Canterbury Stations Permitted Routes

[itsjamierawr]

I've been trying to work out what routes are permitted between the following stations as you can purchase the regular "Any Permitted" off peak returns through the south eastern website for these, but not through national rail:

Canterbury West - Chatham (via Ramsgate)
Canterbury West - Dover Priory (via Ramsgate)
Canterbury West - Dover Priory (via Ashford Intl)

I'm fully aware those journeys are quicker & direct from Canterbury East but I'm interested to know what is/isn't valid from Canterbury West and the national rail routing guide isn't much help either!

 

[Romilly]

I don't mind starting off the debate on this.

Routeing points for Canterbury West are: Ashford (Kent); Ramsgate Group

Dover Priory is a routeing point

Chatham is a member of the Chatham Group Routeing Point


Ashford to Dover may be traced on Map AR which gives the direct route via Folkestone thus permitting Canterbury West - Ashford - Folkestone - Dover

Ramsgate to Dover may be traced on Map DV or Map LK: DV gives the direct route via Deal thus permitting Canterbury West - Ramsgate - Deal - Dover; LK gives the route via Deal or the route via Ashford (but via Ashford is no good as it would mean doubling back: Canterbury West - Ramsgate - Canterbury West - Ashford - Folkestone - Dover, although the East Coast website gives an itinerary on the ordinary tickets for this doubling back!! - is there an easement I am missing?)

Ramsgate to Chatham can be traced on Map FV or HK both of which permit Canterbury West - Ramsgate - Margate - Faversham - Chatham

Ashford to Chatham may be traced on Map HS which would allow Canterbury West - Ashford - Ebbsfleet - Gravesend - Chatham but for the fact that Ashford fails the fare test and is therefore not an appropriate routeing point for Canterbury West for journeys to Chatham on an Any Permitted ticket. Of course, there are "Plus HS1 via Ebbsfleet not London" tickets available for that route.

 

[maniacmartin]

The real debate is:
If a ticket is issued from Canterbury Stations, can you choose which of these stations you start your journey at?

 

[Romilly]

If that is the real debate, I simply note that about half of the journeys from/to Canterbury West suggested by the journey planners when I was pondering the OP's question began/ended with a walk between the West and East stations in Canterbury.

 

[bb21]

The real debate is:
If a ticket is issued from Canterbury Stations, can you choose which of these stations you start your journey at?

And the answer is that we have never managed to reach consensus when such a topic was discussed previously.

 

[furlong]

The real debate is:
If a ticket is issued from Canterbury Stations, can you choose which of these stations you start your journey at?

That's the whole point of such station groupings: to let the passenger choose whichever is more convenient! But that said, in general, when working out the permitted routes for any particular journey you might find it is required to start or end with (or contain) one of the walks listed as "useful transfers" in the timetable (such as Canterbury West/Canterbury East).

When seeking the shortest route, some would say walks count as zero; others would argue you should use the actual (signposted) walking distance - I would argue for that view, noting that the 3-mile rule should largely make the distinction unimportant. Others take the line that you can both choose your starting station and choose always to avoid a "useful transfer", which leads them to reach internal contradictions like claiming there are routes that are "shorter than the shortest route". To me, if you find yourself using a phrase like that it should serve as a clue there's a mistake in your reasoning - reductio ad absurdum! There can only be one shortest route and, in my opinion, that may involve a mandatory "useful transfer" as shown in the National Rail Timetable.

I find it deeply unsatisfactory that matters like these have never been resolved through the issue of updated documents by the regulatory body. Never lose sight of the purpose: "precise definition of the routes rail travellers may use for a journey". Instead of concentrating its effort on improving this required precision, all we seem to get at each new revision is increased complexity through the invention of a myriad of easements and (sometimes contradictory) counter-easements with the poor passenger caught up among infighting between Train Operating Companies over revenue allocations!

 

[yorkie]

... internal contradictions like claiming there are routes that are "shorter than the shortest route"....

I still maintain that a route can be shorter than the shortest route entirely by rail, or a route can be shorter than the shortest route with a regular passenger service.

The shortest route from Hellifield to Clitheroe is via a rather long route, but on Summer Sundays a direct train takes a route that is shorter than what is deemed the "shortest route"

As we have discussed (most recently on the Hammersmith & City Line after the meal earlier this month!) it could potentially be (at least partially) resolved with a principle such as "the shortest route on the day of travel". I like the idea of it but I believe such such a principle is not easily programmed into booking engines, so is unlikely to be favoured. An argument against is that on such a day, intended routes which are normally valid, may become invalidated if they are not also mapped routes.

