Rainham to Ebbsfleet

[jammity87]

I have just done a check for trains from Rainham to Ebbsfleet, it gives this routing:

Rainham to Bromley South
Bromley South to St Pancras then
St Pancras to Ebbsfleet International

Apparently this journey(with my 16-25 railcard) costs £3.15 return.


Is this a valid route for so cheap, especially as it includes a train over HS1. Secondly if i printed off the recommended journey and shown it to any guards would it have to be accepted?

 

[glynn80]

I have just done a check for trains from Rainham to Ebbsfleet, it gives this routing:

Rainham to Bromley South
Bromley South to St Pancras then
St Pancras to Ebbsfleet International

Apparently this journey(with my 16-25 railcard) costs £3.15 return.


Is this a valid route for so cheap, especially as it includes a train over HS1. Secondly if i printed off the recommended journey and shown it to any guards would it have to be accepted?

OK, to define permitted routes you must first consult the National Routeing Guide (http://www.atoc.org/rsp/Routeing_Guide/).

Rainham in Kent is a member of both the Chatham and Faversham Routeing Points. Ebbsfleet International is a Routeing Point itself.

The fares check procedure is enacted to determine whether we are to use Chatham, Faversham or both routeing points to determine the permitted mapped routes we can take.

Rainham to Ebbsfleet International Anytime Day Return: £8.70
Chatham to Ebbsfleet International Anytime Day Return: £7.80 VALID RP
Faversham to Ebbsfleet International Anytime Day Return: £19.90 INVALID RP

I have been unable to find any routeing permissions on these ticket as they only display on the National Rail site and do not yet appear within the FRPP or any other WebTIS


The permitted routes passengers are able to take, can be drawn from the LONDON & HS maps as stated in section C. So technically if the fares I have listed above are Any Permitted fares then yes you could take the routes the OP has suggested above. However I have a sneaking suspicion because of the low price of the tickets and the fact there is an alternative HS map listed in the NRG, that the fares listed in the National Rail website will have a "Not via HS1" routeing and therefore will not be permitted via St Pancras (HS1 refers the route not the 395 train).

Obviously the full service has not commenced yet so I am unsure what the position is currently (you may be able to get away with it if you printed off the itinerary from the NR website) but when the full service does start there will direct trains every 30 minutes from Chatham to Ebbsfleet via Gravesend so this ticket will pretty obviously be valid on this route only.

 

[dan_atki]

Interesting WebTIS has no fares information. Avantix has 'Any Permitted' so my sneaking suspicion is its not valid (regardless of what NRE say) as there's no Cross-London marker, as needed to get to St Pancras.

 

[paul1609]

Following on from our previous discussions tickets from Littlehampton to St Pancras are now routed "any permitted" without the malteese cross my understanding is that any permitted is "thameslink" or any rail replacement service. Ive been told by Southern staff that this doesnt include underground when thameslink is open and that if I want to travel via the tube i have to buy a single to U1 or a travelcard.
Apparently fare allocation is being hotly disputed between ATOC and LUL prior to the full introduction of oyster cards on NR and the tocs have entered in to an "understanding" not to weaken atocs case.
As Bromley South to St Pancras is only a cross platform change at London Bridge it probably doesnt require a "+" in this scheme.

 

[dan_atki]

I fail to see the point of the 'Any Permitted' for Littlehampton to St Pancras when a 'Not Underground' also exists for exactly the same prices (and has a CDS the 'Any Permitted' does not have).

I suspect that this error is commonplace with St Pancras with how messed up the fares were that involved STP! It certainly should have the '+' on there, but I guess it's been generally accepted by FCC staff not to question it - something you mentioned in the past with 'London Terminals' tickets.

The fact the + is needed to get from St Pancras to City Thameslink (i.e. between the no man's land that is the gap between the two terminals) on FCC is confirmed by the fact there are still many '+Not Underground' routeings - e.g. Farringdon to Bromley South - which seemed counter intuitive until realising the meaning of '+' in such situations.

