National Routeing Guide update

[yorkie]

Insofar as the example of Birmingham to Frodsham is concerned, I never encountered any issues in this regard (the niceties of the Routeing Guide notwithstanding).

Do you mean no trouble buying the ticket with an itinerary or no trouble simply using that route in practice? It's the former that was a problem, but the latter of course would be no trouble at all.

 

[Cantab26]

Do you mean no trouble buying the ticket with an itinerary or no trouble simply using that route in practice? It's the former that was a problem, but the latter of course would be no trouble at all.

Both

 

[kieron]

The following changes to the routeing guide were published on Thursday.

Changes from 24 Jun 2022 (390) to 30 Jun 2022 (391).

Easement changes:
contain SSD CBG HIT SVG HFN AAP FPK KGX

Added:
701005 (Map) Due to engineering works, on the 13/14, 20/21 and 29 August 2022, customers travelling from Stansted Airport to central London or via central London may travel to London Kings Cross via Cambridge and Hitchin. This map easement applies in both directions

701006 (Routeing Point) Due to engineering works, on the 13/14, 20/21 and 29 August 2022, customers travelling from Elsenham (Essex), Newport (Essex), Audley End, Great Chesterford, Whittlesford Parkway and Shelford (Cambs) to central London or via central London may travel to London Kings Cross via Cambridge and Hitchin. This routeing point easement applies in both directions​

The closure seems to be between Harlow Town and Waltham Cross. Web sites use a more generous version of 701005, so you can obtain an itinerary (say) from Stansted Mountfitchet to London via Cambridge.

Changed (added sections in red, removed ones in green):
701003 (Local) Customers travelling to Smithy Bridge or Littleborough, may not not doubleback from Rochdale. This negative local easement applies in both directions.​

This removes the double negative from the description.

701004 (Map) (Local) During engineering works on the 16 and 17 August 2022, tickets from Worcestershire Parkway to Swindon and beyond may travel via Cheltenham, Gloucester and Bristol Parkway. priced on (00807) VIA STROUD, (00808) READING STROUD INCLUDING LONDON, (00803) EVESHAM/STROUD, (00827) LONDON STROUD/EVESHAM, (00418) AP KEMBLE/SLOUGH and (00417 AP KEMBLE NOT LONDON will be valid via Yate, Cam & Dursley and Bristol Parkway for journeys to and beyond Swindon.. This map easement applies in both directions​

This has changed a bit. It's now a "local" easement which only affects the section between the first and last routeing points in the route. It does mean that (according to nre.co.uk) a Worcestershire Parkway-Swindon "via Stroud" ticket is valid via Bristol

Incidentally, none of the "Kemble" fare routes exist for journeys to or from Worcestershire Parkway, only the "Stroud" ones.

Route changes:

Changed (added sections in red, removed ones in green):

NOT HS1/LONDON (00902) (416 records)
must not go via London Blackfriars (BFR), London Charing Cross (CHX), London Cannon Street (CST), London Fenchurch Street (FST), London Bridge (LBG), London Liverpool Street (LST), Stratford International (SFA), London St.Pancras (STP), London Victoria (VIC), London Waterloo (East) (WAE), London Waterloo (WAT) or Farringdon (ZFD)
must include tube​

This prevents use of the ticket from some extra London terminals.

The following changes to the routeing guide were published yesterday.

Changes from 30 Jun 2022 (391) to 01 Jul 2022 (392).

Easement changes:

Removed:
701000 (Circuitous Route) Customers on journeys from or via Ash Vale that also include travel via Farnborough Main may not travel via Woking. This circuitous route easement applies in both directions.​

This easement was in place for 2 1/2 weeks.

Added:
701007 (Circuitous Route) Customers travelling to or via Leamington Spa with tickets priced on (00211) VIA COVENTRY may not travel via Tyseley. This circuitous route easement applies in both directions​

The version web sites use restrict the scope of this easement to journeys which go via Coventry (as "via Coventry" tickets are also valid via Dorridge). Easement 700121 already prevented a "via Coventry" Leamington-Northampton ticket from being used through both, but this extends it to other tickets such as Mortimer-Northampton.

 

[miklcct]

Easement changes:

Removed:
701000 (Circuitous Route) Customers on journeys from or via Ash Vale that also include travel via Farnborough Main may not travel via Woking. This circuitous route easement applies in both directions.This easement was in place for 2 1/2 weeks.

Thanks God maybe the train company has found out that this easement prevented useful journeys to be made.

