-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Not Via but through.
- Thread starter Andrew Nelson
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
You are correct Mike. Apart from sheff1 relating the response of soem passnegers when challenged about their routeing, I can't see much agreement that via Doncaster means you have to change there.
If there is a problem, surely all that needs to be done is to update the PIS at Leeds so that the relevant trains are shown as 'via Doncaster', just like at Cardiff when Vale of Glamorgan trains are shown as 'Bridgend via Barry'.
If there is a problem, surely all that needs to be done is to update the PIS at Leeds so that the relevant trains are shown as 'via Doncaster', just like at Cardiff when Vale of Glamorgan trains are shown as 'Bridgend via Barry'.
90019
Established Member
Indeed, it means the information passes through a third person to get to you. Though that example has little relevance as we're talking about travelling not passing on information.
If I get on a number 35 bus in Edinburgh at Ocean Terminal, then travel to Edinburgh Airport, I have gone via Easter Road, Holyrood, Bristo Place, Fountainbridge, Chesser, Sighthill Fire Station, Edinburgh Park, the Gyle, RBS Gogarburn and Ingliston park & ride.
Does that mean I must have got off the bus and waited for the next one at each of these places?
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Rest assured that English can be understood very well "from Newcastle" as elsewhere. The perplexing quotation "By means of means in two parts. If information is by means of: I tall a person, they telll You that is a change by means of Personality. So no anything of the sort, Via as it clearly says, is a change of: Meens, Means or Person, or carrier." is, sadly, not easy to understand, though I see that you have now changed "tall" to "tell" which helps, whilst "Meens, means" remains inexplicable, as does "Person to person down the line is a situation . . . . . or Personality".
I refute "By means of means in two parts" but I can't see that clarification of this phrase will assist us with the Doncaster issue.
"Via" is used in English just as it was in Latin to denote a "way" or "by way of" (as in a route, e.g. viaduct, and not style as in 'the way she looks'). It does not imply a change.
As MikeWh asks, there is surely no compulsion to alight at a stopping point on a journey which is a stated Via for the route; but the complexity of the argument over the validity of a ticket marked as Not Via raises three distinct points for clarification:
First, Is the ticket valid if the train does not stop at the identified Not Via station (whether or not it passes through it)?
Second, Is the ticket valid if the train does not pass through the identified Not Via station (and therefore cannot stop there)?
Third, by what means is the route through stations publicised? (specifically, stations at which the train will not stop)?
If the answer to the first question is "yes" but not the second, then a traveller should easily be able to determine the validiy of their ticket by referring to the screens, departure boards, or signs on the train.
But if the answer to the first two questions is "yes", (which is consistent with the useage of "Via") but the service is publicised only in terms of its station stops (which is consistent with most public route information), then the onus on the traveller to determine the physical route where more than one route is possible is, in my opinion, unreasonable, unenforeceable and for this reason, unlikely to be the intended interpretation of "Not Via".
This interpretation relies strongly on the availability of the necessary information to enable a passenger to make the intended decision of which train to board. In cases where there are more straightforward and accessible ways in which to identify and distinguish valid and invalid trains for a "Not Via" ticket (such as the Operator or the scheduled time of departure) then I struggle to find any reasonable grounds for using a "Not Via" restriction to define validity.
Last edited:
There's no need to insult people because of where they are from. Especially when your posts can be very difficult to understand. I'm afraid they're not written in simple English.
90019
Established Member
Nope.
It can do - not necessarily. collybs quoted the relevant section of the RG, and is flawed as it may seem, I think thats that mopped up.
And can I say just how exceptionally rude you come across, especially in past postings. People may not be so willing to assist you in future cases. You'd have thought a temporary ban would have given you a clear message.
If he wants to be picky and insulting to members maybe he should get his house in order,look at his last post
Simple English test from someone who only got a grade C at GCSE and someone else from Newcastle, first of all correction of spellings:
sombody is spelt somebody
dificult is spelt difficult
Changeing at should be Changing at
Now grammar
Personality makes no sense in that sentence (VIA a third party. or Personality.) and does not require a capital should be personally
Incorrect use of a capital letter in the sentence "and because many People see this as true"
So stop getting on your high horse about simple English when you can't seem to use it yourself. This is a messageboard not a dissertation on the English language. Attitudes like the one you have at the moment will possibly prevent you from getting any useful advice should you need it in the future,
That information is not publicised, however since you can ask NRE, it appears to be the view that it is still fully enforceable.