 

[glynn80]

Apparently fare allocation is being hotly disputed between ATOC and LUL prior to the full introduction of oyster cards on NR and the tocs have entered in to an "understanding" not to weaken atocs case.

Do you have any source for this, as I have heard nothing of this nature reported.

.e.g. Farringdon to Bromley South - which seemed counter intuitive until realising the meaning of '+' in such situations.

Excuse my ignorance, but what does the + mean in such situations? Is it necessary for travel to be permitted between Farringdon and City Thameslink (I am away from my main computer so cannot consult the FRPP on this issue.

Cheers

 

[dan_atki]

Excuse my ignorance, but what does the + mean in such situations? Is it necessary for travel to be permitted between Farringdon and City Thameslink (I am away from my main computer so cannot consult the FRPP on this issue.

To quote NFM98:

Ticket prices in Section C, for journeys routed for travel ’via London’ and marked with the symbol +, include the cost of transfer across London by London Underground, DLR or First Capital Connect train services on the Thameslink route.

+ Prices shown include cross-London transfer by London Underground or First Capital Connect services via Farringdon. Where applicable, this symbol must be shown as a route on the ticket.

The fact the route is '+Not Underground' by nature leads me to believe it means 'FCC only cross-London transfer permitted', although this is not explicitly stated anywhere.

 

[glynn80]

The fact the route is '+Not Underground' by nature leads me to believe it means 'FCC only cross-London transfer permitted', although this is not explicitly stated anywhere.

Ah yes there is a similar statement within the FRPP:

Ticket prices shown in your TIS or the Fares Finder, for journeys routed for travel 'via London' and marked with the symbol , include the cost of transfer across London by London Underground, DLR or First Capital Connect train services on the Thameslink route. Tickets displaying the 'cross-London' marker †, are valid for travel between any two of the following stations appropriate to the route of the through rail journey being made.

By my interpretation of the above, there are two markers- " the symbol (a plus sign)" and "the cross-London (a maltese cross) each signifying a slightly different validity?

 

[dan_atki]

By my interpretation of the above, there are two markers- " the symbol (a plus sign)" and "the cross-London (a maltese cross) each signifying a slightly different validity?

No - they are the 'same'! (At least IMO).

The Maltese Cross was always used in the fares section of the printed NFMs whereas '+' was used on tickets. Although the two are used in conjunction in a paragraph of section A too (for some unbeknown reason).

There was a thread debating whether the two symbols are different in meaning. I think it was concluded that the symbols mean the same - a line of thought I agree with, especially seeing as the plus like symbol is not defined anywhere...

 

[glynn80]

No - they are the 'same'! (At least IMO).

The Maltese Cross was always used in the fares section of the printed NFMs whereas '+' was used on tickets. Although the two are used in conjunction in a paragraph of section A too (for some unbeknown reason).

There was a thread debating whether the two symbols are different in meaning. I think it was concluded that the symbols mean the same - a line of thought I agree with, especially seeing as the plus like symbol is not defined anywhere...

After doing some FRPP and backdated NFM digging I have come to the conclusion there are two separate symbols signifying two different validities.

The first is "the via London symbol" (the maltese cross), which denotes the ticket held includes the cost of transfer across London by London Underground, DLR or First Capital Connect train services.

The second is "the cross-London marker" (the crucifix length cross), which denotes the ticket held is valid for travel between any two of the London Terminal stations appropriate to the route of the through rail journey being made. A full list of the London Terminal stations that qualify for validity under the cross-London marker can be found within this post, http://railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=341459&postcount=6)

To illustrate conclusively, NFM 98 clearly displays differing symbols with regard to via London travel:

 

[dan_atki]

If they are indeed two separate symbols it baffles me as to why they are the same symbol - a cross!

It says there that the Maltese Cross is displayed in section C of the NFM with fares whereas the crucifix is printed on tickets. The list of stations, I assume, is the places where cross-London transfer can take place appropriate to the journey - and the transfer must be on LU, DLR, or FCC.

