Not Via but through.

[Andrew Nelson]

On Sunday, the first Arriva CX twixt Leeds and Sheffield, go's Via Doncaster.

IF, as we have argued afore, any journey is valid between two points on a through service even if a quicker one and more direct can be made. How can we have a "not via"?

After all, this would surely be if a change of Trans was made at the not via point, and not if a through service.

Over to You Yorkie.

 

[90019]

On Sunday, the first Arriva CX twixt Leeds and Sheffield, go's Via Doncaster.

What? :?

 

[Andrew Nelson]

What? :?

"Twixt", means between two difined points.

 

[90019]

"Twixt", means between two difined points.

It was more that the whole sentence didn't seem to make much sense.

 

[bradders1983]

In a nutshell, the OP wants to know why standard Leeds-Sheffield tickets are stated as "Not Doncaster" when a number of trains travel from Leeds to Sheffield (or vice versa) via Doncaster

 

[Andrew Nelson]

In a nutshell, the OP wants to know why standard Leeds-Sheffield tickets are stated as "Not Doncaster" when a number of trains travel from Leeds to Sheffield (or vice versa) via Doncaster

Thanks, but no I didn't say that.

I asked IF all through services are valid, then to have a "Not Via" when a through journey is possible, would this not be against the rules? (The Rule that says any route without a change of Trains is Valid)....

 

[yorkie]

The booking engines interpret it as not valid via Donny, even on a direct train.

An EMT TM had the same interpretation on one occasion but did not charge the passengers.

If a train is diverted via Donny e.g. when the weekend service is 1tph via Leeds AND Donny this should be valid though, but booking engines are not set up to allow this as there is no official easement.

Can you please look at editing your post to make it clearer when possible (I guess you posted from a mobile device?) thanks

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It'll be because the "not via" fare is cheaper than the "any permitted" fare. This will apply even if you don't get off at the "via" point.

Therefore the ticket will not be valid on that route.

 

[Failed Unit]

I wonder if Gainsborough to Doncaster tickets now have route no Sheffield on them. Otherwise that us a good detour.

 

[John @ home]

The history of the Leeds - Sheffield route not Doncaster is that it was introduced when Leeds - Doncaster fares exceeded Leeds - Sheffield ones to prevent Doncaster passengers buying the cheaper Sheffield tickets.

Leeds - Doncaster fares are set by East Coast and tend to reflect InterCity prices. Leeds - Sheffield fares are set by Northern and tend to reflect lower local prices.

We have debated the validity of "Not Doncaster" tickets on through Leeds - Sheffield trains which go through Doncaster at least once in the past, without reaching agreement. I tend to side with yorkie on this one. In my opinion, the first page of the Routeing Guide gives the passenger permission not to read any further if travelling on a through train from the origin to the destination on their ticket.

There used to be a M-F 2359 non-stop Sheffield - Leeds which caused even more problems because sometimes it went via Doncaster and sometimes it didn't. This has been withdrawn.

 

[Anvil1984]

See I'm on the side of it not being valid as the wording in the routing guides only relates to permitted routes and I would think that relates to tickets marked "ANT PERMITTED" tickets. If a TOC wants to put a NOT VIA restriction on then I believe that applies whether there is a break of journey or on a TIMETABLED direct service. But it could be debated either way. I think its in the same category as tickets from Manchester to Leeds marked VIA HEBDEN BRIDGE they wouls not be valid on services from Piccadilly to Leeds on TPEs normal services even though they are direct

p.s I dont endorse or agree with the interpretation on those services as there is room for passengers to get confused, passengers going to Sheffield from Leeds can get confused especially with one off routings but technically I think the TMs are correct

 

[sheff1]

I have occasionally seen guards challenge these tickets. The usual response from the passenger is that they are not going via Doncaster, they are going direct to Leeds/Sheffield. To people not used to railway terminology 'via' seems to mean changing at. If they are going from Sheffield to Leeds, or vice versa, on a through train they probably have no knowledge of other stations the train may call at.