From my experience the online booking engines take a pessimestic (and sell you a more expensive ticket) than attempt to figure out routes of trains.
Also there was a whole thread on whether "Via Birmingham" tickets were valid on Wrexham&Shropshire that is instructive I believe. It was determined eventually that the tickets were valid even though WSMR never calls at any Birmingham Station, since some of the paths went through Birmingham.
http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=23279
Last edited:
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
And it doesn't seem like 18 months since that interesting debate!
Thanks!
Yes, the analysis of the Routing Guide and The Manual is going to be the definitive tool to use in answering these questions. I was, however, specifically trying to weight up the practicability of answering the "Not Via Doncaster" question in the terms that the question was being asked: the physical route.
I understand that to be correct, but problematic if the information is not adequately available and, as I understand was the case only a year ago, was inconsistent (ie some trains went via Donny and some did not, but with no apparent means of distinguishing the two).
My post may not have been helpful in interpreting the RG, but the physical route is inevitably going to be the factor which the public will consider when a "Via" or "Not Via" route is printed on their ticket, leading sometimes to difficulties with validity.
Last edited:
And the answer is: take the pessimistic (more expensive) approach or talk to NRE I'm afraid, since the information is not public, unless you are willing to pay for the RJIS data
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Thank you but no thanks !!
I'll just pay for my tickets if you don't mind!
Anyway, it appears that the OP has been banned from the forum, so perhaps this topic can be allowed to fade away.
. . . . . .
Until the next time.
I'll just pay for my tickets if you don't mind!
Anyway, it appears that the OP has been banned from the forum, so perhaps this topic can be allowed to fade away.
. . . . . .
Until the next time.
I always pull out my London Victoria to Anerley example - the quickest way is via East Croydon, but whether its valid depends on the route taken between Victoria and East Croydon - which is not published!
NRE always wants to sell you two tickets for this trip (the pessimistic, profitable view!)
90019
Established Member
Last edited:
Use an Oyster! It won't know what route you've taken.(and will correctly charge you Z1-4)
that's an interesting workaround
but doesn't work for season tickets...
that's an interesting workaround
but doesn't work for season tickets...
It will. Load a zone 1-4 travelcard season and then set the OEP switch. If an RPI stops you on a fast to East Croydon he'll see the reduced maximum fare deduction and say "that's fine!" When you touch out at Anerley it'll just leave the OEP there and remove the deduction.
The OP was given an infraction for insulting members, which triggered an automatic ban due to previous infractions, also for insulting members.
Threads created by the OP do tend to lose their way and it becomes difficult to know what points the OP is actually trying to make.
"Route" does not mean "via" or "calling at".
"Route Penrith" or "Route High Wycombe" or "Route Birmingham" mean the train must pass through the applicable station. There is NO requirement to call. I struggle to understand how a "break of journey" is at all relevant either! I agree it is difficult for the customer to know the train goes via a place that the train is not advertised to call at, and this is unfortunate.
By the same logic, if a train passes through (or calls) at Doncaster, then a Not Doncaster train is, arguably invalid. However it is probably not the intention to disallow direct trains, of which there are very few. The intention is to avoid undercutting the Donny-Leeds fare, which carries a premium.
If the "Not Doncaster" fare was re-named "Direct" it would be valid via Doncaster, however "Direct" is not defined so would result in a different debate (which we've had several times before), it seems unlikely this will happen as there is evidence that ATOC are actually reducing the number of routes that are routed "Direct" and re-naming them (e.g. Route Lincoln, Route Hull, Route Not Doncaster, etc).
Trains that are diverted on weekends are valid on routes that would not normally be valid. Clearly, on weekends where XC replace their half-hourly trains, with an hourly train that does a zig-zag tour of Yorkshire, Not Doncaster tickets must, surely, be valid. Sadly the booking engines will not allow this as there is no easement programmed into the system.
My experience of travelling on EMT when a couple of trains did Sheffield-Donny-Leeds was that TMs did not charge passengers on "Not Doncaster" tickets, but told the customers that they'd be let off. I think that says a lot about how enforceable the rule is, on direct trains.
It is extremely rare for "Not XYZ" tickets to exist for routes where trains go via XYZ. Doncaster is one of the very few examples, and it's only a very small number of trains that are affected.
Donny-Leeds is £7 return for an Off Peak Day Return (CDR) if you split at South Elmsall. Yes Northern could make a "Northern Only" ticket, but it's not their policy to do that.
