Should Rail Replacement Buses change the routes for which tickets are available?

[TUC]

This is a wider query which arose from the thread I started at https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ng-when-other-apps-show-it-as-running.288392/ regarding why the LNER app was not showing tickets as available for a Huddersfield-Hanborough via Manchester Piccadilly journey. The most plausible explanation was that, as there is an RRB from Huddersfield to Brighouse, the app was looking for permitted routes from Brighouse (as the first rail leg of the journey) to Hanborough rather than from Huddersfield. (The question of why other apps had not produced the same result is a separate issue.)

Leaving aside this specific example, it does seem inherently unfair for the presence of an RRB at the start of a journey to impact the permitted routes. There was a suggestion in this case that an easement should have been implemented to allow 'via Brighouse' journeys, but these are often utilised when engineering work requires passengers to use different services/routes to normal. In this case, it is the regular service, just diverted to call at Brighouse rather than Huddersfield.

it does leave the question of whether this is occurring on other occasions, of a RRB linked with a diverted service resulting in incorrect routing availability being applied for the actual journey being undertaken. Is this a wider issue? Are there other examples?

 

[Benjwri]

To be clear the issue in your previous thread was that the RRB meant that you went via a route which is not valid from Huddersfield towards Hanborough, it didn’t change where the routeing was looking from. That night TPE trains were diverted to go via Hebden Bridge, rather than their normal route of via Huddersfield/Stalybridge. This meant routeing engines saw the route as invalid because there is no permitted route via Hebden Bridge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2025 ==

You’re right that it isn’t fair, but it is a difficult situation when there are diversions, and relies on the TOCs creating easements to allow travel on that diversion.

 

[TUC]

To be clear the issue in your previous thread was that the RRB meant that you went via a route which is not valid from Huddersfield towards Hanborough, it didn’t change where the routeing was looking from. That night TPE trains were diverted to go via Hebden Bridge, rather than their normal route of via Huddersfield/Stalybridge. This meant routeing engines saw the route as invalid because there is no permitted route via Hebden Bridge.

My question in this thread is whether that scenario could/does arise in other situations?

 

[Benjwri]

My question in this thread is whether that scenario could/does arise in other situations?

Yes my answer was the presence of an RRB does not affect the permitted routes in any scenario. It is simply that RRB+ diverted train did not travel via a permitted route from Huddersfield to Hanborough.

It isn’t fair, but unfortunately happens all the time, especially when engineering happens for only a night, or is occurring somewhere like London where the TOC considers everyone uses contactless. There are plentiful examples of diversions causing no permitted routes, such as when the Barnes area is closed and SWR diverts via Kingston.

 

[TUC]

To be clear the issue in your previous thread was that the RRB meant that you went via a route which is not valid from Huddersfield towards Hanborough, it didn’t change where the routeing was looking from. That night TPE trains were diverted to go via Hebden Bridge, rather than their normal route of via Huddersfield/Stalybridge. This meant routeing engines saw the route as invalid because there is no permitted route via Hebden Bridge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2025 ==

You’re right that it isn’t fair, but it is a difficult situation when there are diversions, and relies on the TOCs creating easements to allow travel on that diversion.

In this case the 'via Hebden Bridge' element was purely in terms of the line of track the service travelled along. It was not as though the service stopped additionally at Hebden Bridge. If that had been the case then the difficulty would be understandable. In reality for the passengers, they would normally board at Huddersfield and the next station would be Manchester Piccadilly. For this, they board at Brighouse and the next station is Manchester Piccadilly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2025 ==

It isn’t fair, but unfortunately happens all the time, especially when engineering happens for only a night,

In this case it isn't just for a night. It is a regularly occurring diversion for an extended period.

 

[Benjwri]

In this case the 'via Hebden Bridge' element was purely in terms of the line of track the service travelled along. It was not as though the service stopped additionally at Hebden Bridge. If that had been the case then the difficulty would be understandable. In reality for the passengers, they would normally board at Huddersfield and the next station would be Manchester Piccadilly. For this, they board at Brighouse and the next station is Manchester Piccadilly.

Unfortunately that’s just how the rules for the routeing engines work. A through ticket would be accepted in reality, but routeing engines haven’t been told that.

Regardless it stops at Brighouse, where you change, which also is not on a permitted route between Huddersfield and Hanborough.

In this case it isn't just for a night. It is a regularly occurring diversion for an extended period.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Next Thursday it is just overnight services. There is a far longer block coming up, and hopefully easements will be made for that.

 

[TUC]

I’m not sure what you mean here. Next Thursday it is just overnight services. There is a far longer block coming up, and hopefully easements will be made for that.

I meant it in the sense that this is a journey I make a number of times a year, and the Brighouse diversion has been in place on several occasions for this particular service.