It makes no sense as to why the Maltese Cross would be used - it would be less confusing all around if the crucifix was used in section C of the NFM, thereby eliminating the need for the Maltese Cross.

http://railticketsillustrated.digimig.co.uk/p15783818.html shows the use of the crucifix on the ticket. According to Avantix, the route remains the same for that flow. I have a sneaking suspicion if you check FRPP that the symbol for the routeing will be a Maltese Cross, like it was with the fares manuals - is this indeed the case?

 

[glynn80]

OK, I think I have cracked it.

The short stout maltese cross (the first one displayed within the NFM 98 paragraph) is the symbol used internally within the FRPP/NFM to denote travel is permitted via London.

The crucifix style cross-London marker (the latter cross displayed within the NFM 98 paragraph) is the symbol actually printed onto tickets that signifies to passengers that their ticket is valid between any two of the appropriate London termini.

 

[dan_atki]

They are clearly shown in the same paragraph of text within NFM 98 as separate symbols and with separate explanations of validity. If they are as you state, in fact denoting the same validity, why have two clearly different images of a cross in the via London paragraph?

I reckon that the only symbol to be printed on any ticket is the cross-London marker (the crucifix cross). The via London symbol (the plus sign) is only for internal FRPP/NFM use.

You have answered your own question . Reread the extract from NFM98 carefully and that [the Maltese Cross is internal and the crucifix on tickets] is what it says!

 

[glynn80]

You have answered your own question . Reread the extract from NFM98 carefully and that [the Maltese Cross is internal and the crucifix on tickets] is what it says!

Yeh I was editing my post as you wrote this reply.

The lightbulb clicked when reading the "Explanation of Symbols used in Fares Manuals".

 

[dan_atki]

Sorry for being too quick!

What is also interesting to note is that page A6 in NFM98 says that the symbol *must* be placed on tickets where appropriate - however, there are cases (yorkie will be happy to come in here!) where tickets are routed via London but have no cross on them...

I also take a lack of symbol to mean travel City Thameslink - Farringdon - St Pancras is theoretically not valid, based on the definition of the marker.

 

[glynn80]

What is also interesting to note is that page A6 in NFM98 says that the symbol *must* be placed on tickets where appropriate - however, there are cases (yorkie will be happy to come in here!) where tickets are routed via London but have no cross on them...

I also take a lack of symbol to mean travel City Thameslink - Farringdon - St Pancras is theoretically not valid, based on the definition of the marker.

Yes that was interesting although I took a slightly different definition than that of yourself, this is explained further in the example below.

You stated above that in Avantix Traveller, Littlehampton to London St Pancras has a +Not Underground listed flow. In the FRPP the plus does not appear. I do not think this is an FRPP error, I think it is an Avantix error, my reasoning behind this is mainly that the maltese cross definition states "Ticket prices shown in your TIS or the Fares Finder, for journeys routed for travel 'via London' and marked with the symbol , include the cost of transfer across London by London Underground, DLR or First Capital Connect train services on the Thameslink route.". It does not allow you to just take one of those modes of transport to cross London and isolate it, either they are all valid or not.

 

[dan_atki]

No, there is a 'Not Underground' (lack of +) and an 'Any Permitted' (lack of +) for Littlehampton to St Pancras. The '+Not Underground' (with the +) was for Farringdon to Bromley South.

I think the issue here is in pre zonal days when it may have been cheaper to do a zone 1 transfer via Thameslink than it was by Tube - indeed that is still the case with the zonal system.

The way that fares used to be done (in the days of APTIS) was if the fare wasn't listed in the NFM, then you'd have to create it yourself from constituent parts (hence the double crossed crucifix symbol - 'fares must not be used to calculate other fares').

As an example, let's say there was a lack of fare from Luton to Horsham (call it oversight just to illustrate my point ). The fares from Luton to London Terminals, and London Terminals to Horsham are both listed and both without the double crossed crucifix.

The fare for Luton to Horsham would then be found by adding these two fares plus the cross London supplement to enable transfer (if I recall, this supplement was equal to the cost of an LU zone 1 single for each leg). APTIS could let you issue anything (even putting the cross London marker on tickets it wasn't meant to be on if you pushed the button!) so that wasn't a problem. It just needed the fare to be manually inputted if it didn't have it in its limited memory.