It would be clearer if the 'any permitted' routing excluded Doncaster (tickets would clearly be valid on through trains) and the dearer fare was 'via Doncaster'.

 

[OwlMan]

My interpretation of the Routeing Guide is that it is not valid.

From National Routeing Guide Section A page 1
WHEN TO USE THE NATIONAL ROUTEING GUIDE
Most customers wish to make journeys by through trains or by the
shortest route. In both cases they will be travelling on a permitted route,
provided the correct fare has been paid to reflect any routeing indicated by the fares manual. You only need refer to the Routeing Guide when a customer is not using an advertised through train or the shortest route.

The underlined & highlighted section of the above is clear that a through train (or by shortest route) is only valid if the correct fare for that route has been paid. In this case a "Not Doncaster" ticket is not valid as the "correct fare to reflect any routeing indicated by the fares manual" has not been paid.

Peter

 

[Andrew Nelson]

I have occasionally seen guards challenge these tickets. The usual response from the passenger is that they are not going via Doncaster, they are going direct to Leeds/Sheffield. To people not used to railway terminology 'via' seems to mean changing at. If they are going from Sheffield to Leeds, or vice versa, on a through train they probably have no knowledge of other stations the train may call at.

It would be clearer if the 'any permitted' routing excluded Doncaster (tickets would clearly be valid on through trains) and the dearer fare was 'via Doncaster'.

"To people not used to railway terminology 'via' seems to mean changing at."

From that we may realize that the most important People on the Rail Network, are being confused by technicalities, because they don't "Speak the Lingo...."

If You use the online journey planner, the Via option is presumed to be to be for a change of Trains.

 

[Failed Unit]

But equally if I had a ticket which said not Doncaster I wouldn't travel on a train that stopped there. I see you point that if it was routed by and did not stop how would you know. Likewise some people see a train to Leeds and don't look at it's calling points. I am not aware of anyone at Doncaster for lincoln getting on the service via sheffield by mistake however.

 

[cuccir]

If You use the online journey planner, the Via option is presumed to be to be for a change of Trains.

That's a huge generalisation. Until I read this thread it had never occurred to me that 'via' wouldn't mean 'goes through' (I had to read through twice to realise where the confusion was); if I travel by car from Leeds to Liverpool I go via Manchester, even if I don't get out of my car. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply on the rail.

However, the point is that we can't presume that everyone will understand terms in the same way if the terms are not defined! There's no official definition of 'via' in any passenger information (I think?) and therefore I guess an argument could be made that the intended restriction (of using no trains that go through Doncaster) is invalid. I'm not sure I'd agree as I'd have thought 'not via' is pretty clear, but if there is a significant number of people who don't understand it in those terms then the ticket clearly needs rewording, perhaps to 'NOT THROUGH' or 'NOT THRU' (I don't like it either, but space on a ticket is tight!)

 

[Andrew Nelson]

That's a huge generalisation. Until I read this thread it had never occurred to me that 'via' wouldn't mean 'goes through' (I had to read through twice to realise where the confusion was); if I travel by car from Leeds to Liverpool I go via Manchester, even if I don't get out of my car. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply on the rail.

However, the point is that we can't presume that everyone will understand terms in the same way if the terms are not defined! There's no official definition of 'via' in any passenger information (I think?) and therefore I guess an argument could be made that the intended restriction (of using no trains that go through Doncaster) is invalid. I'm not sure I'd agree as I'd have thought 'not via' is pretty clear, but if there is a significant number of people who don't understand it in those terms then the ticket clearly needs rewording, perhaps to 'NOT THROUGH' or 'NOT THRU' (I don't like it either, but space on a ticket is tight!)

Cherry picking again.... However:

The use of unclear language and terms is the major problem here.

