"by no more than 3 miles"

[CheapAndNerdy]

This is kinda pedantic, but I am wondering if the "no more than 3 miles" rule really applies to all journeys. While that is the impression I get when reading routeing-related posts here, the only references I can find to this rule are in the Routeing Guide. Why not in the CoC?

Of these references, the first relates to journeys with no appropriate routeing points, and the second to journeys with a common routeing point. It is only in the Easements section that a more general reference is made:

Journeys on direct trains or taking the route of shortest distance or a distance longer by no more than 3 miles are always following a permitted route.

Is this final reference the one which expands the "3 mile" rule to all journeys, or is it really referring to those cases earlier in the guide where the rule is applicable?

 

[yorkie]

This is kinda pedantic, but I am wondering if the "no more than 3 miles" rule really applies to all journeys. While that is the impression I get when reading routeing-related posts here, the only references I can find to this rule are in the Routeing Guide. Why not in the CoC?

Good question. There is no acceptable answer why not.

I would support a campaign to:

• Ensure that the shortest route is always defined in the NRCoC as a permitted route; and
• Add to that the 3 mile rule in the NRCoC.

The DfT and the TOCs should have nothing to lose by doing this, as it won't change any of the existing rules, but they will not do so. The reasons they will not are because, as usual, they wish to erode our rights....

• They are plotting to remove the shortest route entitlement from the NRCoC; and
• They want to quietly drop the 3 mile rule and do not want it to be in the NRCoC as they do not believe it has 'protected' status.

Feel free to contact MPs, Passenger Focus, the Campaign for Better Transport and any other organisations who may be able to help. Also feel free to send FOI requests to the DfT for details of any correspondence they have had regarding routeings and whether any proposals, plans, considerations or any other discussions have taken place where any possibility of any changes that may remove the shortest route. Also ask for assurances that the shortest route will not be removed.


As always I am happy to proof read letters.

 

[6Gman]

How is a member of the public meant to calculate distances for the 3 mile route?

 

[RJ]

How is a member of the public meant to calculate distances for the 3 mile route?

Take a wild stab at what the shortest route might be, then use the electronic National Rail Timetable to calculate mileages - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3828.aspx

 

[soil]

A rail map helps for route selection

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/nationalrailnetworkmapZoom.pdf

This gives wrong values, but can help with finding the route:

http://mileage.railmiles.org/

as can www.trainscanbecheaper.info

 

[yorkie]

How is a member of the public meant to calculate distances for the 3 mile route?

You are 'meant to' use the NRT, which is rounded to quarter miles, and some are rounded up and some down.

But booking engines use different data, which has been decimalised. Booking engines therefore can be a mile or two out compared to the NRT.

Additionally the data used by booking engines assumes direct services exist between Dronfield <> Dore, Guide Bridge > Stockport, Stoke > Rugeley but these services do not exist.

The booking engines allow greater than 3 miles (around 5 miles I believe) longer than what they believe is the shortest route.

In some cases that means that booking engines allow around 5 miles shorter than what is really the shortest route, but in other cases booking engines do not allow routes that are the absolute shortest let alone a few miles longer!

There are some interesting examples of shortest route calculations that we demonstrate at our Fares Workshops, including some anomalies.

RSP (a part of ATOC) want to get rid of the shortest route rule, despite making the claim that most passengers wish to take the shortest route (or direct trains). We all know that claim is false, passengers actually want the quickest route (or least changes), however ATOC do not want to give us either of these as greater convenience for customers means more anomalies and they prefer us to have poor value.

There are some very good people at ATOC (including members of this forum who are very helpful and I regard as pro-customer) who I am sure are not behind these plans at all. But there are some people at ATOC (especially RSP) who are about as anti-customer as you can get. Their plans should be opposed in my opinion.

 

[12CSVT]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, does the 3 mile rule apply, for example to a journey from Warrington BQ to Hartford, where the most obvious route (ie change at Crewe) involves doubling back by considerably more than 3 miles ?

 

[soil]

That is not much of a can of worms, since there is a ticket routed 'Via Crewe', and it is cheaper than the Any Permitted.

The shortest route to Warrington Central is I believe via Liverpool South Parkway.

Hartford - L S Parkway 18 1/2 miles
L S Parkway - Warrington Central 13 miles

Total 31 1/2 miles

And to Bank Quay is via Crewe, so also permitted for that reason as shortest route.

Hartford - Crewe 11 3/4 miles
Crew - Warrington Bank Quay 24 miles

35 3/4 miles

So via Crewe is also valid as the shortest route to Warrington Bank Quay (the Warrington stations are grouped, and I believe you can pick either).

