National Routeing Guide update

[infobleep]

What do you think should be done with "Negative map easements for INV-G01, covering WCML & ECML. Entered by Fujitsu under negative map easements work for RSP." then?

Perhaps they could explain in layman's terms what it means or include a note stating some of the easements only apply to the electronic routing guide with a star against those which do. They could also state you do not have access to this.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[PermitToTravel]

That one doesn't make sense in the context of the eNRG either, it's a mistake as a result of the easement list being automatically generated.

 

[infobleep]

Perhaps they need a note explaining what to so when mistakes occur. Who to contact and so on.

As a work colleague said to me cynically, as long as they are meeting their targets. [That is internal company employee targets for work being compketed.]

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[47421]

In relation to easement 700455 disallowing certain journeys via Stansted Airport. Was this routing previously permitted by the 3 mile rule? Looking at table 22 in the timetable, it appears not. The TT says Stansted Mountfitchet to Elsenham direct is 1.75m, and via the Airport it is 8.25m. That 8.25 number seems as if it might be too high. Has someone got access to another mileage source to check please? Thanks.

Separately, could someone remind me of the consultation that ATOC are required to undertake before new easements are introduced. Are all changes subject to the consultation requirement or are there exceptions? Again, thanks in advance.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The TT says Stansted Mountfitchet to Elsenham direct is 1.75m, and via the Airport it is 8.25m. That 8.25 number seems as if it might be too high. Has someone got access to another mileage source to check please? Thanks..

Sounds feasible to me...That's a long old tunnel! Anyway, checking the Sectional Appendage gives the following:

• Stansted Mountfitchet is at 33 miles 28 chains
• Stansted South Junction is at 33 miles 54 chains
• Stansted East Junction is at 34 miles 26 chains
• Cambridge Chord (Stansted East Jn - Stansted North Jn) is 49 chains
• Stansted Airport is at 36 miles 67 chains
• Stansted North Junction is at 34 miles 30 chains
• Elsenham is at 35 miles 45 chains

This gives us:

• Stansted Mountfitchet - Elsenham (Direct) is 2 miles 17 chains
• Stansted Mountfitchet - Stansted Airport is 3 miles 39 chains
• Stansted Airport - Stansted East Junction is 2 miles 41 chains
• Cambridge Chord is 49 chains
• Stansted North Junction - Elsenham is 1 mile 15 chains

Thus Stansted Mountfitchet - Stansted Airport - Elsenham is 7 miles 64 chains, making it 5 miles 47 chains longer than the direct route, giving an error margin of around 1/2 a mile in the eNRT due to rounding.

Having said that, I can't remember whether Cambridge - Stansted - London was a reasonable route at privatisation or not. If it was, there'd be grounds for invocation of the "Disputed Routeing" procedure...

 

[island]

The shortest route is - routes within 3 miles thereof is debateable.

We had a thread a while back where a passenger was using a Slade Green to Denmark Hill season to travel from Dartford. After getting and appealing a PF, Southeastern reluctantly agreed that the ticket was in fact valid via Dartford.

That's a mapped route though, whether or not it may qualify under the 3-mile rule.

 

[181]

Having said that, I can't remember whether Cambridge - Stansted - London was a reasonable route at privatisation or not. If it was, there'd be grounds for invocation of the "Disputed Routeing" procedure...

I'm not an expert on the Routeing Guide, but it appears to be a permitted route on map WA in the original printed edition from 1997, and it still appeared to be permitted when I checked the online version prior to making (partial) use of the route in January 2013.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I wouldn't take that as evidence of anything, map WA also allowed Finsbury Park to London via Stansted Airport (and Cambridge)

 

[infobleep]

What happened to map WA?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[OwlMan]

Another edition of the NRG has appeared on the ATOC website dated 1 May.

 

[Hadders]

Surely it would be best if amendments to the NRG were only allowed to be published at specific times of the year.

For example in January, May and September coinciding with fare revisions
or in May and December in line with timetable changes.