 

[FenMan]

Easement changes:​

​

Removed:​

701000 (Circuitous Route) Customers on journeys from or via Ash Vale that also include travel via Farnborough Main may not travel via Woking. This circuitous route easement applies in both directions.​

This easement was in place for 2 1/2 weeks.

​

This is welcome news. As it happens, yesterday I met up with a friend who often travels from Aldershot to Southampton and told him about the new restriction. He was not happy (to say the least) and said he would continue changing at Woking regardless. I'll let him know that the problem has now gone away.

 

[iharding]

Removed:
701000 (Circuitous Route) Customers on journeys from or via Ash Vale that also include travel via Farnborough Main may not travel via Woking. This circuitous route easement applies in both directions.This easement was in place for 2 1/2 weeks.

I've been following the discussion, but still don't understand what difference this easement made. Travelling Ash Vale to Farnborough Main or stations to the West via Woking requires doubling back between Brookwood and Woking, which isn't permitted. So even with this easement removed it still isn't permitted to travel via Woking as far as I can tell.
Am I missing something?

 

[bakerstreet]

Insofar as the example of Birmingham to Frodsham is concerned, I never encountered any issues in this regard (the niceties of the Routeing Guide notwithstanding).

One of the possible problems is that for many journeys, eg those West of Basingstoke, being routed via Woking makes sense, but if going to Ash Vale for example, this also goes via Farnborough Main, and therefore might have been prevented. Avoiding Woking requires a change to a stopper at Basingstoke , together with connections missed this could add 60 mins plus to journey times

 

[infobleep]

I've been following the discussion, but still don't understand what difference this easement made. Travelling Ash Vale to Farnborough Main or stations to the West via Woking requires doubling back between Brookwood and Woking, which isn't permitted. So even with this easement removed it still isn't permitted to travel via Woking as far as I can tell.
Am I missing something?

Someone more knowledgeable will be able to explain why it's permitted but I know it is.

If you do a search using National Rail Enquiries for Ash Vale to Basingstoke, it shows up with journeys via Woking. In part of the morning peak. Some are faster and others just as fast but Woking is considered a better place to change trains.

 

[JB_B]

I've been following the discussion, but still don't understand what difference this easement made. Travelling Ash Vale to Farnborough Main or stations to the West via Woking requires doubling back between Brookwood and Woking, which isn't permitted. So even with this easement removed it still isn't permitted to travel via Woking as far as I can tell.
Am I missing something?

I think you're correct but only about the specific journey from Ash Vale to Farnborough Main. ( In that specific case there are no mapped routes as both destination routeing points - Woking and Basingstoke - fail the fares check.)

For destinations further to the West there are mapped routes via Woking. ( You only need to worry about passing through the same station twice on the mapped part of the journey from the origin routeing point to the destination routeing point.)

E.g. for to Ash Vale to Fleet/Winchfield/Hook there are mapped routes (with Woking as the destination routeing point) on map WW. Similarly, there are mapped routes via Woking to Basingstoke on SC and to Salisbury/Exeter/Penzance on SW+LE.

 

[Watershed]

Travelling Ash Vale to Farnborough Main or stations to the West via Woking requires doubling back between Brookwood and Woking, which isn't permitted

There isn't a general rule on doubling back. Sometimes it's permitted, sometimes it's not.

In this particular example, the double back isn't permitted because Woking fails the fares check, and accordingly only the shortest route, or a route within 3 miles thereof, may be used.

But for journeys where Woking passes the fares check, the double back is often permitted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a general rule - on mapped routes it is not allowed other than within station groups mid journey for the purpose of interchange. Though easements can exist.

 

[Andrew1395]

Someone more knowledgeable will be able to explain why it's permitted but I know it is.

If you do a search using National Rail Enquiries for Ash Vale to Basingstoke, it shows up with journeys via Woking. In part of the morning peak. Some are faster and others just as fast but Woking is considered a better place to change trains.

It will be if the train from Woking to the west has a passing time for Brookwood. If no passing time then the journey planning engine won’t see the doubleback, so it’s permitted by default. If there is a passing time then it will (or should) trigger the doubleback.

 

[infobleep]

It will be if the train from Woking to the west has a passing time for Brookwood. If no passing time then the journey planning engine won’t see the doubleback, so it’s permitted by default. If there is a passing time then it will (or should) trigger the doubleback.

How interesting. Is forgotten about this.

 

[miklcct]

It will be if the train from Woking to the west has a passing time for Brookwood. If no passing time then the journey planning engine won’t see the doubleback, so it’s permitted by default. If there is a passing time then it will (or should) trigger the doubleback.

The data only have Farnborough and Woking Junction as the passing point between Basingstoke and Woking for a non-stop train.

