Travelling Off Route

[penaltyfines]

The rule is that you can't be PFed if you are travelling off-route. Presumeably this relies on the actual route the passenger is travelling on is a valid route in the 'Any Permitted' scenario.

What happens if it is logically a valid route (Reading to Ealing Broadway via Paddington) but not available as a valid ticket (i.e. 2x tickets required), could this result in a penalty fare?

 

[island]

"Logically a valid route"? Either a route is valid or it is not. Let me check the Routeing Guide.

 

[bb21]

The rule is that you can't be PFed if you are travelling off-route. Presumeably this relies on the actual route the passenger is travelling on is a valid route in the 'Any Permitted' scenario.

What happens if it is logically a valid route (Reading to Ealing Broadway via Paddington) but not available as a valid ticket (i.e. 2x tickets required), could this result in a penalty fare?

Logic says that this is not an off-route scenario. If you're on a non-stopper then your ticket is not valid hence you have to purchase another brand new ticket, otherwise you need a new ticket form wherever the last stopping place is before Ealing onwards.

In reality if you have a word with the guard before boarding I'm sure many would be happy to excess your ticket onboard, although this is not guaranteed.

 

[island]

[deleted]

 

[LexyBoy]

"Logically a valid route"? Either a route is valid or it is not. Let me check the Routeing Guide.

Surprisingly, for Ealing-Oxford, the "Any Permitted" allows travel via London - I would have thought this would be a Route:London ticket since there's doubling back between Ealing and Paddington? I guess there's an easement in this case.

I think for the OP's suggestion, there is no valid route via London for Ealing-Reading, thus the passenger would not be "off-route" but rather travelling beyond validity (?) and would be liable for a PF. Certainly the ticket cannot be excessed to the route being used (unless it were excessed to a different destination).

I could be wrong though!

 

[island]

Turns out there is just such an easement. 40003 says "Customers travelling from Drayton Green, Castle Bar Park, South Greenford, Hanwell, West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton Main Line to Hayes & Harlington and beyond may travel via London Paddington. This easement applies in both directions." Therefore Reading to Ealing Broadway via Paddington is permitted on a ticket from Reading to Ealing Broadway.

 

[LexyBoy]

Turns out there is just such an easement. 40003 says "Customers travelling from Drayton Green, Castle Bar Park, South Greenford, Hanwell, West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton Main Line to Hayes & Harlington and beyond may travel via London Paddington. This easement applies in both directions." Therefore Reading to Ealing Broadway via Paddington is permitted on a ticket from Reading to Ealing Broadway.

Surprised it isn't restricted only to stations further out.

So having established that the OP's example is indeed valid - what happens? :? There is no "Any Permitted" ticket, only a "Not London", so do they get excessed to the cheapest ticket valid via London (probably a Thames Branches Day Rover)?

 

[bb21]

Surprised it isn't restricted only to stations further out.

So having established that the OP's example is indeed valid - what happens? :? There is no "Any Permitted" ticket, only a "Not London", so do they get excessed to the cheapest ticket valid via London (probably a Thames Branches Day Rover)?

I'm slightly confused here.

Assuming that in a hypothetical scenario the easement does not exist and the only fare is "Not London" then I would imagine an excess to at least London Terminals, if nothing cheaper, as they can then start using the return portion and break their journey at EAL. Of course this means that they cannot come back on their return journey via London and must then take the stopping services.

 

[island]

Does the easement override the route? I would say it does. Several other easements specify that they only apply to tickets with such and such a route, so I would take it that the absence of specification of a route here means that the rule applies even to the NOT LONDON ticket. Indeed, I recall a blog where someone got a letter from ATOC saying "LONDON and NOT LONDON are not mutually exclusive"!

Without the easement it's a case of overriding and normal PF rules apply.

 

[bb21]

I would think that in this case it does, as the only fare is "Not London". Otherwise this easement becomes redundant?

 

[LexyBoy]

Does the easement override the route? I would say it does. Several other easements specify that they only apply to tickets with such and such a route, so I would take it that the absence of specification of a route here means that the rule applies even to the NOT LONDON ticket. Indeed, I recall a blog where someone got a letter from ATOC saying "LONDON and NOT LONDON are not mutually exclusive"!

Without the easement it's a case of overriding and normal PF rules apply.

I'm not sure I follow - why would the easement override the route? The ANY PERMITTED fare would normally not be valid via PAD due to doubling back, which is what the easement is referring to. I'd think the NOT LONDON ticket would still not be valid via PAD, though I can't say I understand how the easements are applied.

The RG states (in the preliminary instructions, before the Steps):

If a choice of routes is available and the fare for the
journey is described as "Any Permitted" route or is unrouted, you are free to
choose any of the routes listed in the Guide. Where the fare specifies a
particular route, you may choose only those routes listed in the Guide which
pass through the station shown in the route description.

(my bold)

I assume this equally means not passing through stations excluded by the route description.

 

[island]

There's no ANY PERMITTED fare for the journey though. If there was, my answer would probably be different.

 

[LexyBoy]

There's no ANY PERMITTED fare for the journey though. If there was, my answer would probably be different.

There are ANY PERMITTED fares for similar journeys though (between Oxford and EAL for instance). As I said, I'm not sure how matters are interpreted here, but my feeling is that the route would override the easement.

What about cases where there's no ANY PERMITTED fare and someone's travelling on a route which is allowed by the RG but not by the ticket's routeing? I seem to recall such a question being asked before, I think it was Warrington to Plymouth, for which only a BRISTOL ticket is available, but the poster wanted to go via Reading (a valid route according to the RG).

edit: Thread is here, and the answer seems to be "tough luck" - if there's no ANY PERMITTED fare then you're limited to routes permitted by the available fares.