Quick fare validity question.

[lm321412]

Someone who is good with restrictions and validity should know this:

Is a Worcester - Birmingham Stations ticket valid via Ashchurch for Tewkesbury???

Thanks

 

[sonic2009]

i think it would fail the fares rule check.. john @ home is normally good with these.

 

[tony_mac]

There is no fares check rule here - Worcester and Birmingham are both routeing points.

I think, on Map PH, you can go Worcester to Barnt Green without reaching Cheltenham Spa, so that would be ok. If you change at Ashcurch you don't double-back or pass through any other routeing points.

 

[John @ home]

I think, on Map PH, you can go Worcester to Barnt Green without reaching Cheltenham Spa, so that would be ok. If you change at Ashcurch you don't double-back or pass through any other routeing points.

I agree. Worcester Group - Birmingham Group is permitted by map PH or map WM.

Map PH allows travel from Worcester Group towards, but not as far as, Cheltenham Spa. Then reversal to Barnt Green, then to Birmingham Group. The first station south of Abbotswood Jn, where the Worcester - Cheltenham and Barnt Green - Cheltenham lines meet, is Ashchurch. Therefore Worcester - Ashchurch - Barnt Green - Birmingham is a permitted route.

 

[sonic2009]

really bad connections via ashchurch though.

but i agree if its valid its valid

 

[John @ home]

really bad connections via ashchurch though.

I suspect it wasn't good connections but saving money that the OP had in mind.

Ashchurch - Birmingham Stations CDR £19.00
Worcester Stations - Birmingham Stations CDR £7.40

 

[mumrar]

I think this would fall foul of the rules in that the Worcester-Birmingham ticket is cheaper than the Ashchurch-Birmingham equivalent, so it wouldn't be permitted to go Worcester-Ashchurch and then Ashchurch-Birmingham.

 

[tony_mac]

I am not aware of any such rule (other than the fares-check rule mentioned, which doesn't apply to routeing points).

 

[mumrar]

I am not aware of any such rule (other than the fares-check rule mentioned, which doesn't apply to routeing points).

But isn't this ticket going to be priced by LM and under ORCATS (is that the right acronym?) then give all the money to LM, to then have passengers travel with FGW and XC only. That can't be correct can it?

 

[tony_mac]

I am sure there are lots of circuitous routes where the ORCATS revenue is unfair, but that doesn't make it invalid - it's up to the TOCs to sort that out.
I don't know how much of the revenue SWT get for London to Reading tickets, but that wouldn't stop anyone travelling on that route.

Although FGW should at least get some of the revenue for shuttling people between Shrub Hill and Foregate St.

 

[John @ home]

I am not aware of any such rule (other than the fares-check rule mentioned, which doesn't apply to routeing points).

I think we can say with confidence that there is no such rule.

But isn't this ticket going to be priced by LM and under ORCATS (is that the right acronym?) then give all the money to LM, to then have passengers travel with FGW and XC only. That can't be correct can it?

There's a lot on the railway, and especially its fares system, which isn't rational or reasonable or sensible, but this is a correct interpretation of the rules.

Yes, ORCATS is the right acronym. It seems there are 103 threads on this forum which mention ORCATS, so you can read quite a lot about it here.

But the distribution of ticket revenue is not related to the rules on which route is permitted for a particular journey. It is indeed the case that sometimes the operator carrying the passenger gets no money at all for a particular journey. The instance which has been quoted here several times is the passenger with a Huntingdon - London season ticket who wants to travel from London to Peterborough. The passenger buys a Huntingdon - Peterborough ticket. All Huntingdon - London and all Huntingdon - Peterborough trains are operated by FCC, and it has been asserted by those who are in a position to know that they receive all the ORCATS revenue for these flows. But Condition 19(c) of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage allows the passenger to travel London - Peterborough on a fast EC train which does not stop at Huntingdon, despite EC receiving no money from either of the passenger's tickets.

 

[yorkie]

But isn't this ticket going to be priced by LM and under ORCATS (is that the right acronym?) then give all the money to LM, to then have passengers travel with FGW and XC only. That can't be correct can it?

What does the National Rail Conditions of Carriage have to say regarding the matter of how to determine permitted routes?

 

[mumrar]

What does the National Rail Conditions of Carriage have to say regarding the matter of how to determine permitted routes?