 

[Haywain]

In reality for the passengers, they would normally board at Huddersfield and the next station would be Manchester Piccadilly.

A journey planner will also look at timing points for the train service so will see that it passes through Hebden Bridge even without a booked stop.Therefore it will rule out certain tickets from being used because they are 'off route'.

 

[Benjwri]

I meant it in the sense that this is a journey I make a number of times a year, and the Brighouse diversion has been in place on several occasions for this particular service.

Ah as in it’s a regular thing for very late night or early morning services?

I don’t think there is even a way that a TOC can add an easement for only part of a day, so I’m not too sure what TPE could even do to fix this, without a more widespread change to the routeing guide.

 

[Haywain]

so I’m not too sure what TPE could even do to fix this, without a more widespread change to the routeing guide.

Especially as it might be a very small number of journey opportunities that are affected.

 

[Andrew1395]

Routeing Guide easements can apply to part of the day and to specific trains using the trains UID.

 

[MrJeeves]

I don’t think there is even a way that a TOC can add an easement for only part of a day, so I’m not too sure what TPE could even do to fix this, without a more widespread change to the routeing guide.

As Andrew1395 says, the data supports between times and specific days of the week, as well as individual services.

UID: https://enrgbrowser.com/easements/701198/2025-06-23

Times: https://enrgbrowser.com/easements/701280/2025-06-23

 

[redreni]

If it's inconveniencing you I would absolutely suggest pestering the TOC to put suitable easements in place when this happens. I have no sympathy whatsoever with the argument that the hassle is disproportionate: if maintaining the routeing guide is too much hassle, go back to permitting travel by any reasonable route!

 

[fandroid]

Shouldn't the "any reasonable route" easement apply whenever there's planned or even unplanned disruption? I know some would argue that there will be Mickey taking, but I think the railway, if it messes the passenger around should not be complaining if a minority of fare payers mess them around in exchange.

Perhaps journey planners can simply apply a time comparison. Any route that's shorter in time than the RRB version should be valid.

 

[redreni]

Shouldn't the "any reasonable route" easement apply whenever there's planned or even unplanned disruption? I know some would argue that there will be Mickey taking, but I think the railway, if it messes the passenger around should not be complaining if a minority of fare payers mess them around in exchange.

Perhaps journey planners can simply apply a time comparison. Any route that's shorter in time than the RRB version should be valid.

Mickey-taking by pushing the boundaries of reasonableness - almost by definition - only gets you so far before it becomes clearly unreasonable.

On the other hand, RDG has managed to make some quite preposterous routes valid without necessary intending to under the Permitted Routes regime.

 

[Watershed]

Shouldn't the "any reasonable route" easement apply whenever there's planned or even unplanned disruption? I know some would argue that there will be Mickey taking, but I think the railway, if it messes the passenger around should not be complaining if a minority of fare payers mess them around in exchange.

On paper, there is no such concept as "any reasonable route"; there hasn't been since the Routeing Guide was created at privatisation.

Of course it is still the rule by which frontline staff judge the validity of tickets, because almost none of them have even heard of the Routeing Guide as it's not considered important enough for them to be trained on it!

There is a section of the Routeing Guide which states:

On occasions due to short notice engineering work and disruption, services may be diverted from their normal routes or customers asked to use alternative routes. In these circumstances operators will make special provision to allow extra permitted routes. They will advise other operators and retailers of the extra provisions made to convey customers by routes other than those which are normally permitted. This provision will also apply to connecting services which are not directly affected. Any through train diverted from its usual route will count as a permitted route between the stations it is normally scheduled to call at.

However this doesn't help in cases where you have to take a fundamentally different route due to engineering works or other disruption.

Perhaps journey planners can simply apply a time comparison. Any route that's shorter in time than the RRB version should be valid.

A sensible idea in principle, but the devil is in the detail - how you define "the RRB version"?

If you take the fastest RRB journey of the day as your baseline, there may only be one such journey as other journeys may have worse connections. That would mean disallowing many alternative routes which are perfectly reasonable during the rest of the day.

If you take the slowest RRB journey of the day as your baseline (which may be the last one of the day, due to limited frequencies at that time of day), that may allow almost any alternative route, including some that could present loopholes.

The permitted routes would also vary significantly for similar journeys, merely because of how the connections work out.

I don't think there is a realistic way of making it work without being either unduly restrictive or presenting loopholes.

 

[Benjwri]

On paper, there is no such concept as "any reasonable route"; there hasn't been since the Routeing Guide was created at privatisation.

Of course it is still the rule by which frontline staff judge the validity of tickets, because almost none of them have even heard of the Routeing Guide as it's not considered important enough for them to be trained on it!

There is a section of the Routeing Guide which states:

However this doesn't help in cases where you have to take a fundamentally different route due to engineering works or other disruption.


A sensible idea in principle, but the devil is in the detail - how you define "the RRB version"?