 

[Dibbo4025]

The data only have Farnborough and Woking Junction as the passing point between Basingstoke and Woking for a non-stop train.

And Pirbright junction if it's booked slow line, though there aren't that many which are SL and don't call Brookwood, mainly around the last services of the day

 

[Bread & cheese]

Which shows that the relevant people do indeed read this forum!

If the relevant people do read this forum, then there's a problem I'd like to let them know about.

This concerns permitted routes between Wokingham and Hastings.

Wokingham - Guildford - Redhill forms part of a permitted route.
It is not a mapped route, but it is part of the shortest route by distance, which is Wokingham - Guildford - Redhill - Tonbridge - Hastings.

Redhill - Lewes - Hastings forms part of a permitted route.
Map combination WX+LB allows travel Wokingham - Clapham Junction - Redhill - Lewes - Hastings.

However journey planners reject journeys Wokingham - Guildford - Redhill - Lewes - Hastings, which is not the shortest route, and does not match any of the map combinations.

Adding a map combination such as AR+LB to the list of permitted routes would solve this problem.

 

[kieron]

A route code was changed in the routeing guide yesterday.

Changes from 01 Jul 2022 (392) to 06 Jul 2022 (393).

Route changes:

Changed (added sections in red, removed ones in green):

AP EMR & CONNECT (00486) (5943 records)
must not go via Crewe (CRE) or Huntingdon (HUN)
must not use GC
must use EM
may not use AW, CC, CH, CS, EMGC, GN, GR, GW, GX, HT, HX, IL, LD, LE, LM, LO, ME, NT, SE, SN, SR, SW, TL, TP, VT, XC or XR​

This makes "EMR & CONNECT" advance tickets act in the same way as "EMR ONLY" ones.

This route code was the main "& connections" one for EMR. This change means that EMR advance tickets to places such as as Burton-on-Trent and Yeovil Junction are no longer available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That looks remarkably like a (stupid) mistake!

 

[alistairlees]

A route code was changed in the routeing guide yesterday.

Changes from 01 Jul 2022 (392) to 06 Jul 2022 (393).​

​

Route changes:​

​

Changed (added sections in red, removed ones in green):​

​

AP EMR & CONNECT (00486) (5943 records)​

must not go via Crewe (CRE) or Huntingdon (HUN)​

must not use GC​

must use EM​

may not use AW, CC, CH, CS, EMGC, GN, GR, GW, GX, HT, HX, IL, LD, LE, LM, LO, ME, NT, SE, SN, SR, SW, TL, TP, VT, XC or XR​

This makes "EMR & CONNECT" advance tickets act in the same way as "EMR ONLY" ones.

This route code was the main "& connections" one for EMR. This change means that EMR advance tickets to places such as as Burton-on-Trent and Yeovil Junction are no longer available.

A fare increase at a stroke

 

[ABB125]

That looks remarkably like a (stupid) mistake!

The change to the routeing guide, or the original version?

To me, this looks like a knee-jerk reaction to something that EMR have discovered, and might be changed again once they've had time to calm down and work out the best solution. A bit like Trainline disabling the via function on their (and all derived) website when the "via Edinburgh" loophole was discovered back in January.

 

[paul1609]

If the relevant people do read this forum, then there's a problem I'd like to let them know about.

This concerns permitted routes between Wokingham and Hastings.

Wokingham - Guildford - Redhill forms part of a permitted route.
It is not a mapped route, but it is part of the shortest route by distance, which is Wokingham - Guildford - Redhill - Tonbridge - Hastings.

Redhill - Lewes - Hastings forms part of a permitted route.
Map combination WX+LB allows travel Wokingham - Clapham Junction - Redhill - Lewes - Hastings.

However journey planners reject journeys Wokingham - Guildford - Redhill - Lewes - Hastings, which is not the shortest route, and does not match any of the map combinations.

Adding a map combination such as AR+LB to the list of permitted routes would solve this problem.

Im sure you're aware but just in case North Downs stations as far West as Gomshall have Southern priced route “Edenbridge or Polegate“ tickets to Hastings. If your travelling via Guildford both ways there are good savings to be made by splitting somewhere along that stretch because the through Wokingham to Hasting tickets are priced by Southeastern and assume you will travel via Clapham Junction. This also has the advantage that the ticket allows travel by either Lewes or Tonbridge. Getting the exact split for you exact journey is quite complicated due to the three ticketing routes between Wokingham and Gomshall so I'd suggest using one of the Independant split ticket sites such as Trainsplit.