Well, to quote it says -

13. The route you are entitled to take
(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:
(i) a through train;
(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by scheduled
passenger services; or
(iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide
(details as to how you can obtain this information will be available
when you buy your ticket).
(b) If you are using a Zonal Ticket you may travel in trains which take any route within
the zone or zones shown on the ticket.
(c) Together, the routes referred to in (a) (ii), (a) (iii) and (b) above are the
“permitted routes”.
(d) The use of some tickets may be restricted to trains which take:
(i) routes passing through, or avoiding, particular locations; or
(ii) the most direct route.
These restrictions will be shown on the ticket.
(e) If you make your journey by a route other than those referred to in (a) and (b)
above, you will be liable to pay an excess fare. This excess fare will be the
difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the
lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that would have entitled you
to travel by that route.
(f) For the purposes of this Condition, a “through train” is one which may be
used by a passenger to make their entire journey without changing trains.

So, yes it's a valid route as far as one can tell from the routeing guide, most likely thrown up by the fact the only rotuing points possible on the route are Cheltenham (never reached), Barnt Green and the destination of Birmingham Group. Because of the route from Droitwich-Stoke Works Jcn this means journeys are permitted via Ashchurch, but I dare say you'll find the journey
a) laborious, and
b) perhaps have staff wrongly questioning the route you're taking.
Just for comparative note the distances are 26 miles 29ch direct from Worcester Foregate Street-New Street, or 53 miles 41 chains via Ashchurch.

To ask another question then of the permitted routeing for this ticket, and it doesn't involve any doubling back as all of the connections are the same as Ashchurch, is there anything to stop you travelling Worcester-Ashchurch-Bromsgrove-Droitwich-Smethwick Gal Brg-New St???? I doubt you'd have many viable times to do that journey mind you, if at all!

Just to edit the above, I can't find any permitted connections that go from Worcester-Aschurch-Bromsgrove without doubling back from either Cheltenham or University (using NRES), so the above theoretical routeing is I don't think physically possible. The only applicable easements for Bromsgrove relate to travelling via Cheltenham Spa, so in this case they are not permissable.

They don't make the routeing guide easy though, do they?

 

[John @ home]

is there anything to stop you travelling Worcester-Ashchurch-Bromsgrove-Droitwich-Smethwick Gal Brg-New St?

When using a Worcester Stations - Birmingham Stations ticket, Worcester - Ashchurch - Bromsgrove - Droitwich - Smethwick - Birmingham is not a permitted route because:

1. it is not the shortest route, and
2. it is not a route not more than three miles longer than the shortest route, and
3. it is not the route taken by a through train, which would be permitted when travelling on such a train, and
4. it is not a route permitted by an Easement, and
5. it is not a mapped route, because the route can not be traced on either map PH or map WM, the two maps indicating permitted routes for this journey. It is not permitted to move between map PH and map WM because PH+WM is not a permitted map combination for this journey.

Note that Worcester - Droitwich - Bromsgrove - Barnt Green - Birmingham is not mapped, but is permitted because:

• via University, it is the shortest route, and
• via Camp Hill, it is not more than three miles longer than the shortest route.

I doubt you'd have many viable times to do that journey mind you, if at all!

The existence of a Permitted Route does not imply the provision of a train service over that route.

Page F8
Being able to trace the journey on a map or combination of maps does not mean a good train service follows the route of your choosing. Some will be better than others. To choose the best one for you, consult the National Rail Timetable.

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/RSPDocuments/nrg_detail.pdf

They don't make the routeing guide easy though, do they?

No, they certainly don't!

 

[Ferret]

They don't make the routeing guide easy though, do they?

No they bloody don't. As a Guard, I sometimes find questionable routings and often have to ignore them. If the right person is on the helpdesk in Control I can trust him to look up the info for me, but even that takes time. One I came across the other day was Doncaster-Huddersfield. Anyone care to tell me whether that's valid via York or not? Not a great deal I could do about it as when I saw the ticket we were at Colton. A friend at a ticket office later opined that it was not valid, but even he wasn't 100% sure.

Another one I've had recently is Brum-Manchester via Sheffield. I reckon that's a bit more straightforward.....! But, unless you've come across something before and it's stored in the memory bank, how are you supposed to know what's valid and what isn't?!

 

[OwlMan]

I agree. Worcester Group - Birmingham Group is permitted by map PH or map WM.

If you look up Birmingham to Worcester you will see it is also permitted on Maps CE & GC. (Although it does not make any difference to the outcome as the routes are the same).

Another error in the Routeing Guide.

Peter

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....One I came across the other day was Doncaster-Huddersfield. Anyone care to tell me whether that's valid via York or not? Not a great deal I could do about it as when I saw the ticket we were at Colton. A friend at a ticket office later opined that it was not valid, but even he wasn't 100% sure.

Doncaster and Huddersfield are routeing points, they allow maps ER+WY and WK to be used. WK does not allow it, ER+WY would allow travel as follows....