 

[All Line Rover]

Surely it would be best if amendments to the NRG were only allowed to be published at specific times of the year.

For example in January, May and September coinciding with fare revisions
or in May and December in line with timetable changes.

Good point. I'll pursue this one.

 

[kieron]

Surely it would be best if amendments to the NRG were only allowed to be published at specific times of the year.

Interesting suggestion. Who do you feel would benefit? And how?

The routeing guide includes temporary changes to accommodate engineering work (and they're sometimes even added before the dates in the easement have passed). Being able to make changes like this to the software version as the need arises is a good thing.

And if someone asks a TOC to change something and they agree, I don't think a 4 month delay would make them feel better.

Incidentally, I've had a look at the changes in the new version.

The list of associated routeing points hasn't changed.
No maps have been added or removed.

Map changes:

MN, MT and NR have had a link added between Cheadle Hulme and Wilmslow.
(so, say, Stockport-Bolton is now shown via Wilmslow)

GL has had one from Sleaford to Grantham added.
(which means Leeds-Sleaford is now on a map via Grantham)

Permitted route changes:

Swinton-Wakefield is no longer valid on SY.
(so the mapped route via Meadowhall and Barnsley has gone)

Barnsley-London is valid on PR
(giving mapped MML routes)

Leamington-Watford Junction is valid on SM+EN
(so some routes via Rugby are mapped, although I don't know what this does for the validity of a ticket, given that tickets between the stations themselves are all via LONDON or COVENTRY)

Paisley Gilmour Street-Worcester is valid on GD+HY
(allowing lots of routes via Newcastle and Sheffield)

Leeds-Sleaford is valid on GL+KS
(which duplicates the changes to GL)

Scarborough/Newcastle/Northallerton/York to Wrexham are all valid on VN+ML.
(which add various routes via Liverpool)

Portsmouth-Southampton is valid on CW+XR
(although I don't think there are actually any valid routes on that map combination)

Note on mapped routes:

Almost all of the map kml files which have a line from (say) Watford Junction to Bletchley also have one from Bletchley to Watford Junction. There are a few exceptions to this rule. I've ignored these above, though, as there's no way to identify them through ATOC's map interface, and I've taken this to mean that you shouldn't pay attention to them.

Easements:

38 easements have been removed (but none changed or added), and I've attached the list. These include ones such as:

700039 test

and

700288 test

so I think there has been a clean up, whatever else they've done.

 

[Hadders]

The current position is that changes to the routeing guide are published 'under cover of darkness' with absolutely no advance notice to passengers. IIRC there have been three changes in the last 6 months alone, with no publicity whatsoever. I really don't think this is acceptable.

There is no way this would be allowed to happen with changes to timetables or fares, yet it is allowed for the routeing guide.

As far engineering works are concerned I believe this is a red herring. This type of work is usually planned months (and often years) in advance so changes to the routeing guide could be accommodated.

In any case temporary arrangements could be made to accommodate engineering as this type of work is planned months and years ahead (as it the case this weekend with the Watford blockade). Although given events on Chiltern yesterday (see elsewhere on this forum) there is no guarantee that perfectly valid tickets would be accepted anyway.

 

[All Line Rover]

I've no problem with easements being added periodically to permit additional routes during engineering works. However, removing permitted routes without notice, opening up passengers to the risk of criminal prosecution, is unacceptable.

 

[OwlMan]

According to the TSA changes can only take effect immediately after a Fares Setting Round starts.

10-6 CHANGING THE PERMITTED ROUTES
(1) Agreement to make a change
The Routeing Guide may, with the consent of the Authority, be altered from time to time by
a resolution of the Ticketing and Settlement Scheme Council, passed by a 75 per cent.
majority. Before giving his consent, the Authority will consult with any relevant RPC(s).
(2) Requirement to notify the RSP
(a) If such a resolution is passed the Operators must ensure that its terms are
notified to the RSP as soon as reasonably practicable after the consent of the
Authority has been obtained, in the format and in accordance with the procedure
specified by the RSP from time to time.
(b) The alteration will take effect immediately after the first Fares Setting
Round to start after the RSP receives this notification has been completed.
(3) Publication by the RSP
Following the receipt of the notification referred to in sub-Clause (2) above, the RSP will
amend the Routeing Guide accordingly (or the part of it which is subject to the amendment)
and distribute it in accordance with Clause 4-59 above.