As a result of this 'supplement' I suspect most (if not all) of this revenue went to LU, despite people still making cross London journeys on Thameslink. I suspect the '+Not Underground' routeing was created for ORCATS purposes more than anything else!

 

[glynn80]

No, there is a 'Not Underground' (lack of +) and an 'Any Permitted' (lack of +) for Littlehampton to St Pancras. The '+Not Underground' (with the +) was for Farringdon to Bromley South.

Ah do apoligise, yes in the FRPP this is listed (weirdly).

Because of this I would say that your definition is correct as it is the only logical way to explain a +Not Underground ticket.

 

[Edvid]

I've read the whole thread and having read the explanation for the Maltese Cross and the crucifix it all seems so clear now - in hindsight I realise the difference was staring us in the face! (Yes, I was part of that old cross-London thread mentioned earlier)

Including the reasoning for the +Not Underground routeing, that's two things I've learned today. Ta muchly guys.

 

[jammity87]

In that case then, why would the national rail journey planner suggest both the wrong fare for the journey and also the wrong route.

 

[dan_atki]

Including the reasoning for the +Not Underground routeing, that's two things I've learned today. Ta muchly guys.

No problem! .

In that case then, why would the national rail journey planner suggest both the wrong fare for the journey and also the wrong route.

This is what concerns me a great deal. I suspect the NRE journey planner isn't programmed to be strict to all the rules. OK, then you might argue what's the point of using it. My defence here would be these cases are rather isolated.

Getting to Ebbsfleet at the moment is nigh on difficult. You can only reach it by changing at St Pancras or Ashford International. By default the NRE journey planner is designed to show the quickest option* (not necessarily the easiest or the cheapest - unless you 'trick' it by using the advanced options to get what you want**). In this case it determines that getting to Ebbsfleet via St Pancras is quicker than going via Ashford.

It then checks the Routeing Guide to see if the direct fare listed in its database is valid for the service. 'Any Permitted' means any route shown in the guide is valid - in this case there is a route via London as Glynn has already said (and not one via Ashford so that doubly discounts it). It ensures it follows all routeing guide restrictions as best as it knows them.

Indeed travelling via St Pancras on this ticket does not break any condition of the routeing guide. It breaks a condition of the fares manuals which NRE is evidently not checking - the cross London marker. Whether this is intentional (there have been many problems with fares to St Pancras as Paul has stated above, and in other threads) or not is unknown.

The suspicion I have is that the price is a giveaway travel via London is not intended - along with the lack of + in the ticket's routeing. Then again, there is no other way to reach Ebbsfleet so I feel you'd probably 'get away' with it - any confrontation and all you have to do is say 'ok, please tell me which route is valid' - they'll look it up and find either there is actually no valid route, or travel via St Pancras is valid as a stopgap until the full High Speed service to Kent is introduced.

It is worth noting that only NRE and thetrainline based planners are giving this route and not WebTIS (the technology behind National Express East Coast's - and a few other's - online ticketing solution) based planners. This fails to find a route, I suspect, because it is programmed more rigidly.

*Even if this requires you to purchase two tickets because you are 'doubling back' on yourself - see the thread about return tickets from Bexhill to Cheddington. It specified to travel from Euston to Leighton Buzzard and then back to Cheddington because it was quickest - but requiring two tickets.

**Presuming you are quite savvy and know how to force it to display what you want... most of the travelling public aren't, though, and will take what it says as gospel seeing as it's the official ATOC site. Many more people use NRE than TOC sites simply because of its 'fame', if that's the right word to use.

 

[Magicake]

BUT, the routeing guide instructions say:

In some instances (particularly long distance cross country journeys) the
Manual will show an "any permitted" fare but without the via London, Maltese
cross symbol. Reference to Section C (the “yellow pages”) may show via
London to be a permitted route for this journey and in such instances travel
via London to include cross-London transfer would be permitted.

Does this not mean that even though the maltese cross is not included, you could still make this journey with LUL or FCC as LONDON is listed as an acceptable route in the routeing guide?