 

[furlong]

it could potentially be (at least partially) resolved with a principle such as "the shortest route on the day of travel".

Well I believe that's what the current rules actually amount to already, as follows:

1) It would be absurd for the railway to sell a ticket that cannot be used on any services.

2) The phrase is "the shortest route which can be used by scheduled passenger services". Combining this with (1) we deduce an implicit qualification here of "during the period of validity of the ticket" - otherwise you'd be denied clearly-expressed rights attached to the ticket under 13(a)(ii). For Day tickets we're already there.

3) We have to stretch this a little for tickets of longer validity if you don't want to appeal to symmetry. We also have these statements:

"The period during which a ticket is valid is printed on the ticket or will be made clear to you when you buy your ticket."

We note that the railway expresses this period in units of days e.g. FIVE DAYS or ONE MONTH.

"Restrictions apply to the use of some tickets ... such as the dates, days, and times when you can use them"

I take from these an underlying (and common sense) assumption that other than any such restrictions, you have the freedom to choose the day upon which you travel within the period of validity of a specific ticket and can assert your rights under 13(a)(ii) on that particular day.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I still maintain that a route can be shorter than the shortest route entirely by rail, or a route can be shorter than the shortest route with a regular passenger service.

Fine, but I personally don't find any documentary backing for the consideration of the regularity of a scheduled service.

As for entirely by rail, this relies on the interpretation of the word "trains" in 13(a)(ii) and I side with a broad interpretation based on the contents of the National Rail Timetable. (An alternative literal interpretation could cause problems with buses, for example.)

An argument against is that on such a day, intended routes which are normally valid, may become invalidated if they are not also mapped routes.

But why is it a problem if the shortest route varies from day to day? Other routes on those days - if intended to be permitted - should be permitted explicitly through the maps or easements. We're discussing the right to travel on the 'shortest route' here, not the right to travel on non-shortest routes.

However, as we discussed before, the underlying problem here is that it's not really the right to travel on the 'shortest route by distance' that should have been protected in this way. What proportion of passengers genuinely care about the relative distances of the different routes? Rather, I'd wager that what most passengers would rather have is a right to travel on the shortest route in time a.k.a. the quickest route!

One reason the algorithms used by the online journey planning websites struggle with the routeing guide is that they are seemingly designed primarily to offer passengers quickest routes instead of showing services based on permitted routes (as the paperwork asserts must be done and as we've been promised numerous times over the years yet still don't have).

So why has privatisation still not delivered us simple tickets bearing a right to travel on the quickest route based upon the time at which you happen to begin your journey? Forget smartcards! These are the sort of things I, for one, would expect to see as priorities for passenger-focussed ticketing reform!

 

[yorkie]

Why does it matter? Because the shortest route is, surprisingly, not always a mapped route. I agree they should be mapped, but given ATOC's lack of competence with the maps, I would suggest we need to protect our right to the shortest route, as we can't trust them to retain such routes as permitted otherwise.

Also ATOC disagree with your statement that passengers wish to take the quickest route, claiming that (other than direct trains) passengers wish to take the "shortest route" (e.g. York to Sheffield on a Northern stopper via Pontefract!). But I agree with you; ATOC are misrepresenting the views of passengers in my opinion. I wonder if anything can be done about that? Probably not as the DfT don't care and there is no proper ombudsman.

Bizarrely there are sometimes route restrictions which force passengers to take a longer route than the shortest route, and I can even find examples of cases where there are no possibilities of walks or infrequent services! I wonder if anyone would like to put such journeys to the test and exercise their right to the shortest route? I am unsure how the TOCs would react to that.

 

[IanXC]

Or even examples where there are no tickets valid for the shortest route...

 

[yorkie]

Or even examples where there are no tickets valid for the shortest route...

Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. (Though an argument could be made to say that the shortest route rule trumps the route restriction on the ticket)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How can that possibly be a valid argument when Section A, Page 1, of the Routeing Guide says:

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.

And Section A, page 2, says:

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.

What is the "correct fare" for Bentley (S.Yorks) - Manchester?

Elsewhere (Section F - Routeing Guide in Detail), we have mention of 'shortest route' without the qualifiers found on pages 1 and 2 of Section A. Do we take the Routeing Guide as a whole or just the bits that selectively fit a particular argument?

The fact is there are rules that contradict other rules, especially when you compare the Routeing Guide instrictions to the Routeing Guide in Detail. What do you mean by "take the Routeing Guide as a whole"?

I would also argue that NRCoC 13(a)(ii) applies, and that you do not have to refer to the Routeing Guide when travelling in accordance with 13(a)(ii).