Via is usualy difined at stopping off at and thro' would be the wording that would be better understood.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/via
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The history of the Leeds - Sheffield route not Doncaster is that it was introduced when Leeds - Doncaster fares exceeded Leeds - Sheffield ones to prevent Doncaster passengers buying the cheaper Sheffield tickets.

Leeds - Doncaster fares are set by East Coast and tend to reflect InterCity prices. Leeds - Sheffield fares are set by Northern and tend to reflect lower local prices.

We have debated the validity of "Not Doncaster" tickets on through Leeds - Sheffield trains which go through Doncaster at least once in the past, without reaching agreement. I tend to side with yorkie on this one. In my opinion, the first page of the Routeing Guide gives the passenger permission not to read any further if travelling on a through train from the origin to the destination on their ticket.


There used to be a M-F 2359 non-stop Sheffield - Leeds which caused even more problems because sometimes it went via Doncaster and sometimes it didn't. This has been withdrawn.

"Leeds - Doncaster fares are set by East Coast and tend to reflect InterCity prices. Leeds - Sheffield fares are set by Northern and tend to reflect lower local prices."

New thread needed....

 

[cuccir]

Cherry picking again.... However:

The use of unclear language and terms is the major problem here.

Via is usualy difined at stopping off at and thro' would be the wording that would be better understood.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/via

What am I cherry picking what and how? All I said was that I would have only ever interpreted 'via' as through, but fully acknowledging that others might believe that it requires a change of trains. The webpage you quote defines 'via' as 'by way of; by means of; through' which is exactly what I suggested.

Yes, I agree that 'THRU/THRO/THROUGH' could be better understood than 'via'.

 

[Oswyntail]

...The use of unclear language and terms is the major problem here.....

Actually, the major problem is that there are two different fares for one fairly standard journey. It should not matter, in the case of turn-up-and-travel tickets who the carrier is. Most passengers will simply look at timetables and see "next train to Sheffield"; sometimes they might see an apparently later train that gets them in earlier. That is all they know, and that should be all they need to know. Yet another way that the TOCs do not put their customers anything like first

 

[LexyBoy]

Until I read this thread it had never occurred to me that 'via' wouldn't mean 'goes through'

I think most people would agree, and the dictionary definition of via merely implies going through somewhere.

What exactly does the ticket say anyway - is it "ROUTE: NOT VIA DONCASTER" or "ROUTE: NOT DONCASTER"? I would expect the latter, in which case it's surely clear that the route must not involve Doncaster (admittedly complicated in the case of non-stop trains routed via Doncaster, passengers would have to be allowed to travel unless otherwise advised at the station).

The online planners interpret 'via' as 'travelling on a train which stops at' and don't force any break of journey, so for example London-Oxford 'via Reading' gives services with no changes, whereas 'via Radley' (on the route but only served by stoppers) suggests a change at Reading to stopper which stops at Radley.

 

[Andrew Nelson]

What am I cherry picking what and how? All I said was that I would have only ever interpreted 'via' as through, but fully acknowledging that others might believe that it requires a change of trains. The webpage you quote defines 'via' as 'by way of; by means of; through' which is exactly what I suggested.

Yes, I agree that 'THRU/THRO/THROUGH' could be better understood than 'via'.

By means of means in two parts. If information is by means of: I tell a person, they tell You that is a change by means of Personality. So no anything of the sort, Via as it clearly says, is a change of: Meens, Means or Person, or carrier.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think most people would agree, and the dictionary definition of via merely implies going through somewhere.

What exactly does the ticket say anyway - is it "ROUTE: NOT VIA DONCASTER" or "ROUTE: NOT DONCASTER"? I would expect the latter, in which case it's surely clear that the route must not involve Doncaster (admittedly complicated in the case of non-stop trains routed via Doncaster, passengers would have to be allowed to travel unless otherwise advised at the station).

