Eccentric but traceable routes

[Eagle]

Looking at the Routeing Guide, it only says that I am permitted to travel on permitted maps via any route I can trace without doubling back. But the thing is, this seems to allow the following:

Coventry to London is valid on map CS. I can trace Coventry–Nuneaton–Leicester–Derby–Tamworth–Birmingham–Leamington–Banbury and thence to Marylebone or Paddington via the usual routes. That route requires three reversals but at no point does it double back on itself, and it is entirely using lines on map CS; ergo, it's valid.

Surely that can't be right? Are patently ridiculous routes like this allowed? (This is a relatively simple example; I can come up with worse for more complex journeys.)

 

[bnm]

You forgot Nottingham and Lichfield. You can do Coventry-Nuneaton-Leicester-Nottingham-Derby-Tamworth-Lichfield-Birmingham-Banbury and onward to Marylebone or Paddington via Reading!

 

[wintonian]

Ah yes noticed this one a few weeks ago and I seem to remember not being sure over its validity.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

There are quite a few of them, but the way the RG works, it is enevitable.

 

[Eagle]

You forgot Nottingham and Lichfield.

Can't do Nottingham as it doubles back through Attenborough and Beeston. But both of those are part of the Nottingham routeing group anyway (indicated by the square) so yes, I can change at Attenborough between Leicester and Derby.

This is getting ridiculous; I'm using over half of the unnecessarily many route miles just to get between Coventry and Leamington...
__________________________
EDIT: Just noticed something else. Although this long route starts off with me going to Nuneaton, what I am not allowed to do is take the Euston train from there (i.e. Coventry–Nuneaton–Rugby–London is forbidden, by map TV), even though I'd say this route was highly reasonable, if a little unlikely.

 

[SickyNicky]

Can't do Nottingham as it doubles back through Attenborough and Beeston. But both of those are part of the Nottingham routeing group anyway (indicated by the square) so yes, I can change at Attenborough between Leicester and Derby.

My understanding is that you can double back between stations in a routeing group as long as it is for interchange purposes (which this would be). That would make Nottingham permitted for this journey.

 

[John @ home]

Can't do Nottingham as it doubles back through Attenborough and Beeston. But both of those are part of the Nottingham routeing group anyway (indicated by the square) so yes, I can change at Attenborough between Leicester and Derby.

The National Routeing Guide says you can go via Nottingham precisely because Attenborough, Beeston and Nottingham are members of Nottingham Group.

GROUP STATIONS
Some stations are grouped together to improve interchange between trains by offering customers access to a wider choice of train services and station facilities. A customer may travel via any station in such a group, including doubling back, provided that the group is on one of the permitted routes between their origin and destination stations. This extended availability is for interchange purposes only and does not apply where the origin or destination stations are part of a group.

 

[SS4]

Is it really wise to post these where ATOC can see them and thus remove them

 

[yorkie]

Is it really wise to post these where ATOC can see them and thus remove them

Good point.

While the really ludicrous ones are so ridiculous I wouldn't advise trying them, if ATOC do remove them, it often results in the removal of slightly-daft routes that actually are useable.

For example, a ticket between two stations in the Midlands is valid via York. Utterly bonkers, and I wouldn't try it. But you could more realistically use it to travel via a long route that isn't so daft.

ATOC have done a lot of work to remove these, but that is clearly ongoing and not complete.

The problems are most likely to occur when they use maps that include circles.

Someone from ATOC will see this topic title and possibly think "great! This is going to be a list of routes we can remove!"

 

[tony_mac]

maybe we should post a load of nonsense and see what happens...

perhaps the next lot of easements will have something really stupid like

Customers travelling from Chathill to Durham may not travel via Darlington

oh, wait.....

 

[sheff1]

This links to the point I made on the Routeing Guide thread.

Travelling from Coventry to London via Leicester, Nottingham, Derby etc would not be thought reasonable by anyone aware of the geography of the area but is allowed in the RG.

On the other hand, I suggest Coventry to London via Nuneaton and Rugby is perfectly reasonable (a shorter distance than going via Oxford & Reading) but this is not allowed in the RG.

perhaps the next lot of easements will have something really stupid like ......

... passengers travelling from Appleby to Penrith may travel via Carlisle

 

[Eagle]

Okay, so if the next edition of the RG contains a negative easement that says "Passengers travelling between Coventry and London, route ANY PERMITTED, may not arse around in the East Midlands for four hours", you can all blame me. Sorry

 

[bnm]

Okay, so if the next edition of the RG contains a negative easement that says "Passengers travelling between Coventry and London, route ANY PERMITTED, may not arse around in the East Midlands for four hours", you can all blame me. Sorry

Now that, I would like to see in the easements list!