If I were to travel from Exeter to London Terminals via Taunton on a ticket routed via Honiton I would not have paid the correct fare to reflect any routeing indicated by the fares manual, and would not be on a route listed in the Guide that passes through the station shown in the route description. Thus I'm off route and I've invalidated my ticket.

Any argument that being on the shortest route makes the ticket valid, regardless of the routeing printed on it, not only undermines the whole idea of (often cheaper) routes other than Any Permitted, but is likely to see any passenger attempting such justification getting very short shrift indeed. And potentially a criminal record.

For Exeter to London, the shortest route to any terminal appears to be to Vauxhall, followed by Victoria, Waterloo and Paddington. Passengers are not prevented from taking the shortest route to any of these termini.

Passengers may even use the shortest of them all (to Vauxhall via Honiton) on a ticket routed via Taunton.

Exeter - London is not an example of a route where passengers are apparently prevented by taking the shortest route, a much better example would be Bentley to Manchester, where the only routeing options are via Leeds or via Sheffield.

There is no question of a criminal record for using a route Honiton ticket via Taunton, as the correct action is to charge an excess.

And if a criminal record was proposed for someone by-passing Leeds between Wakefield and Huddersfield, it would be ludicrous!

Anyone who wishes to try it could perhaps arrange to be accompanied by two passengers: one with a Wakefield - Huddersfield route: via Not Leeds and the other with a Wakefield - Huddersfield route: via Leeds ticket. The latter ticket being valid, and acceptance of which would, in my opinion, make a mockery of any attempt to reject the Bentley - Manchester ticket.

 

[bnm]

Though an argument could be made to say that the shortest route rule trumps the route restriction on the ticket

How can that possibly be a valid argument when Section A, Page 1, of the Routeing Guide says:

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.

And Section A, page 2, says:

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.

Elsewhere (Section F - Routeing Guide in Detail), we have mention of 'shortest route' without the qualifiers found on pages 1 and 2 of Section A. Do we take the Routeing Guide as a whole or just the bits that selectively fit a particular argument?

If I were to travel from Exeter to London Terminals via Taunton on a ticket routed via Honiton I would not have paid the correct fare to reflect any routeing indicated by the fares manual, and would not be on a route listed in the Guide that passes through the station shown in the route description. Thus I'm off route and I've invalidated my ticket.

Any argument that being on the shortest route makes the ticket valid, regardless of the routeing printed on it, not only undermines the whole idea of (often cheaper) routes other than Any Permitted, but is likely to see any passenger attempting such justification getting very short shrift indeed. And potentially a criminal record.

 

[bnm]

The fact is there are rules that contradict other rules, especially when you compare the Routeing Guide instrictions to the Routeing Guide in Detail. What do you mean by "take the Routeing Guide as a whole"?

...

There is no question of a criminal record for using a route Honiton ticket via Taunton, as the correct action is to charge an excess.

In this case, Section F is not contradicting Section A. An omission is very different to a contradiction. However, if you wish to interpret that omission from section F, of the procedure to follow outlined in Section A, as freedom to travel on a route restricted ticket via the shortest route regardless, then I contend you are likely to face trouble. You've not paid the correct fare and whilst an excess is the appropriate action, if you refuse to pay the excess on the grounds of your flawed argument then yes, you could face prosecution. I think it very dangerous to suggest that it's okay to travel on a route restricted ticket on a shortest route that doesn't pass through the station or stations printed in the route field. If you're saying go ahead, do it, and pay the excess when challenged, then you might as well just buy the other routed fare in the first place.

I would also argue that NRCoC 13(a)(ii) applies, and that you do not have to refer to the Routeing Guide when travelling in accordance with 13(a)(ii).

Section 13 starts with, "You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold..."

On a route restricted ticket there are stations shown on the ticket in addition to origin and destination. So I would argue that a ticket from Bristol to London routed via Warminster/Salisbury means I must travel between Bristol and Warminster and Warminster and Salisbury and Salisbury and London. These are all stations shown on the ticket. Just because the shortest route is via Swindon and Reading doesn't trump the routeing.

I'll concede that Exeter to London via Honiton was a poor choice to back up my reasoning of Section A (which, remember, is the instructions) because that was the shortest route anyway.

Anyone who wishes to try it

Your contention. You try it. Let us know how you get on.

Meanwhile, I'll stick to the routeing shown on my ticket, and not take the shortest route unless it complies with what's shown on said ticket.

Limited examples where a routeing is patently wrong, or not even possible, should be addressed to the TOC responsible for pricing the flow, or to ATOC. I don't think it's right to use them as justification for wholesale disregard of printed routeings where there's a shortest route that doesn't go through the station(s) named on the ticket.