 

[dan_atki]

It is precisely this matter which is the problem. The quote in NFM98 above says that if the ticket is valid for Cross-London transfer it must be marked with the symbol, yet the routeing guide is giving contradictory advice.

As I said, I suspect the 'London' routeing in the guide is temporary until the full introduction of High Speed in Kent. The problem here is that the £4.30 SOS then creates huge anomolies in Kent area fares if travel via London is intended to be permitted.

 

[jammity87]

Just checked this ticket out again and it says:

ROUTE OF TICKET ANY PERMITTED - Travel is allowed by any route option shown by the Journey Planner

This fare is only valid on trains travelling between certain times. (Is this off-peak like i selected or is it more specific.

Certainly if anyone does attempt to fine me then i'll make sure they read the part that says Travel is allowed by any route option shown by the Journey Planner


Next time im in London im going to use this ticket, going to save me lots til December anyway.

 

[jammity87]

Has anyone got a link to the national rail routeing guide, or would they be able to verify for me that the journey

Rainham Kent to Ebbsfleet via Bromley south and St Pancras be valid.

I'm only going to use this ticket to STP to avoid any trouble

 

[John @ home]

Has anyone got a link to the national rail routeing guide

http://www.atoc.org/rsp/Routeing_Guide/

would they be able to verify for me that the journey

Rainham Kent to Ebbsfleet via Bromley south and St Pancras be valid.

From National Fares Manual NFM 03 CD:
Origin: RAINHAM KENT
Destination: EBBSFLEET INT SE
Route: ANY PERMITTED
Fares:
SDR £8.70 SET
CDR £4.80 C4 SET
SDS £4.30 SET

Using National Routeing Guide:
RAINHAM KENT: Routeing points CHATHAM GROUP and FAVERSHAM.
EBBSFLEET INT SE is a Routeing Point.
We need to check fares to determine the appropriate Routeing Point(s) for RAINHAM KENT.

From National Fares Manual NFM 03 CD:
Origin: CHATHAM
Destination: EBBSFLEET INT SE
Route: ANY PERMITTED
Fares:
SDR £7.80 SET
SDS £4.20 SET
CDR £3.90 C4 SET
CDS £3.80 C4 SET
Fares from CHATHAM are not higher than fares from RAINHAM KENT, so CHATHAM is an appropriate Routeing Point.

Origin: FAVERSHAM
Destination: EBBSFLEET INT SE
Route: ANY PERMITTED
Fares:
FDR £29.80 SET
SDR £19.90 SET
FDS £14.90 SET
SDS £10.70 SET
CDR £10.10 C4 SET
CDS £10.00 C4 SET
Fares from FAVERSHAM are higher than fares from RAINHAM KENT, so FAVERSHAM is not an appropriate Routeing Point.

So the only appropriate Routeing Points for this journey are CHATHAM GROUP and EBBSFLEET INT SE.

Mapped routed between CHATHAM GROUP and EBBSFLEET INT SE are LONDON and HS.

Map HS shows CHATHAM - GRAVESEND - EBBSFLEET. So RAINHAM KENT - CHATHAM - GRAVESEND - EBBSFLEET is a Permitted Route.

The Routeing Guide describes how to deal with a routeing code of LONDON:

If the routeing code is "LONDON", for all journeys via London you will need to cross reference routeing codes applicable "to London" with the code for the "from London" leg of the journey.
If the routeing code is "LONDON", journeys include the cost of cross-London transfer either by London Underground or Thameslink services. In all cases the transfer points should be along the correct line of route given by the ‘permitted route’ map combinations.
The via London, Maltese Cross symbol on a ticket signifies that the ticket may be used via London Underground or Thameslink services. Unless a ticket specifies that the journey must be made via London, passengers are free to use an alternative ‘permitted route’ for their journey as provided by the Routeing Guide.
In some instances (particularly long distance cross country journeys) the Manual will show an "any permitted" fare but without the via London, Maltese cross symbol. Reference to Section C (the “yellow pages”) may show via London to be a permitted route for this journey and in such instances travel via London to include cross-London transfer would be permitted.

