly passengers can't be overcharged on that basis alone.

 

[Haywain]

That's an internal industry document. It's not something passengers are given access to or even directed to, and accordingly passengers can't be overcharged on that basis alone.

Now you are just being ridiculous. If the route you travel on is not permitted and doesn’t have a fare from you origin to your destination there is not a fare that can be used to produce an excess. Therefore the only option is to charge for the part of the journey that is not covered with a new ticket. There is not an option of creating a fare by combining others.

 

[Watershed]

Now you are just being ridiculous. If the route you travel on is not permitted and doesn’t have a fare from you origin to your destination there is not a fare that can be used to produce an excess. Therefore the only option is to charge for the part of the journey that is not covered with a new ticket. There is not an option of creating a fare by combining others.

But that is not charging "the difference", nor is that always going to be "the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using".

I'm really not being pedantic - NRCoT are woefully vague on this rather important point - but I fail to see how the railway can ignore the value of the Oxford-London validity when determining the additional fare to be paid.

More generally, in the unlikely event such a clause were to be analysed in Court, the intention behind it is always going to be an important factor, if not the most important of all.

The intention is to prevent people from travelling via higher priced routes without paying the appropriate fare. But as Oxford-London is, for flexible tickets, not priced any higher depending on whether you travel into Paddington or Marylebone, I struggle to see how there can be a legitimate justification for charging more just because your ticket happens to be issued to/from somewhere beyond Oxford.

We are well into the realms of the hypothetical there, in reality I don't imagine (m)any members of staff would be aware of this easement, which is probably just sloppily worded in an attempt to close some loophole that has been brought to the Pricing Manager's attention (and which people have been exploiting by using an itinerary, which will no longer be available).

 

[David Goddard]

Ugh, so it's no longer possible to do a Cotswold Line–Marylebone journey without splitting tickets? That sucks.

Not officially, no.

Of course, if you travel by a route not permitted by your ticket, you become entitled (albeit also obliged to pay!) a change of route excess.

Quite how Chiltern would calculate such an excess if, say, a Moreton-in-Marsh to London Terminals ticket holder presented at Marylebone would be an interesting question.

I rather suspect the ticket would just be accepted as-is, at least until (if ever) these changes flow through to the frontline staff.

What about this then? Appears to be valid based on the GWR site.


Stourbridge Junction to London appears to have "Via Birmingham" and "Via Worcester", the latter of which appears to be valid Worcester-Oxford-Marylebone (well the website gave an itinerary for it)

 

[Watershed]

What about this then? Appears to be valid based on the GWR site.
View attachment 98474

Stourbridge Junction to London appears to have "Via Birmingham" and "Via Worcester", the latter of which appears to be valid Worcester-Oxford-Marylebone (well the website gave an itinerary for it)

If you're offered an itinerary in conjunction with a particular ticket, you're absolutely entitled to follow it.

 

[Cantab26]

Now you are just being ridiculous. If the route you travel on is not permitted and doesn’t have a fare from you origin to your destination there is not a fare that can be used to produce an excess. Therefore the only option is to charge for the part of the journey that is not covered with a new ticket. There is not an option of creating a fare by combining others.

NRCOT n.13.2 governs:

If you make a journey by a route that is not valid you will be liable to pay an excess fare. The price for this will be the difference between the amount paid for the Ticket you hold and the lowest price Ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel by that route.

There is nothing here that necessarily excludes combining more than one fare in order to calculate the ‘correct fare’ up to which the difference (if there be any) compared to the price of the ticket held must be paid.

If there is no routed through fair, I would posit that in those circumstances the word “Ticket” also includes the plural i.e. the excess fare payable is the difference between the price of the Ticket held and the combined price of the lowest priced Tickets that would permit travel by the desired route.

This may be the same, lower or higher than a completely new fare for part of the overall journey.

 

[Nicholas43]

Surely this mad and annoying 'negative easement' (yeah, like calling a punch on the nose a 'negative hug') does not affect Stourbridge > Birmingham >Bicester North > Marylebone, because that is not via Oxford?
As for fares North Cotswold to Princes Risborough etc, a GWR senior manager told me GWR was aware of the absurdities, but awaited Dept 'for' Transport agreement to sort them.

So have I got it right that the mad railway would now claim that a Princes Risborough to Didcot ticket, priced via London and with Maltese Cross, is not valid via Oxford? Therefore an unwary (and spendthrift) passenger detected at, say, Culham should be scolded and required to buy, er, what exactly? (Much cheaper) split tickets Princes Risborough to Oxford and Oxford to Didcot?

 

[JB_B]

....So have I got it right that the mad railway would now claim that a Princes Risborough to Didcot ticket, priced via London and with Maltese Cross, is not valid via Oxford? ...

That journey ( Princes Risborough, Oxford, Didcot ) isn't "to or via London stations" so it isn't caught by negative easement 700948.

If it were in scope it still wouldn't/shouldn't be a problem as "the shortest route by rail" rule has priority over negative easements.

 

[RJ]

So have I got it right that the mad railway would now claim that a Princes Risborough to Didcot ticket, priced via London and with Maltese Cross, is not valid via Oxford? Therefore an unwary (and spendthrift) passenger detected at, say, Culham should be scolded and required to buy, er, what exactly? (Much cheaper) split tickets Princes Risborough to Oxford and Oxford to Didcot?

There's a much cheaper Not Via London fare which National Rail Enquires sort of shows as valid via Oxford. The +Any Permitted fare is also shown as valid via Oxford. Why would anyone be required to buy split tickets?

 

[JonathanH]

There's a much cheaper Not Via London fare which National Rail Enquires sort of shows as valid via Oxford. The +Any Permitted fare is also shown as valid via Oxford. Why would anyone be required to buy split tickets?

Didcot Parkway to Princes Risborough via Not London is priced to go via Banbury (£30.40 off-peak day return) and still costs very much more than split tickets at Oxford (£7.20 + £12.30). The +Any Permitted fare can be used via Oxford as you note.

Basically no one has ever fixed the fares via the Oxford to Bicester route as if the intention is that the route is only used for journeys originating at Oxford to Chiltern destinations.

 

[yorkie]

But that is not charging "the difference", nor is that always going to be "the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using".

I've made a new thread to discuss that issue here:

Excess to be charged on an invalid route (for which there is no through fare)

Leuchars to Glasgow is often quicker via Dundee than via Haymarket: https://www.fastjp.com/#new?orig1=Leuchars&dest1=Glasgow%20Queen%20Street&outdate=20210817&outtime=1490 1223 Leuchars departs 1 change — 1 hr 56 min arrives Glasgow Queen Street 1419 changing at Dundee...

www.railforums.co.uk