The 'Via Manchester' fare presumably permits:

Hartford - Crewe - Manchester - Warrington Central

 

[island]

I don't think via Crewe is valid by that logic, as the ticket would be issued to Warrington Stns and that doesn't necessarily entitle you to go to the one you want. However, as the ticket is routed via Crewe, obviously that's fine, and indeed any SDS or SDR routed via Manchester or Any Permitted would be valid that way as well.

 

[D6975]

Take a wild stab at what the shortest route might be, then use the electronic National Rail Timetable to calculate mileages - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3828.aspx

Are the mileages in the NRT correct nowadays?
I ask because in my bashing days there were some pretty bad errors in the old printed version.

 

[SickyNicky]

Are the mileages in the NRT correct nowadays?
I ask because in my bashing days there were some pretty bad errors in the old printed version.

Nope. They are hopeless. But they are what the NRCoC says we must use.

 

[CheapAndNerdy]

In order to test my "hypothesis" I need to find a journey which involves 2 routeing points and where there is an alternative route not permitted by the Guide (and of course no more than 3 miles longer than the shortest route) so I can test it in NRE to determine how the rule is interpreted.

I figured the London area would be a good place to check as there is a high density of stations and physical routes, but I haven't found anything suitable. Any suggestions for me to look at? Though I'm starting to wonder if this isn't a bit of a wild goose chase, and the distinction I mentioned in my OP has no practical impact.

 

[FenMan]

In order to test my "hypothesis" I need to find a journey which involves 2 routeing points and where there is an alternative route not permitted by the Guide (and of course no more than 3 miles longer than the shortest route) so I can test it in NRE to determine how the rule is interpreted.

I figured the London area would be a good place to check as there is a high density of stations and physical routes, but I haven't found anything suitable. Any suggestions for me to look at? Though I'm starting to wonder if this isn't a bit of a wild goose chase, and the distinction I mentioned in my OP has no practical impact.

You can have fun with Blackwater to East Croydon.

Journey planners won't offer return tickets for a route that beats the 3 mile
rule (according to TCBC) and is often the fastest journey. This route is obvious when using the National Rail Journey Planner,

 

[soil]

Obvious route:

Blackwater - Redhill 33 miles by Network Rail t/t
Redhill - East Croydon 10 1/2 miles

Total 43 1/2 miles

Shortest route:

Blackwater- Guildford 12 1/4 miles
Guildford - West Croydon 24 1/2 miles
West Croydon - Selhurst 1 mile
Selhurst - East Croydon 1 mile

Total = 38 3/4 miles

Conclusion: don't rely on unofficial data for shortest route calculations.

TCBC says 40.43 miles Blackwater - ECR shortest, and 42.52 miles via Redhill.

A 2.98 mile difference.

Why the disparity?

Well West Croydon - Selhurst is 1.16 miles - rounds down to 1 mile. 0.16 miles lost
Selhurst - ECR 1.15 miles - 0.15 miles lost
Blackwater - Guildford is listed by TCBC as 12.79 miles - 0.54 miles lost
Guildford - West Croydon is listed by TCBC as 25.33 miles, but in the Network Rail Timetable as 24 1/2 miles http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse documents/eNRT/May12/timetables/Table 182.pdf 0.83 miles more lost

 

[SickyNicky]

Conclusion: don't rely on unofficial data for shortest route calculations.

TCBC says 40.43 miles Blackwater - ECR shortest, and 42.52 miles via Redhill.

A 2.98 mile difference.

I agree on all counts. When we were designing TCBC we had the choice of using the mileage data from the timetable or the data that the booking engines use.

We extracted the timetable mileage and found it to be riddled with inaccuracies, to the extent that it was unusable for an automatic mileage system. The booking engine data, on the other hand, seems to be pretty accurate (although it makes assumptions on routes that have regular services that are incorrect).

So we decided to go with the booking engine data because the timetable data would create more anomolies.

However, when you are looking at shortest routes, and it's not obvious, you would be well advised to check it with the timetable. This is why I believe the booking engines allow +5 miles instead of +3 miles over the shortest route.

I was going to try to combine the two sets of data so that the timetable data would be used where the booking data was within .25/mile, but I have halted development for the time because we are expecting a major and complete overhaul of the routeing guide which may well remove the shortest route rules completely.

 

[FenMan]

I agree on all counts. When we were designing TCBC we had the choice of using the mileage data from the timetable or the data that the booking engines use.

We extracted the timetable mileage and found it to be riddled with inaccuracies, to the extent that it was unusable for an automatic mileage system. The booking engine data, on the other hand, seems to be pretty accurate (although it makes assumptions on routes that have regular services that are incorrect).

So we decided to go with the booking engine data because the timetable data would create more anomolies.

However, when you are looking at shortest routes, and it's not obvious, you would be well advised to check it with the timetable. This is why I believe the booking engines allow +5 miles instead of +3 miles over the shortest route.