 

[Bread & cheese]

Im sure you're aware but just in case North Downs stations as far West as Gomshall have Southern priced route “Edenbridge or Polegate“ tickets to Hastings. If your travelling via Guildford both ways there are good savings to be made by splitting somewhere along that stretch because the through Wokingham to Hasting tickets are priced by Southeastern and assume you will travel via Clapham Junction. This also has the advantage that the ticket allows travel by either Lewes or Tonbridge. Getting the exact split for you exact journey is quite complicated due to the three ticketing routes between Wokingham and Gomshall so I'd suggest using one of the Independant split ticket sites such as Trainsplit.

Thanks for this, very interesting.

Question arising: how many prospective passengers at TVMs know where Edenbridge and Polegate are?

Off-topic: is fares route Gomshall (used on tickets such as Reading to Gatwick direct) the most obscure fares route? Are there stations used as route descriptors which have fewer passengers?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The change to the routeing guide, or the original version?

To me, this looks like a knee-jerk reaction to something that EMR have discovered, and might be changed again once they've had time to calm down and work out the best solution. A bit like Trainline disabling the via function on their (and all derived) website when the "via Edinburgh" loophole was discovered back in January.

The change, the effect of which is to remove EMR+connections fares entirely.

 

[Watershed]

Thanks for this, very interesting.

Question arising: how many prospective passengers at TVMs know where Edenbridge and Polegate are?

Off-topic: is fares route Gomshall (used on tickets such as Reading to Gatwick direct) the most obscure fares route? Are there stations used as route descriptors which have fewer passengers?

Route Llandovery is possibly more obscure, as the station only had ~15k pax/annum pre-Covid - as compared to Gomshall's comparitive crowd of ~55k.

 

[alistairlees]

Route Llandovery is possibly more obscure, as the station only had ~15k pax/annum pre-Covid - as compared to Gomshall's comparitive crowd of ~55k.

Via Thornford (and Honiton): Thornford had 2,744 entries and exits pre-Covid; a complete backwater compared to the metropolis of Llandovery

 

[JB_B]

Off-topic: is fares route Gomshall (used on tickets such as Reading to Gatwick direct) the most obscure fares route? Are there stations used as route descriptors which have fewer passengers?

Travel via Pilning is sufficient to meet route 00911 "via Severn Tunnel". Pilning had just 0.71 K pax according to the 19/20 ORR exit/entry data (as per the above post(s).)

For an example where the station name appears in the route description, there's 00153 "via Brigg". On the same measure Brigg had ~1.68K pax.

 

[Haywain]

Question arising: how many prospective passengers at TVMs know where Edenbridge and Polegate are

The number buying such tickets is likely to be extremely small regardless of whether they know about those locations.

 

[SickyNicky]

To me, this looks like a knee-jerk reaction to something that EMR have discovered, and might be changed again once they've had time to calm down and work out the best solution. A bit like Trainline disabling the via function on their (and all derived) website when the "via Edinburgh" loophole was discovered back in January.

EMR &CONNECTIONS tickets were being sold earlier this week for journeys that didn't actually include EMR services. I saw an example from London to Luton Airport. This may well be linked to that.

 

[SargeNpton]

A route code was changed in the routeing guide yesterday.

Changes from 01 Jul 2022 (392) to 06 Jul 2022 (393).​

​

Route changes:​

​

Changed (added sections in red, removed ones in green):​

​

AP EMR & CONNECT (00486) (5943 records)​

must not go via Crewe (CRE) or Huntingdon (HUN)​

must not use GC​

must use EM​

may not use AW, CC, CH, CS, EMGC, GN, GR, GW, GX, HT, HX, IL, LD, LE, LM, LO, ME, NT, SE, SN, SR, SW, TL, TP, VT, XC or XR​

This makes "EMR & CONNECT" advance tickets act in the same way as "EMR ONLY" ones.

This route code was the main "& connections" one for EMR. This change means that EMR advance tickets to places such as as Burton-on-Trent and Yeovil Junction are no longer available.

Are you quite sure about your interpretation of 00486? That's not what I see when I look at the data.

 

[JB_B]

Are you quite sure about your interpretation of 00486? That's not what I see when I look at the data.

Previously there were no T (include TOC) records in the .RGK file for route 00486.

The only change from 06/07 is that now there is a T record ( just one ) - for EM.

If there are any T records listed then all timetabled legs of a journey must be provided by one of the TOCs listed.

@kieron is therefore correct to list the TOCs which don't have a T record listed (ie everything except EM) as "may not use".

I guess whoever made the change didn't realize that's how T records work (and assumed that they need only apply for 'at least one leg'). ( That's consistent with the now redundant X ( exclude TOC) record for GC being left in place.)