Note that "Authority refers to the DfT
RPC(s)refers to Passenger Focus and/or London travelwatch

 

[infobleep]

I see easement 058 has been removed. That allowed people travelling via London to double back between Clapham Junction and Waterloo. I was never certain what situations it could be used.

Given it has been there for a long time, could it catch people out who use it. Does anyone use it? How does it affect the booking engines now it's gone.

I wonder who decided it should go. South West Trains?

Interestingly the easement allowing travel from Bracknell via Reading to travel via Wokingham has gond. Good job they didn't change it into a negative easement as that is the most obvious route, without going into London and out via Paddington. I'm sure it's the easement removed is longer required by the booking system, hence it's removal.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[PermitToTravel]

Why not do this like the timetable? Permanently changes at fixed dates, temporary changes whenever. Some sort of safeguard to prevent TOCs from abusing temporary changes.

oops, didn't realise there was an eighth page!

 

[Muzer]

Or allow changes that would restrict routes (and are therefore more important for pax to know about to avoid having to pay more than expected) allowed only to happen at given times, but changes that would allow more routes (which would encompass pretty much all engineering work easements) can be done at any time.

 

[kieron]

According to the TSA changes can only take effect immediately after a Fares Setting Round starts.

As I read it, they come into effect after the end of the Fares Setting Round, rather than when it starts. It would certainly be interesting to know what ATOC's position on that part of the TSA is.

Incidentally, are there any restrictions on how NRE can be altered? It doesn't use an exact copy of the public routeing guide, so I worry that restricting when they can publish new versions could lead to this becoming less exact over the course of the year.

I don't particularly want them to be held back in rectifying mistakes made last September (such as the loss of the Newcastle/York routes via Liverpool), but I realise this is only a temporary thing.

 

[FenMan]

Certainly, some cleaning up has been done.

The Guildford - Hastings routeing via the North Downs Line and Lewes has been restored. My original post

Unfortunately the cleaning up hasn't yet got to the issues in this post.
Fingers' crossed they will be addressed before too long. The removal of the Farnborough Stations Group has created quite a few routeing problems for passengers from Farnborough North and Blackwater. However routeings from the adjacent stations, North Camp and Sandhurst, are all shown correctly i.e. journeys to points beyond London are valid via Guildford or Reading, so I wouldn't expect any issues with on-train staff or ticket barriers in practice.

 

[splashsquelch]

I see easement 058 has been removed. That allowed people travelling via London to double back between Clapham Junction and Waterloo. I was never certain what situations it could be used.

Given it has been there for a long time, could it catch people out who use it. Does anyone use it? How does it affect the booking engines now it's gone.

I wonder who decided it should go. South West Trains?

Interestingly the easement allowing travel from Bracknell via Reading to travel via Wokingham has gond. Good job they didn't change it into a negative easement as that is the most obvious route, without going into London and out via Paddington. I'm sure it's the easement removed is longer required by the booking system, hence it's removal.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I am not a fares expert, but I do regularly commute along the South West Mainline from/to Clapham Junction. There are fares routed 'NOT VIA LONDON' and 'VIA LONDON' to e.g. Basingstoke (and others). Obviously 'NOT VIA LONDON' is a bit cheaper. So in the case of heading back to civilisation BSK -> CLJ, on a 'VIA LONDON' ticket, perhaps the easement was to specifically remove the general rule prohibiting double-backs between CLJ and WAT, allowing one to take simply the next Waterloo service from BSK rather than waiting for a service that calls at CLJ. In practice this is almost useless because it takes too long to get to and from Waterloo. So maybe the removal is because the mere existence of, for example, a BSK->CLJ 'VIA LONDON' fare means that the double-back must be allowed, or the fare itself would be useless. That is to say, maybe the easement was never having any easing effect?

