Dunbar to Thurso easement

[Sealink]

I was just randomly looking at easements affecting the Far North Line.
Some make perfect sense, like: journeys to Wick may double back between Thurso and Georgemas Junction in either direction.
Another is: customers travelling from Thurso to Wick may not travel via Scotscalder.

The third, that baffles me is:

Customers travelling from Dunbar to Thurso may travel via Edinburgh.

There isn't another way of doing this is there?

 

[MrJeeves]

The third, that baffles me is:

Customers travelling from Dunbar to Thurso may travel via Edinburgh.

There isn't another way of doing this is there?

The rest of the easement text explains the reason:

Customers travelling from Dunbar to Thurso may travel via Edinburgh. This routeing point easement will overcome NFM64 fares checks, and apply in both directions.

The state of the data which journey planners use to calculate valid origin and destination routeing points means that no routeing point is considered appropriate for the Dunbar end of the journey.

This is because, from September 1996 fares data (which is used by journey planners for permitted route calculation), the fare from Edinburgh to Thurso was higher than the fare from Dunbar to Thurso (and they still are today), so Edinburgh Group cannot be considered an appropriate routeing point for the journey.

Without this easement, only the shortest route by rail (or within 3 miles) would be valid, which would remove the ability to travel via Falkirk and Stirling, which is ordinarily a "mapped route" from Edinburgh Group to Dingwall (the routeing point associated with Thurso).

The wording of the easement would be clearer if amended to be more similar to some of the other NFM64-related routeing point easements.

 

[Haywain]

The third, that baffles me is:

Customers travelling from Dunbar to Thurso may travel via Edinburgh.

There isn't another way of doing this is there?

Not that I'm aware of but it might have been necessary because of a fares anomaly.

 

[Sealink]

Thank you both for the replies. Rail fares really are a tangled, but fascinating, web!

 

[Nottingham59]

the fare from Edinburgh to Thurso was higher than the fare from Dunbar to Thurso (and they still are today),

So this easment is highlighting a fare anomaly that anyone going from Edinburgh to Thurso could exploit?

The wording of the easement would be clearer if amended to be more similar to some of the other NFM64-related routeing point easements.

Does this mean that each of those other NFM64-related routing points easements are each highlighting a similar exploitable fare anomaly?

 

[Haywain]

So this easment is highlighting a fare anomaly that anyone going from Edinburgh to Thurso could exploit?

Yes, and they can save 80p on an undiscounted Off Peak Return.

 

[walkingsophie]

Does this mean that each of those other NFM64-related routing points easements are each highlighting a similar exploitable fare anomaly?

They are highlighting fare anomalies in 1996, not necessarily the present day.

 

[Sealink]

They are highlighting fare anomalies in 1996, not necessarily the present day.

Certain fares from Edinburgh are higher than from Dunbar.

EDINBURGH - THURSO Anytime Return (SOR) £125.10
DUNBAR - THURSO Anythime Return (SOR) £102.70

 

[Gaelan]

Certain fares from Edinburgh are higher than from Dunbar.

EDINBURGH - THURSO Anytime Return (SOR) £125.10
DUNBAR - THURSO Anythime Return (SOR) £102.70

You're comparing the Any Permitted fare to the via Aviemore fare (which is the only one available from Dunbar, for some reason). Edinburgh to Thurso via Aviemore is £103.50, so still an anomaly but hardly one to get excited about.

(The "any permitted" option additionally allows Edinburgh-Aberdeen-Inverness rather than the Highland Main Line. I struggle a bit to see why it justifies a £25 premium over the HML, as it's usually slower anyway!)