I was going to try to combine the two sets of data so that the timetable data would be used where the booking data was within .25/mile, but I have halted development for the time because we are expecting a major and complete overhaul of the routeing guide which may well remove the shortest route rules completely.

Thanks for the explanation.

I checked out how to go from Blackwater to East Croydon using the shortest route: the journey time ranges from 2h04m to 2h17m with 4 or 5 changes needed. Going via Redhill is 1 change and takes just over an hour.

Whichever calculation is used, the 2 routes are pretty close in mileage terms, so I wonder whether a FGW or Southern guard would be concerned at seeing a ticket with origin BAW on the route that is obviously the most convenient from the passenger's perspective.

 

[SickyNicky]

Thanks for the explanation.

I checked out how to go from Blackwater to East Croydon using the shortest route: the journey time ranges from 2h04m to 2h17m with 4 or 5 changes needed. Going via Redhill is 1 change and takes just over an hour.

Whichever calculation is used, the 2 routes are pretty close in mileage terms, so I wonder whether a FGW or Southern guard would be concerned at seeing a ticket with origin BAW on the route that is obviously the most convenient from the passenger's perspective.

I cannot imagine anyone even batting an eyelid because it's so totally reasonable. In any case, WebTIS will sell you a ticket via that route, so you could take an itinerary in case you are challenged.

 

[soil]

The routeing comes because Blackwater is part of Farnborough Group, and then the map assumes Farnborough Main rather than North.

Crowthorne is only one stop from Wokingham and the ticket is the same price as Blackwater-ECR, but unfortunately it's still associated with Farnborough Group as well as Wokingham, so you can't use it to start short from Blackwater using the Wokingham - ECR maps as Wokingham-ECR Not via London is more expensive (even though Any Permitted is cheaper)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I cannot imagine anyone even batting an eyelid because it's so totally reasonable. In any case, WebTIS will sell you a ticket via that route, so you could take an itinerary in case you are challenged.

I don't think it's reasonable.

Guildford - East Croydon is

£7.80 not via Clapham Junction (SWT)
£10.10 not via London (SWT)
£13.80 via Redhill (FGW)

Via Redhill is not a mapped route from Guildford, and it's obviously not a 'shortest route either'.

Given that Guildford - Redhill - East Croydon is £13.80, Blackwater-Guildford is £6.90 and Blackwater - East Croydon not via London only £12.10, it seems that there's a serious disparity.

Why should someone from Blackwater, some miles beyond Guildford use an invalid ticket costing £12.10 that a passenger from Guildford is clearly required to pay £13.80 for, and effectively get free travel to Guildford into the bargain?

If you want to travel via Redhill, you need a ticket valid to Redhill.

As it happens, Wokingham - East Croydon, though priced by SWT in the expectation of travel Wokingham - CLJ - ECR, is valid on map CS via Guildford.

 

[FenMan]

Just to add to the fun ...

(for those that aren't familiar with Blackwater, the "normal" routes to Clapham Junction are via either Guildford or Wokingham/Ascot).

I've now checked whether the £12.10 BAW - ECR ticket is valid by these "normal" routes using CLJ, and it's not.

Which only leaves the BAW to ECR via CLJ routes that are available by walking between stations ...

BAW - Farnborough North - walk - Farnborough Main - CLJ - ECR
Permitted.
Ditto but walking between North Camp and Ash Vale.
Permitted.

So, the only all-rail route permitted by the £12.10 BAW - ECR ticket is the slow motion yomp across SW London with a minimum of 4 changes that takes over 2 hours!

Hmmm .... a bit of a mess.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why should someone from Blackwater, some miles beyond Guildford use an invalid ticket costing £12.10 that a passenger from Guildford is clearly required to pay £13.80 for, and effectively get free travel to Guildford into the bargain?

It isn't uncommon for fares from BAW to appear anomalous e.g. BAW - Southampton Central SDS, valid via Reading as the shortest route, is £17.20, yet the SDS fare for RDG-SOU is £18.30.

I will remain silent on an another anomaly that I use quite often.

 

[yorkie]

Blackwater to East Croydon is completely reasonable via Redhill.

If someone wants to compare intermediate fares, that's their choice, but it does not impact on validity or reasonableness!

The argument could easily refer to tickets to York for a journey before 0930 returning the next day.... "Why should someone from Sheffield, some 18 miles beyond Doncaster use an invalid ticket costing £21.10 that a passenger from Doncaster is clearly required to pay £22.90 for, and effectively get free travel to Doncaster into the bargain?" The answer is: Because that's what the TOCs decide and pricing is based on market forces, not mileage or 'fairness'.

 

[soil]

Eh, a Sheffield - York ticket is valid via Doncaster, but Blackwater - East Croydon is not valid via Redhill, so they are not really comparable.

It's not like it's hard to figure this out - NRE clearly says that Blackwater - ECR via Redhill is not valid.