I suppose the question as to who the easement was useful to probably has the same answer as a "who is the VIA LONDON fare useful to?" question, considering it does not include the Underground to get to Victoria.

 

[Be3G]

A group of friends of mine used a VIA LONDON ticket once to meet me at Waterloo in order to 1. have a better chance of us being able to sit together, and 2. catch a train that doesn't call at CLJ. It was only a couple of quid more than the non-London ticket so it seemed worth it.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Easement 700495 - Waltham cross and Theobalds Grove.

So I am interested in discovering the process they have gone through to justify this addition. I also interested in clarifying their meaning of "always" in the three mile rule.

Also the validity of my current ticket.

Is this a FOI job to the DFT and what questions would you recommend?

 

[MichaelAMW]

I am not a fares expert, but I do regularly commute along the South West Mainline from/to Clapham Junction. There are fares routed 'NOT VIA LONDON' and 'VIA LONDON' to e.g. Basingstoke (and others). Obviously 'NOT VIA LONDON' is a bit cheaper. So in the case of heading back to civilisation BSK -> CLJ, on a 'VIA LONDON' ticket, perhaps the easement was to specifically remove the general rule prohibiting double-backs between CLJ and WAT, allowing one to take simply the next Waterloo service from BSK rather than waiting for a service that calls at CLJ. In practice this is almost useless because it takes too long to get to and from Waterloo. So maybe the removal is because the mere existence of, for example, a BSK->CLJ 'VIA LONDON' fare means that the double-back must be allowed, or the fare itself would be useless. That is to say, maybe the easement was never having any easing effect?

I suppose the question as to who the easement was useful to probably has the same answer as a "who is the VIA LONDON fare useful to?" question, considering it does not include the Underground to get to Victoria.

I would add that I think it was for via London fares more generally, in the cases where the two legs both go through Clapham Junction. E.g. There are fares from Basingstoke to Gatwick Airport Route + Any Permitted. One way is to go up to Waterloo then get the tube to Victoria and then a train to Gatwick. However, since anything to London via Clapham Junction is available to Waterloo or Victoria, regardless of whether you have come up the southwestern or southcentral lines, this easment and/or the corresponding one for doubling back between Victoria and Clapham mean you can avoid having to get the tube when it's easier to stay on the train, and thus either go Basingstoke - Waterloo - Clapham - Gatwick or Basingstoke - Clapham - Victoria - Gatwick. If both your trains call as Clapham then you might as well call there but there are trains from Basingstoke that don't and, of course, there's a Victoria - Gatwick every 15 mins that doesn't.

 

[John @ home]

I am interested in discovering the process they have gone through to justify this addition.

Almost certainly, none.

I also interested in clarifying their meaning of "always" in the three mile rule.

I am not aware of any relevant case law in this respect. Thus I would expect that "always" would take its usual meaning in the English language.

Also the validity of my current ticket.

I think it would be better for you if that were discussed privately.

 

[OwlMan]

Dingwall - Nottingham
Inverness - Nottingham
Nottingham - Dingwall
Nottingham - Inverness

The above 4 routes appear to be completely missing from section C :roll:.

 

[infobleep]

Dingwall - Nottingham
Inverness - Nottingham
Nottingham - Dingwall
Nottingham - Inverness

The above 4 routes appear to be completely missing from section C :roll:.

How does that affect the user's travelling?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[VauxhallandI]

Easement 700495 - Waltham cross and Theobalds Grove.

So I am interested in discovering the process they have gone through to justify this addition. I also interested in clarifying their meaning of "always" in the three mile rule.

Also the validity of my current ticket.

Is this a FOI job to the DFT and what questions would you recommend?

My season ticket is up in September so I am keen to get my info straight in order to make the correct decision on my renewal.

Should I contact the DFT?

 

[VauxhallandI]

I have received a reply from the DfT on the Theo question.

I have just used the two relevant pages from the response, two pics.

It really doesn't tell me anything