The online planners interpret 'via' as 'travelling on a train which stops at' and don't force any break of journey, so for example London-Oxford 'via Reading' gives services with no changes, whereas 'via Radley' (on the route but only served by stoppers) suggests a change at Reading to stopper which stops at Radley.

Exactly.

 

[Deerfold]

By means of means in two parts. If information is by means of: I tall a person, they telll You that is a change by means of Personality. So no anything of the sort, Via as it clearly says, is a change of: Meens, Means or Person, or carrier.


Exactly.

What on earth does this mean? "By means of" does not mean "in two parts". The rest of it I simply can't understand.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

By means of means in two parts. If information is by means of: I tall a person, they telll You that is a change by means of Personality. So no anything of the sort, Via as it clearly says, is a change of: Meens, Means or Person, or carrier.

Gibberish.

 

[Greenback]

Surely the words via and through are interchangeable? If I am driving up to North Wales from my home, I might choose to go via Lampeter or through Builth Wells. I don't have to get out of my car in order to make the use of 'via' correct at Lampeter.

Via = by way of eg through.

If there is a problem with these Leeds - Sheffield routeings it's a historical anomaly and there are plenty of those littering the UK rail system.

 

[brompton rail]

"The online planners interpret 'via' as 'travelling on a train which stops at' and don't force any break of journey, so for example London-Oxford 'via Reading' gives services with no changes, whereas 'via Radley' (on the route but only served by stoppers) suggests a change at Reading to stopper which stops at Radley"

The journey planner will offer journeys that pass though a station (often without stopping) as "via".
Example: try Kirk Sandall to York via Gilberdike. Amongst journeys that do involve a simple change at Gilberdike, you will be offered changes at Brough and even Hull. Of course the fare is only valid on a change at Gilberdike and not on the double back journeys via Brough and Hull!

 

[sheff1]

Actually, the major problem is that there are two different fares for one fairly standard journey. It should not matter, in the case of turn-up-and-travel tickets who the carrier is. Most passengers will simply look at timetables and see "next train to Sheffield"; sometimes they might see an apparently later train that gets them in earlier. That is all they know, and that should be all they need to know.

Exactly. At Leeds, the prominent departure screens just inside the barrier list all destinations and the time of the next train(s). There is no indication as to whether the next fast train to Sheffield is via Doncaster or not - the only annotations are for the local stopping services.

 

[90019]

Cherry picking again.... However:

The use of unclear language and terms is the major problem here.

Via is usualy difined at stopping off at and thro' would be the wording that would be better understood.

By means of means in two parts. If information is by means of: I tell a person, they tell You that is a change by means of Personality. So no anything of the sort, Via as it clearly says, is a change of: Meens, Means or Person, or carrier.

OED defines 'via' as;
1. Travelling through (a place) en route to a destination.
2. By way of; through. By means of.

No mention there of anything about two parts.

Personally, I, nor anyone I know, has ever used via to mean changing at.

 

[Andrew Nelson]

OED defines 'via' as;
1. Travelling through (a place) en route to a destination.
2. By way of; through. By means of.

No mention there of anything about two parts.

Personally, I, nor anyone I know, has ever used via to mean changing at.

Well, pleanty of other People on this thread allready have.

 

[Donny Dave]

Exactly. At Leeds, the prominent departure screens just inside the barrier list all destinations and the time of the next train(s). There is no indication as to whether the next fast train to Sheffield is via Doncaster or not - the only annotations are for the local stopping services.

Apart from the odd EMT and XC service, the majority of trains between Leeds and Sheffield ego either via Moorthorpe or via Barnsley, so it could be argued that the Not Doncaster ticket is obsolete anyway.

 

[Andrew Nelson]

Gibberish.

Well, I don't expect sombody to understand English from Newcastle.

Person to person down the line is a situation where the information comes VIA a third party. or Personality.

Simple English.

Not dificult, and because many People see this as true, We need clarification.

Via can and often does as many have agreed, mean "Changeing at".