Doncaster-York-Selby-Gilberdyke-Pontefract-Wakefield-Leeds-Huddersfield
or
Doncaster-York-Selby-Leeds-Huddersfield

Unless there is an easement to restrict it.

....Another one I've had recently is Brum-Manchester via Sheffield. I reckon that's a bit more straightforward.....!....

Birmingham and Manchester give maps BP+MA, BP+MA+GM, CM and CM+GM. None of these show Sheffield.

....But, unless you've come across something before and it's stored in the memory bank, how are you supposed to know what's valid and what isn't?!

Indeed.

 

[Ferret]

That's interesting HHF. OK, the BHM-MAN one was easy, but the DON-Huddersfield - it's too involved to figure that out in the 5 minutes it takes to get from Colton to York. To my mind, that shouldn't be valid with there being a far more direct route available, but then as somebody observed earlier in the thread, that's up to the TOCs to sort. It's a nightmare!

 

[John @ home]

as somebody observed earlier in the thread, that's up to the TOCs to sort.

Changes to the National Routeing Guide are no longer up to the TOCs to sort.

It is evident from DfT's reply to a very helpful Freedom of Information request that between 2002 and 2009 ATOC were ignoring the requirement for them to get permission before making changes to the Guide

15 December 2009

Since the department took over responsibility for the National Rail Routeing Guide from the Strategic Rail Authority, how many changes have been requested to the guide by the train operating companies? How many of the requested changes were approved?

14 January 2010

The ATOC document, the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) allows changes to permitted routes to be made. The TSA requires ATOC to obtain approval from the Secretary of State for any changes, and that the SoS consults with Passenger Focus to ensure that passengers' routing flexibility is preserved.

Approximately 20,000 flows were amended in and around 2001/2 through this full change process. Since the Department for Transport have been responsible for the change approval process to the NRG no such requests have been received at all from ATOC in the intervening period. Recently First Scotrail proposed changes to some local and middle distance journeys involving the "Fife Circle" route that have been approved by Transport Scotland. ATOC and Passenger Focus have approved these too. Formal approval by the Secretary of State will shortly be given and the changes incorporated into the NRG.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/changes_to_naitonal_rail_routein#incoming-65101

It seems that changes now need prior permission from the Secretary of State, Passenger Focus and/or London Travelwatch and, where appropriate, Transport Scotland, the Welsh Assembly Government or Merseyside ITA.

Not surprisingly, changes appear to have dried up recently.

 

[Ferret]

John, that's very interesting. I guess it's still up to the TOCs to initiate a change though. I do wish the whole thing was more simple to understand - I have to admit I don't understand parts of it properly - and if I don't, what hope do the customers have?!

 

[Greenback]

I never understood it properly either. I am full of admiration for tony_mac and john@home who are pretty knowledgeable about it! To be honest, whenever I use the Routeing Gide it takes me a long time to work out the possible options and I generally get a bit of a headache! Adn I;m still not certian if my conclusions are right! It's not user friednly, but then with such a complicated system I don;t see how it can ever be easy to use!

 

[Fern.]

This may seem really silly but i dont know were to post this, i just need to ask, as i am slightly worried....

I recently bought to 'Super off peak day travel cards', i filled in the details from Weymouth to London waterloo but when i got them through the ticekts read 'Between Weymouth and Route Southampton'.

I have no idea what this means but it worrys me, i was considering going to my nearest train station and asking as they could solve my problems, but if anyone else could calm my worrys, or increase them i would be extremely grateful

Thank you

 

[janb]

John, that's very interesting. I guess it's still up to the TOCs to initiate a change though.

Well I emailed ATOC in July last year to point out the inconsistency that Lancaster to Liverpool was valid via Manchester, yet Lancaster to Hunts Cross/Liverpool South Parkway wasn't valid via Manchester (which meant officially having to tell customers to cross Warrington). Anyway they emailed back saying they would change it in the next update of the NRG which they did.

Of course that was before the FOI request.

 

[OwlMan]

This may seem really silly but i dont know were to post this, i just need to ask, as i am slightly worried....

I recently bought to 'Super off peak day travel cards', i filled in the details from Weymouth to London waterloo but when i got them through the ticekts read 'Between Weymouth and Route Southampton'.

I have no idea what this means but it worrys me, i was considering going to my nearest train station and asking as they could solve my problems, but if anyone else could calm my worrys, or increase them i would be extremely grateful

Thank you

Does it have "TRAVELCARD" printed on the ticket. If so that is what you have.

Travelcards are not issued to a destination they just have a originating station and the route that you must travel.
You are travelling from Weymouth and must travel through Southampton.

Peter