Disputing a route being removed before its actually been removed

[319321]

Does anyone know how I can dispute a route being removed before it is actually removed?

If I do want to dispute a route, but don't trust ATOC, who else could I contact?

 

[maniacmartin]

You can contact Transport Focus

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Does anyone know how I can dispute a route being removed before it is actually removed?

If I do want to dispute a route, but don't trust ATOC, who else could I contact?

If this is a route which you legitimately use for travel to and from your home, then you should be informing 'your' MP (i.e. the Member covering the area served by the station which is local to you and their other constituents), and providing an initial assessment of the impact of the proposed change on their constituents.

If it is a route elsewhere, then it might be worth the effort to find someone who uses that route and who lives within the constituency of an MP many of whose constituents are affected by the proposed change.

If it is an obscure or arcane routing that benefits very few people, then neither of the above will be likely to assist.

 

[319321]

@maniacmartin. Hahahaha, they seem to be colluding with ATOC on this one, or at least not resisting the change.
@DaveNewcastle This may have to be an MP job. I don't know how many other people use the route (in my student days, I used it many times). I am currently writing up a list of reasons about why it shouldn't be removed, and will post to the forum in due course.

 

[455driver]

Has the route been rendered redundant by service improvements on more obvious routes?

Are people using it as a 'fiddle' by stopping short etc to save some money?

 

[319321]

No to both.

It's probable that the route is not used by many people, but thats probably more because they don't know they can use it. I am going to bed soon, but a check of the NFM64 fares that are available at farehistory.info and the NFM22 fares show that fares only ever step down in the direction of travel (apart from one anomalous station, where the single fare is £2 more expensive but the return fare is £2 cheaper).

 

[455driver]

Thanks for the answers, I was just trying to work out why they are removing the route.

 

[319321]

Because its inconvient for them. Basically, one route is with one TOC and the other route is with the same TOC and then another TOC. For some reason, ORCATS only gives money to the first TOC who is also the fare setter.

The second TOC is now trying to get the first TOC to add a routing restriction to the ANY PERMITTED fare so that you can only travel the first route with the first TOC.

 

[455driver]

So its basically TOC 2 throwing it's teddy out, in that case good luck with your campaign.

 

[Hadders]

Is this to do with your journey between Rochford and Upminster that you posted about earlier in the week?

 

[island]

Because its inconvient for them. Basically, one route is with one TOC and the other route is with the same TOC and then another TOC. For some reason, ORCATS only gives money to the first TOC who is also the fare setter.

The second TOC is now trying to get the first TOC to add a routing restriction to the ANY PERMITTED fare so that you can only travel the first route with the first TOC.

This is a very grey area. It isn't the removal of a permitted route, but messing around ticket restrictions. Is it a protected fare?

 

[319321]

It would basically be all the fares from one station to another. The second station is also a Travelcard boundary station, so I would assume Travelcards would be affected also (I was using a Travelcard when I was prevented from travelling by a ticket inspector from the second TOC). The full details of my correspondence with the second TOC, Transport Focus and their representations on my behalf can be seen in my post here

@Hadders Yes.

 

[Hadders]

@Hadders Yes.

Then I think that rather than talking in general terms you would get far more assistance if you mentioned the stations involved.

Your query involves the permitted routes between Rochford and Upminster and specifically whether or not it is valid via Southend Central using the walking interchange between Southend Victoria and Southend Central. The ticket you hold is a Rochford - London Zones 1-6 Travelcard routed Any Permitted.

 

[Starmill]

As far as I can see it's a case of the TOC wants to preserve the money it is getting.

They won't get that from another TOC because there's no incentive for them to share it fairly.

So the passenger suffers because of a revenue allocation dispute.

One of the many benefits of privatisation!

 

[jon0844]

(slightly off topic) Where is RJ these days? Did he finally get detained at a gateline and never allowed out?

 

[thedbdiboy]

Just as a reminder, a route is an intrinsic permission of a 'flow'; that is, and origin-destination pair. The only formal regulation of this is in connection with Lead Operator set Inter-available flows as defined in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, and also of the regulated flows in a TOCs Fares Basket (the latter which form part of their Franchise Agreement with the DfT).

Any route changes to these prices are the responsibility of the the Lead Operator TOC. ATOC's only role is in connection with facilitating the wishes of these TOCs - they cannot arbitrate or decide routeing independently of the Lead Operator.

Transport Focus and the DfT are the only other parties to this process, and there is no 'public' consultation in routeing. Indeed, I am not aware of any other transport operation anywhere in the world where the routeing is regulated in the way that it is on the GB rail network.

 

[arabianights]

It does seem remarkably unfair. While I've posted negatively elsewhere about how OP is going about his complaint, a simple look at the map should make it clear to any reasonable person that his route "makes sense"* and the fact that the TOCs can effectively decide that it's an unreasonable route (which in laymans' terms is what they are doing) and that they can do this without any right to review is rather unjust.

Supplementary thoughts as an area for the OP to explore: There must have been times when passengers were recommended to travel this way (or say Basildon to Romford) in the past due to engineering works. Might be worth looking at what the arrangements C2C made for these and whether they implicitly or explicitly recognised this routing then.

*which makes you wonder why others don't use it to the extent it is baffling so many "experts"

 

[thedbdiboy]

It does seem remarkably unfair. While I've posted negatively elsewhere about how OP is going about his complaint, a simple look at the map should make it clear to any reasonable person that his route "makes sense"* and the fact that the TOCs can effectively decide that it's an unreasonable route (which in laymans' terms is what they are doing) and that they can do this without any right to review is rather unjust.

