Protected routes

[Merseysider]

Neither a forum search nor google search returned anything so any information would be great.

Am I right in thinking that any route that was valid prior to privatisation is still valid today, or is it only specific routes this applies to? Or is it something to do with component parts of a journey not exceeding the through fare?

I think Southport to Manchester via Liverpool is a BR protected route. Are there any other examples forumites would be willing to share?

The principle is something I've seen mentioned here and there but never quite understood.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The Routeing Guide has the following to say on the matter:

"The permitted routes shown in the Routeing Guide precisely define the various routes that a customer may use to make a particular journey. These routes have been included to reflect all the travel options that were previously legitimately available to customers when travel was deemed to be valid via ‘any reasonable route’."

The other thing to remember, of course, is that most staff "on the ground" will still work on the principle of reasonable routes. This can, of course, be both to the benefit and detriment of passengers.

 

[anme]

Apologies for asking this again - but how were reasonable routes defined in BR days? Was there an equivalent of the Routing Guide (I assume not, or a new one would have been needed)? Was it down to what a guard considered "reasonable"? Or was it some mixture of the two?
I do remember that a journey I used to make in the eighties was allowed via two routes, one of which surprised me at the time because it was longer and slower. Would that route have been documented somewhere, or was it just local custom and practice?

 

[John @ home]

how were reasonable routes defined in BR days?

The 1952 British Railways Book of Routes contains "information regarding Alternative Routes by which passengers may travel without additional charge".

It is much smaller than any modern routeing guide because it has the great advantage that "alternative route travel is permitted on tickets between [the] stations [named] and also on tickets between places further afield which are valid for journeys between the stations named."

It is in tabular form in which the words in bold below appear at the head of columns on each page. An example is:

Tickets covering travel in either direction between Chester and Manchester are available between

• Chester General and Manchester Exchange via Warrington Bank Quay and Earlestown, or
• Chester General and Manchester London Road via Warrington Bank Quay and Broadheath, or
• Chester Northgate and Manchester Central via Hale.

 

[anme]

The 1952 British Railways Book of Routes contains "information regarding Alternative Routes by which passengers may travel without additional charge".

It is much smaller than any modern routeing guide because it has the great advantage that "alternative route travel is permitted on tickets between [the] stations [named] and also on tickets between places further afield which are valid for journeys between the stations named."

It is in tabular form in which the words in bold below appear at the head of columns on each page. An example is:

Thanks, that's interesting. I realise you weren't claiming to fully answer my question, but I'll ask anyway...

So was this book the definitive source of valid routes until the introduction of the new routing guide in the nineties? As I understand it, privatisation was not supposed to result in the removal of any "reasonable" routes, so if there was already a definitive source of "reasonable" routes, I'm not sure why the new guide was needed.

 

[yorkie]

I think Southport to Manchester via Liverpool is a BR protected route.

Correct. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=70572&highlight=southport+liverpool

>>Dear X,
>>*
>>Apologies for the delay in replying. The route from Southport to Manchester via Liverpool remains a permitted route, becausethe fares check is for regulatory reasonsnot made against the current fares, but the fares from the time of privatisation in 1996 (unless “easements” further allow or disallow a route to correct errors in the 1996 fares).
>>*
>>Kind regards,
>>*
>>John Horncastle
>>Customer Relations Manager
>>ATOC

 

[PermitToTravel]

The proportion of ticket checking staff today who are aware that there is a Routeing Guide is low enough to be a rounding error. Was this also the case in BR days, or did staff actually make reference to the Book of Routes?

 

[John @ home]

was this book the definitive source of valid routes until the introduction of the new routing guide in the nineties?

No. The introduction to the 1952 book states:

This booklet is issued for general guidance, and in order to keep it to a convenient size, it does not comprise a comprehensive list of every pair of places between which there are permitted alternative routes for the whole journey or sections of a journey.

The information has been compiled to give, readily, the stations at either end of diverging routes over which the same fare applies.

I am not aware of any alteration or revision of the 1952 Book of Routes prior to the introduction of the National Routeing Guide.