If you take the fastest RRB journey of the day as your baseline, there may only be one such journey as other journeys may have worse connections. That would mean disallowing many alternative routes which are perfectly reasonable during the rest of the day.

If you take the slowest RRB journey of the day as your baseline (which may be the last one of the day, due to limited frequencies at that time of day), that may allow almost any alternative route, including some that could present loopholes.

The permitted routes would also vary significantly for similar journeys, merely because of how the connections work out.

I don't think there is a realistic way of making it work without being either unduly restrictive or presenting loopholes.

Of course this is all very theoretical regardless. A retailing site cannot understand any reasonable route, so there would always be a routeing guide.

I think there is an argument that given the TPE sites gives the RRB service as a replacement for the diverted train, and given the page you quote, that the ticket is valid on this service. I would say the chances of staff not allowing someone to travel on the through ticket are zero.

The issue is really how to get the journey planners to understand this, and the only real answer is to create easements.

 

[MrJeeves]

However this doesn't help in cases where you have to take a fundamentally different route due to engineering works or other disruption.

It's quite a useless "rule", isn't it? Any through train between two stations is already permitted before consulting the routeing guide in the first place!

 

[Watershed]

It's quite a useless "rule", isn't it? Any through train between two stations is already permitted before consulting the routeing guide in the first place!

Although the 'direct trains' rule doesn't cover scenarios where you are changing trains, so the Routeing Guide 'easement' does add validity in that scenario. Similarly, it arguably permits the use of diverted trains that would otherwise be excluded by fare routes.

 

[MrJeeves]

Although the 'direct trains' rule doesn't cover scenarios where you are changing trains, so the Routeing Guide 'easement' does add validity in that scenario. Similarly, it arguably permits the use of diverted trains that would otherwise be excluded by fare routes.

Ah, I'd not interpreted it in the sense that it would also cover across multiple trains.

 

[redreni]

Ah, I'd not interpreted it in the sense that it would also cover across multiple trains.

It can be taken to mean that if

• the route you normally take is a valid route purely by dint of the fact you use a through train; and
• there is no through train running over that route due to engineering works; and
• during the engineering works it is possible to take the same route normally taken by the through train, but only by using two or more trains;

then you may take that route.

Other meanings can be read into it, I'm sure.

 

[Andrew1395]

Short notice probably covers situations where RRB are not in the timetable. Maybe so short that they occur on the day before journey planers can be updated. Other than a free text message. Routeing Guide easements can be published overnight for Journey Planning engines to update digital retailing.

 

[TUC]

Would it not be possible to have a substitute override code so that, for ticketing purposes, routing engines looked towards the usual line of route rather than the diversion?

 

[Benjwri]

Would it not be possible to have a substitute override code so that, for ticketing purposes, routing engines looked towards the usual line of route rather than the diversion?

It might be possible to build something in that looks at when a train has been altered, and compared previous alterations, although this would have to be added to the accreditation specification.

I’m not sure that would help though in this situation as while changes in a train route might be possible, there are a lot of issues that could occur from adding a bus or train that connects with a changed routed train.

 

[Watershed]

Would it not be possible to have a substitute override code so that, for ticketing purposes, routing engines looked towards the usual line of route rather than the diversion?

What does "usual line of route" mean though? Might be obvious to a human but defining it clearly, such that a computer can understand it, is difficult.

 

[Benjwri]

What does "usual line of route" mean though? Might be obvious to a human but defining it clearly, such that a computer can understand it, is difficult.

The majority of diversions such as this are done through VAR schedules, it would be possible in this case to look at the WTT schedule to determine the 'usual' line.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

Easements should really be a required part of setting up engineering work timetables.

For disruption on the day, that's an interesting one. In any case, the presence of a replacement bus in the journey could trigger some sort of relaxing of the rules, for instance, not applying route restrictions. Also, a train created through Darwin can just about be identified (in a hacky way). This must be easier under GBR, but HT, GC? It would be dangerous to relax too much as malicious/accidental cheapness could result. Really the problem on the day is plenty of human-readable text about ticket acceptance during disruption, at least a while after the initial event, but no structured data that can be used to influence a journey plan and to infer extra ticket validity.

 

[TUC]

I agree that on the day unplanned disruptions are a different issue and should be addressed pragmatically at the time. I'm talking about planned diversions and changes to services,

 

[Haywain]

In any case, the presence of a replacement bus in the journey could trigger some sort of relaxing of the rules, for instance, not applying route restrictions.

But without applying route restrictions, would it be possible to identify the presence of a replacement bus?

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

But without applying route restrictions, would it be possible to identify the presence of a replacement bus?

I'm thinking that having planned the journey in the usual way, if one of the legs is a replacement bus (train category "BR") then the validation on the journey could be... eased... a bit