 

[Deerfold]

The shortest route from Hellifield to Clitheroe is via a rather long route, but on Summer Sundays a direct train takes a route that is shorter than what is deemed the "shortest route"

Not just Summer Sundays - in fact on Winter Sundays there are now 2 a day in each direction.

 

[itsjamierawr]

Thanks for the advice! I'll remember this, it's a tricky thing getting your head around this routing, some are obvious but when you get lines that all loop together like the ones running through Canterbury it gets a bit complicated without a clear guide

 

[yorkie]

In this case, Section F is not contradicting Section A. An omission is very different to a contradiction. However, if you wish to interpret that omission from section F, of the procedure to follow outlined in Section A, as freedom to travel on a route restricted ticket via the shortest route regardless, then I contend you are likely to face trouble. You've not paid the correct fare and whilst an excess is the appropriate action, if you refuse to pay the excess on the grounds of your flawed argument then yes, you could face prosecution. I think it very dangerous to suggest that it's okay to travel on a route restricted ticket on a shortest route that doesn't pass through the station or stations printed in the route field. If you're saying go ahead, do it, and pay the excess when challenged, then you might as well just buy the other routed fare in the first place.

OK so what do you suggest is the "correct fare" for a passenger who wishes to travel Bentley (South Yorks) - Wakefield - Huddersfield - Manchester?

Do you really think such a passenger could be "prosecuted" for using a Route: via Leeds ticket on that route?

As for buying the "other routed" fare, the other route is via: Sheffield!

Section 13 starts with, "You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold..."

On a route restricted ticket there are stations shown on the ticket in addition to origin and destination. So I would argue that a ticket from Bristol to London routed via Warminster/Salisbury means I must travel between Bristol and Warminster and Warminster and Salisbury and Salisbury and London. These are all stations shown on the ticket. Just because the shortest route is via Swindon and Reading doesn't trump the routeing.

Passengers are not prevented from travelling via Swindon, and anyone doing so isn't going to be prosecuted either. They will be asked to pay the appropriate excess (half the difference, in the case of returns) including any Railcard discounts where applicable.

Meanwhile, I'll stick to the routeing shown on my ticket, and not take the shortest route unless it complies with what's shown on said ticket.

So are you telling me someone wanting to get between the local stations of Baxenden Bank and Chapeltom (Blythe Bridge and Chinley, respectively) should allow an extra hour for their journeys[1] and do a grand tour a long way round via Derby & Sheffield, and their rights in NRCoC 13(a)(ii) can be disregarded by the Train Companies?

Limited examples where a routeing is patently wrong, or not even possible, should be addressed to the TOC responsible for pricing the flow, or to ATOC. I don't think it's right to use them as justification for wholesale disregard of printed routeings where there's a shortest route that doesn't go through the station(s) named on the ticket.

As I said before, we have the right to use the shortest route, and that right should be defended. There is no way we should allow that right to be withdrawn. If there is a suggestion that we allow that to happen, and then write to TOCs asking them to allow us to use such a route, that is not acceptable to me.

We should be campaigning for more rights - not giving up those limited rights which we do have!

I did say that the shortest route is "not always" a mapped route and that "Bizarrely there are sometimes route restrictions which force passengers to take a longer route than the shortest route" so I am recognising this is not a majority of cases, and am not in any way suggesting "wholesale disregard of printed routeings".

I am arguing what I have said, and nothing more than that.

[1] via shortest route:
BYB 1621
SOT 1633

SOT 1648
SPT 1716

SPT 1735
CLY 1800

via Derby:
BYB 1645
DBY 1726

DBY 1805
SHF 1841

SHF 1914
CLY 1955

 

[greatkingrat]

There is no blanket right to always use the shortest route, whatever ticket you hold. You appear to be picking and choosing the bits of the NRCOC that you like.

While 13 a) ii) says you can use the shortest route, 13 d) i) says that in some cases routes may be restricted to trains passing through a particular location.

So in the example you give, there is no fare for someone wishing to travel Bentley - Manchester via Wakefield. Officially they would need to buy two tickets.

 

[furlong]

13 d) i) says that in some cases routes may be restricted to trains passing through a particular location.

In my opinion, as currently worded, the introduction of 13(d) brings no additional restrictions on the route you are entitled to take beyond those already imposed by 13(a) and 13(b).

The phrasing is not like 13(a) or 13(b) which say "you may travel" and it has no impact on "permitted routes" defined in 13(c). The requirement to pay an excess fare in 13(e) also sees no reason to refer back to it as a separate condition. Rather, 13(d) highlights a matter already covered by the routeing guide, and adds some words to try to clarify some unwritten (but uncontentious) assumptions.