Threads created by the OP do tend to lose their way and it becomes difficult to know what points the OP is actually trying to make.
"Route" does not mean "via" or "calling at".
"Route Penrith" or "Route High Wycombe" or "Route Birmingham" mean the train must pass through the applicable station. There is NO requirement to call. I struggle to understand how a "break of journey" is at all relevant either! I agree it is difficult for the customer to know the train goes via a place that the train is not advertised to call at, and this is unfortunate.
By the same logic, if a train passes through (or calls) at Doncaster, then a Not Doncaster train is, arguably invalid. However it is probably not the intention to disallow direct trains, of which there are very few. The intention is to avoid undercutting the Donny-Leeds fare, which carries a premium.
If the "Not Doncaster" fare was re-named "Direct" it would be valid via Doncaster, however "Direct" is not defined so would result in a different debate (which we've had several times before), it seems unlikely this will happen as there is evidence that ATOC are actually reducing the number of routes that are routed "Direct" and re-naming them (e.g. Route Lincoln, Route Hull, Route Not Doncaster, etc).
Trains that are diverted on weekends are valid on routes that would not normally be valid. Clearly, on weekends where XC replace their half-hourly trains, with an hourly train that does a zig-zag tour of Yorkshire, Not Doncaster tickets must, surely, be valid. Sadly the booking engines will not allow this as there is no easement programmed into the system.
My experience of travelling on EMT when a couple of trains did Sheffield-Donny-Leeds was that TMs did not charge passengers on "Not Doncaster" tickets, but told the customers that they'd be let off. I think that says a lot about how enforceable the rule is, on direct trains.
It is extremely rare for "Not XYZ" tickets to exist for routes where trains go via XYZ. Doncaster is one of the very few examples, and it's only a very small number of trains that are affected.
Donny-Leeds is £7 return for an Off Peak Day Return (CDR) if you split at South Elmsall. Yes Northern could make a "Northern Only" ticket, but it's not their policy to do that.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Thanks for these explanations.
And there was me thinking it was a consequence of her spelling and grammar, a thought which might have left us all on our very best behaviour for years to come (well, in terms of checking our posts for spelling and grammar, anyway)! I had been wondering if she was someone I've seen occasionally between Sheffield, Leeds and York, without a valid ticket, but we may never know.
Are you referring to the EMT service which did NOT stop at Donny and which sometimes went via Donny and sometimes not? Or is there a more widespread application of this muddle?
Diffference is one is a timetable alteration and one is its booked route, so its down to company policy whether to allow discretion or not (XC arent known for allowing this in general). The tickets state NOT DONCASTER so by definition that means they are not valid on the Sunday morning XC services and passengers have to use the Northern services.
I dont see the value in a Northern Only Leeds to Donny ticket as passengers will only complain when they dont read the T+Cs and travel on EC only to be charged
Last edited:
I must admit, as a passenger, If I regularly caught a train from A to C which didn't generally run via B on a ticket routed "not via B", and this train was temporarily rerouted via B, I'd assume that the "not via B" ticket was valid as the normal route was not via B.
It's the sort of thing I'd probably end up writing letters about if I got told off for it.
It's the sort of thing I'd probably end up writing letters about if I got told off for it.
There were at least two that called at Doncaster, this lasted until perhaps 3 years ago. The number slowly reduced, and now there are sadly none. I recall at one point, perhaps around 2006, there was 1 to Leeds (direct, via Bolton-upon-Dearn) and 3 via Doncaster!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On Some Sundays they all go via Donny e.g. when they are diverted via Erewash or via Leicester or via Lichfield this can sometimes happen. These have to be valid on "Not Doncaster" tickets. The other ones are a grey area.
I agree. However this would not be a problem if the rules on TOC specific tickets were sane & fair, ie if route specific tickets were officially allowed to be excessed for change of route (this would only cost £2.20 each way extra which would be reasonable).
I agree and disagree, the minority of passengers that would purchase the ticket would go to the booking office and do so. I still reckon the vast majority would board the train and hope the guard doesnt get through all 9 coaches of the EC and if he does its only an extra £2.20..
Unfortunately, as Yorkie was saying it's not an extra £2.20 - it's a new ticket as TOC-specific tickets can't officially be excessed.
a NOT DONCASTER is not a TOC specific ticket. It should be excess-able to a ANY PERMITTED.
- Status