I don't see where reasonableness comes into it. It's quite obviously that these stations are priced via Clapham Junction (which is straightforward enough via Farnborough North & Main)

PS. Just as an aside, there is I think another problem with the shortest route from Blackwater to East Croydon. The ticket is issued to Croydon Stations, and the shortest route to Croydon Stations is therefore:

Blackwater - Guildford
Guildford - West Croydon (via Leatherhead & Sutton)

Which, even by TCBC's mileage, is 38.12 miles, and a long way shorter than Blackwater - East Croydon via Redhill

NRE, if you request Blackwater - West Croydon offers the shortest route.

 

[yorkie]

Your logic on trying to justify why it is unreasonable still falls down for the reason given - that intermediate prices do not determine validity or reasonableness.

We'll have to agree to disagree because I think it is entirely reasonable.

 

[snail]

The DfT and the TOCs should have nothing to lose by doing this, as it won't change any of the existing rules, but they will not do so. The reasons they will not are because, as usual, they wish to erode our rights....

This is why proper simplification of ticketing will not happen quickly. People want the anomalies removed but shout as soon as there is a hint of ATOC trying to do something about it. If it is going to happen some are going to win and some are going to lose.

It's clear from reading some of the examples above that it's not even simple to calculate the mileage, let alone apply it. I don't get the '3 mile rule' and all these tweaks and easements at all. Let's have 'fair fares' for all journeys and be done with it.

 

[Deerfold]

This is why proper simplification of ticketing will not happen quickly. People want the anomalies removed but shout as soon as there is a hint of ATOC trying to do something about it. If it is going to happen some are going to win and some are going to lose.

Last time there was simplification there were few winners - apart from TOCs - there were mostly losers or people who were unaffected.

Many people suspect any similar simplification would work in much the same way so are understandably wary.

 

[soil]

Your logic on trying to justify why it is unreasonable still falls down for the reason given - that intermediate prices do not determine validity or reasonableness.

We'll have to agree to disagree because I think it is entirely reasonable.

I didn't realise there was a definition of reasonable.

There is one for validity, ambiguous though it sometimes is.

 

[Deerfold]

I didn't realise there was a definition of reasonable.

There is one for validity, ambiguous though it sometimes is.

No, there isn't a definition of reasonable - that's why you and Yorkie disagree.

 

[island]

It's clear from reading some of the examples above that it's not even simple to calculate the mileage, let alone apply it. I don't get the '3 mile rule' and all these tweaks and easements at all. Let's have 'fair fares' for all journeys and be done with it.

How would you be calculating those fair fares then?

 

[yorkie]

This is why proper simplification of ticketing will not happen quickly. People want the anomalies removed

Do they? Anomalies can never be completely removed.

but shout as soon as there is a hint of ATOC trying to do something about it.

I will object if ATOC attempt to remove our rights if that is what you are saying!

If it is going to happen some are going to win and some are going to lose.

If it happens, the losers will be rail customers. The winners will be the TOCs, their shareholders and anyone who is anti-customer.

It's clear from reading some of the examples above that it's not even simple to calculate the mileage, let alone apply it. I don't get the '3 mile rule' and all these tweaks and easements at all. Let's have 'fair fares' for all journeys and be done with it.

I concur with Island's request to see what you propose. Perhaps you could make a new thread with your proposals.

 

[kieron]

And to Bank Quay is via Crewe, so also permitted for that reason as shortest route.

Hartford - Crewe 11 3/4 miles
Crew - Warrington Bank Quay 24 miles

35 3/4 miles

The shortest route listed in the timetable is the distance of 12 1/4 miles on table 65. The NRCoC refer to "the shortest route which can be used by scheduled passenger services", but I'm not sure this is meant to exclude situations where no through train exists, or just freight lines.

Hartford-Warrington exists as routed via Crewe and Manchester, so this doesn't matter, but Hartford-Earlestown (for instance) is only offered as Any Permitted or Direct (the choice seems just to be an excuse to let two TOCs price the flow). The only valid routes may be the slow ones via Crewe and Manchester.

 

[yorkie]

The shortest route listed in the timetable is the distance of 12 1/4 miles on table 65. The NRCoC refer to "the shortest route which can be used by scheduled passenger services"

It should be "regular" but a few years ago that was removed (I'd like to know why, and whether DfT and Passenger Focus were consulted and what correspondence took place), but apart from that, it means what it says. It would be bonkers to say that the shortest route would be defined as a route that was not possible by scheduled passenger services!

For example the shortest route from Dronfield to Dore is clearly via Sheffield.

but I'm not sure this is meant to exclude situations where no through train exists, or just freight lines.

The shortest route does not need to have through trains, but if a line really is completely freight only and has no passenger services then, by definition, it cannot form a part of the shortest route by scheuled passenger services.