Supplementary thoughts as an area for the OP to explore: There must have been times when passengers were recommended to travel this way (or say Basildon to Romford) in the past due to engineering works. Might be worth looking at what the arrangements C2C made for these and whether they implicitly or explicitly recognised this routing then.

*which makes you wonder why others don't use it to the extent it is baffling so many "experts"

In BR days, they could summarily decide what routes could be used. The term then was 'Any Reasonable', and BR was the sole arbiter of what 'reasonable' was - there was no objective measurement, so the argument that routes are somehow inalienable rights that have been handed down between the generations is a spurious one.

It was only the haste of privatisation and the lack of time to think through a proper solution that led to 'Any Reasonable' being written up as 'Any Permitted' in 1995 with a routeing guide that was incomplete, inconsistent and riddled with errors. For the first few years the sheer incomprehensibility of the guide meant that it was largely ignored and routeing was in practice judged on the basis of 'reasonableness'. Only when comprehensive computerised journey planning became commonplace did the full inadequacy of the (then) rules become apparent. What has happened since is the equivalent of a building found to have been built on fundamentally unsound ground, where lots of expensive remedial work has been undertaken to try to make it fit for purpose.

Like any other service, it ought to be up to an operator when they offer a service to set the fare and inform customers of the terms and conditions (including routes). If the fare is regulated, then there should be a legitimate right of challenge should those rights be altered without due process.

Otherwise, if the terms (including the route allowed) are misleading or manifestly unfair then consumer law can form the basis of a challenge, and there need be no 'special' rules for the railway.

 

[35B]

In BR days, they could summarily decide what routes could be used. The term then was 'Any Reasonable', and BR was the sole arbiter of what 'reasonable' was - there was no objective measurement, so the argument that routes are somehow inalienable rights that have been handed down between the generations is a spurious one.

It was only the haste of privatisation and the lack of time to think through a proper solution that led to 'Any Reasonable' being written up as 'Any Permitted' in 1995 with a routeing guide that was incomplete, inconsistent and riddled with errors. For the first few years the sheer incomprehensibility of the guide meant that it was largely ignored and routeing was in practice judged on the basis of 'reasonableness'. Only when comprehensive computerised journey planning became commonplace did the full inadequacy of the (then) rules become apparent. What has happened since is the equivalent of a building found to have been built on fundamentally unsound ground, where lots of expensive remedial work has been undertaken to try to make it fit for purpose.

Like any other service, it ought to be up to an operator when they offer a service to set the fare and inform customers of the terms and conditions (including routes). If the fare is regulated, then there should be a legitimate right of challenge should those rights be altered without due process.

Otherwise, if the terms (including the route allowed) are misleading or manifestly unfair then consumer law can form the basis of a challenge, and there need be no 'special' rules for the railway.

But in BR days, there were definitions of "reasonable", definitions that allowed me to make such journeys as Paddington - Oxford - Stoke (through train), Paddington - Evesham - Birmingham New Street, or King's Cross - Glasgow - Rogart.

 

[clagmonster]

In BR days, they could summarily decide what routes could be used. The term then was 'Any Reasonable', and BR was the sole arbiter of what 'reasonable' was - there was no objective measurement, so the argument that routes are somehow inalienable rights that have been handed down between the generations is a spurious one.

Surely it could have come down to a court of law should a passenger have been travelling on a route BR deemed unreasonable and either a byelaw or RoRA act prosecution attempted. I'm not sure whether that ever happened in practice.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Surely it could have come down to a court of law should a passenger have been travelling on a route BR deemed unreasonable and either a byelaw or RoRA act prosecution attempted. I'm not sure whether that ever happened in practice.

I'm not aware of any in the Appeal Court, Queens Bench Division or Chancery Division. A contested fare in front of the Magistrates is unlikely to have been recorded.

I've gained the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the concept of 'routes' as an element in a dispute is relatively recent, and is more often talked about by 'enthusiasts', consumer 'action groups' and 'lovers of complexity' than is actually challenged, negotiated or debated in any productive sense.

 

[maniacmartin]

I've gained the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the concept of 'routes' as an element in a dispute is relatively recent, and is more often talked about by 'enthusiasts', consumer 'action groups' and 'lovers of complexity' than is actually challenged, negotiated or debated in any productive sense.

Almost everything has a group of people who are passionate about it, but we can't all be interesting and fighting to protect our rights in every area of business as it takes too much time and energy.

I would suggest that the majority of people don't disptue routes because they dont understand them, and have better things to do with their time than learn the Routeing Guide. However, I don't think that is a good justification for having a dig at those of us who are interested.

The reason our efforts aren't very productive is that TOCs ignore the rules and complaints; the regulators ignore the rules when it suits them and ignore complaints, and the passenger bodies don't understand the rules. Please share the secret as to how we can be more productive as I'm all ears (and if you are going to refer to any law or regulation, I refer you to the previous point, that the regulators ignore those rules).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I certainly was not "having a dig" at anyone, and apologise if that is the impression I made. I had meant to express as neutral a view as possible, in the hope that its very neutrality might be helpful. (i.e. Seeing an issue as it might be perceived by those it is to be discussed with). I'm sorry for any unkindness taken from my remark.

As for suggestions, I can only propose a meeting with an MP who might be willing to take up a matter which adversely affects their constituents. Those lucky enough to live in the constituency of the Minister or Shadow Minister with responsibilities for Transport might have a more direct channel towards an outcome, but none of that is certain.