Route restrictions during diversions

[AlterEgo]

Here's a quick one - when Virgin services were being diverted via High Wycombe last weekend, would a Route: High Wycombe ticket be valid on a VT service between Birmingham New Street and London Euston which is subject to this diversion?

The train stopped last at Coventry and then ran fast to London (well, as fast as one can go via HW!)


Valid ticket or not?

 

[John @ home]

when Virgin services were being diverted via High Wycombe last weekend, would a Route: High Wycombe ticket be valid on a VT service between Birmingham New Street and London Euston which is subject to this diversion?

Yes, the ticket is valid via High Wycombe by any train company.

 

[LexyBoy]

Same situation as with FGW with tickets routed Honiton earlier in the year. Yes, they are valid- though some Guards claimed otherwise i believe. And don't expect to be sold the HW ticket unless you ask specifically!

 

[yorkie]

If a train goes via 'X', then tickets routed 'X' are clearly valid. There is surely no question about that.

It does get a bit more complicated when a train that would normally go via 'X' is diverted off the normal route and avoids 'X'. In that case, tickets are still deemed valid but ticket booking sites will often refuse to sell the tickets!

Even worse, if the vast majority of tickets for certain flows are routed 'Not X', and the train is then diverted via X, ticket booking sites will attempt to charge you the premium for going via the longer, more expensive route! I am unsure if there is an 'official' line here, but I'd like the opinion of someone like Ferret on what would happen if someone bought the usual Leeds to Sheffield Not Doncaster tickets, and used them on a Sunday when diversions elsewhere were causing XC to be only running only an hourly service via both Leeds and Doncaster. Is that valid?

And don't expect to be sold the HW ticket unless you ask specifically!

I would consider that to be a potential breach of their obligations under the Retail Standards Guide.

 

[bb21]

I am unsure if there is an 'official' line here, but I'd like the opinion of someone like Ferret on what would happen if someone bought the usual Leeds to Sheffield Not Doncaster tickets, and used them on a Sunday when diversions elsewhere were causing XC to be only running only an hourly service via both Leeds and Doncaster. Is that valid?

If they are diversions and normal service patterns avoid Doncaster on Sundays then I can't see how it can be enforced. Is the diversionary route available in the public domain? Can the passenger be reasonably expected to check and know about the diversions?

 

[Ferret]

Even worse, if the vast majority of tickets for certain flows are routed 'Not X', and the train is then diverted via X, ticket booking sites will attempt to charge you the premium for going via the longer, more expensive route! I am unsure if there is an 'official' line here, but I'd like the opinion of someone like Ferret on what would happen if someone bought the usual Leeds to Sheffield Not Doncaster tickets, and used them on a Sunday when diversions elsewhere were causing XC to be only running only an hourly service via both Leeds and Doncaster. Is that valid?

I can't see how you could justify charging an excess fare for a Not Doncaster ticket when services are diverted that way. Why would a member of the public even think to check that? Oddly enough, last time I was working such a service, somebody offered to pay the excess fare and was politely told to put his wallet away. My opinion is that whether it's valid or not doesn't matter - it's proper tabloid newspaper material so not worth the hassle.

 

[yorkie]

I can't see how you could justify charging an excess fare for a Not Doncaster ticket when services are diverted that way. Why would a member of the public even think to check that? Oddly enough, last time I was working such a service, somebody offered to pay the excess fare and was politely told to put his wallet away. My opinion is that whether it's valid or not doesn't matter - it's proper tabloid newspaper material so not worth the hassle.

I agree totally. I thought you'd say that but didn't want to be too pre-emptive! Glad to hear it, anyway

I did once experience a ticket check on an EMT service north of Sheffield in the evening, and the guard would have encountered loads of "Not Doncaster" tickets. The train was direct, but via Doncaster. The guard said something like "your ticket says Not Doncaster, and we go via Doncaster. However on this occasion I won't charge you" (depending on ticket type, the excess would be in the region of £2 or so). Though that wasn't a diversion, that was a regular service, but unusual in that it went via Doncaster, and customers would have just seen it was a direct train to Leeds. They no longer go via Doncaster so the problem has solved itself.

 

[Ferret]

I agree totally. I thought you'd say that but didn't want to be too pre-emptive! Glad to hear it, anyway

Well, if you charged an excess fare for that, would you also charge an excess fare if there was a fatality at Moorthorpe and you were routed via Adwick and Doncaster to regain booked route at Swinton? To me, both are plainly ridiculous notions - the railway is doing engineering works which have altered the timetable so there can be no justification in making the passenger pay more because their train just happens to be travelling an extra few miles! The only exception I can see is if somebody wanted to break their journey at Doncaster... Then I'd say an excess would be appropriate.

 

[yorkie]

Agreed. And yes, that sounds reasonable to me.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Only by applying common sense (as in the posts above) can such restrictions be understood.
We have to assume that a 'Restriction' pre-supposes that there is an 'unrestricted' alternative which is actually different. (eg the supplier sells A and B but there is a restriction on the As, so the restricted buyer may have to accept only B). It makes no sense if the restriction doesn't allow for an alternative (eg the seller sells A and B but there is a restriction on A but not on B, AND A is the same as B).

In this example, the diversion makes A and B the same, so the restriction becomes meaningless).

There is one example which is amusing to consider though:
Remember that the Contract is a Permit to be conveyed by the Railways, but it doesn't have to be by train. Suppose that provision is made to convey the passenger by bus or taxi - could the restriction of 'not via' apply to the road vehicle? (Please, I really don't want to debate this at any length!).

 

[sheff1]

I had the same experience as Yorkie on a Sunday evening EMT train.

On this route I think the answer is simple. Instead of 'not Doncaster' and 'any permitted', have 'any permitted' (with mapped routes excluding travel via Doncaster but, of course, valid on a through train regardless of route) and a higher priced 'via Doncaster'.

 

[island]

It may seem simple, but hacking bits off the routeing maps comes with all sorts of hidden pitfalls (which is why there's been a proliferation of so-called negative easements lately).