A good explanation of the circumstances leading to the publication of the first National Routeing Guide is in two Office of Rail Regulation Press Notices: Regulator defines "reasonable" rail routes for the first time from 1996 and Revised Routeing Guide approved by Regulator from 1997.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Link 1
Link 2

 

[anme]

No. The introduction to the 1952 book states:I am not aware of any alteration or revision of the 1952 Book of Routes prior to the introduction of the National Routeing Guide.

A good explanation of the circumstances leading to the publication of the first National Routeing Guide is in two letters from the Office of Rail Regulation dated 1996 and 1997. Unfortunately the link to these two letters is now broken (broken link 1: Regulator defines "reasonable" rail routes for the first time; broken link 2: Revised Routeing Guide approved by Regulator). Hopefully someone is in a position to provide archived copies.

Thanks for all replies. So to summarise, the answer is that "reasonable" routes were not explicitly defined prior to the routing guide of 1996, although presumably any route explicitly mentioned in the 1952 guide would have been considered reasonable. In practice, whether a route was "reasonable" would have been up to guards and ticket inspectors, and in case of disputes, ultimately to the courts - correct?

 

[globetrotter]

There's a long historical discussion about the 1996 changes here:

http://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.railway/h-EvT3VqrpQ

 

[John @ home]

So to summarise, the answer is that "reasonable" routes were not explicitly defined prior to the routing guide of 1996, although presumably any route explicitly mentioned in the 1952 guide would have been considered reasonable.

We are not aware of any revisions to the 1952 guide, but some of the changes during the period 1952-1996 cause me to question whether the statement above holds true in all instances.

In the 1950s rail fares were largely based on track mileage. Where anomalies existed, they did so for a specific reason. For example, a notional distance (IIRC, 3 miles) was added to journeys which crossed the Forth Bridge to take account of the extra cost of maintaining that structure. One effect of a mileage based fare structure is that it's relatively easy for local staff to determine that a route is not reasonable if it passes through an intermediate station where a higher fare is charged from the origin than the fare from origin to destination.

The 1960s brought the first steps towards commercial pricing, meaning that a test based on intermediate fares was no longer reliable. I'm not sure that this difficulty was identified at the time.

At the same time, the closure of a large number of stations and routes made the 1952 guide less helpful.

In practice, whether a route was "reasonable" would have been up to guards and ticket inspectors

In addition, I think there were local instructions and local advertisements.

and in case of disputes, ultimately to the courts - correct?

I don't think any of us are aware of any case law on reasonable routes from the period 1952-1996.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The starting point for valid routes are those allowed at the time of privatisation, but the only laid down permission (in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement) is for an interavailable ticket to be valid by the shortest route where there is no geographical restrictions; and as shown in the Routeing Guide. Separately there is section laying down how the Routeing Guide is agreed and how it may be changed. This means that changes must be made in the prescribed way, but doesn't actually require that just because BR allowed it, a route must be permitted for evermore.
It must also be recalled that many of the latter-day BR route permissions came about because of service cuts and line closures. Since 1995 rather more new services have been added than in BR days and it is perfectly legitimate to want to reflect this in what is allowed, and what may no longer be relevant.

 

[yorkie]

... the only laid down permission (in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement) is for an interavailable ticket to be valid by the shortest route where there is no geographical restrictions....

I think there should be no "geographical restrictions" limitation. By all means have a higher price if needed, but to force people to take a route that is not the shortest route seems absurd.

I've passed on some examples to someone who is taking the matter up at a high level, as the TOCs are not in the least bit interested :-x

The most extreme (but by no means the only) example is Chinley to Blythe Bridge. We have forum members who live at both places, and is a reasonable journey by rail - but the only fares are routed "via Derby" which is almost double the shortest route!

Booking engines such as Loco2 and Trainsplit will identify cheaper splits for this journey (or there are other tickets you can get where you can start/finish "short"), but the TOC booking engines tell you to take a huge detour via the Midland Mainline. Utter madness.

The rail industry really shoots itself in the foot at times, and most TOCs seem unwilling to listen to the concerns of passengers.