Mapped routes between CHATHAM GROUP and LONDON GROUP are HS, LD, LR, LR+SL, NK and VC.

HS, LD and NK do not allow travel via BROMLEY SOUTH. LR allows CHATHAM - BROMLEY SOUTH - CLAPHAM JUNCTION - LONDON VICTORIA. LR+SL allows CHATHAM - BROMLEY SOUTH - HERNE HILL - LONDON VICTORIA and CHATHAM - BROMLEY SOUTH - HERNE HILL - LONDON BLACKFRIARS (and some other routes). VC allows CHATHAM - BROMLEY SOUTH - HERNE HILL - LONDON VICTORIA and CHATHAM - BROMLEY SOUTH - PECKHAM RYE - LONDON VICTORIA.

So RAINHAM KENT - CHATHAM - BROMLEY SOUTH - [CLAPHAM JUNCTION or HERNE HILL or PECKHAM RYE] - LONDON forms part of a Permitted Route for this journey.

Mapped routes between CHATHAM GROUP and LONDON GROUP are LONDON and HS. A a routeing code of LONDON for a journey to or from LONDON does not make sense and is ignored.

Map HS shows LONDON ST PANCRAS - STRATFORD - EBBSFLEET. So LONDON ST PANCRAS - STRATFORD - EBBSFLEET forms part of a Permitted Route for this journey.

So RAINHAM KENT - CHATHAM - BROMLEY SOUTH - [CLAPHAM JUNCTION or HERNE HILL or PECKHAM RYE] - LONDON [VICTORIA or BLACKFRIARS] - [London Underground or Thameslink] - LONDON ST PANCRAS - STRATFORD - EBBSFLEET is a Permitted Route for this journey.

John

 

[dan_atki]

It is also currently the shortest route for the journey so must be valid. This will obviously not be the case once the full High Speed service starts, though.

 

[embers25]

One word of caution here would be my latest response from SWT's most senior Customer Service Advisor to my Woking-Slough issue (yes it took them 38 days and 2 promptings to respond!).

ATOC say SWT must refund as they kicked me off a valid train on a valid route but SWT are now saying that they determine what routes are valid on their trains and if the ATOC routing guide advises otherwise then I will be forced to buy a new ticket if I continue my journey and I must claim back any extra fees from ATOC which of course ATOC won't pay as they blame, and rightly so, SWT.
Also SWT, after issuing this judgement, also refuse to discuss further and also have backed up all their staff saying even the ones refusing to allow outbound break of journey rule were right.
Following this refusal passenger focus are now involved again and SWT and ATOC should respond within a week apparently.
This is hugely concerning as SWT must follow the routing guide and yet they take the view that the routing guide must follow their rules and if it doesn't tough luck passenger. In my case the final word from this head guy at SWT was that my Woking to Slough ticket is only valid Woking-Basingstoke-Reading-Slough!!!! Obviously this is not the shortest route, it is not a permitted route based on the routing guide back in July or now and also means that in SWT's eyes one logical Woking-Guldford-Reading-Slough route is invalid (despite even their routing system offering this way!)

So just beware as getting the excess fares they'll charge back is not easy. That said you are right that your ticket is valid and it's ludicrous that you can't use it without hassle. Either the routing guide is definitive or it isn't end of story.

 

[jammity87]

Well i used this ticket, and i was advised that the only valid route was to use a local bus service to Ebbsfleet (the conductor didnt say where from). Surely if this was the case then i'd only be able to be sold a ticket to the station where i'd have to get a bus from?

 

[dan_atki]

Well i used this ticket, and i was advised that the only valid route was to use a local bus service to Ebbsfleet (the conductor didnt say where from). Surely if this was the case then i'd only be able to be sold a ticket to the station where i'd have to get a bus from?

What you were told is factually incorrect - the route on the ticket is 'Any Permitted' and to determine what is meant by this and what is permitted you use the Routeing Guide as we have above. If a bus is the 'only valid route' then the route on the ticket should say so rather than 'Any Permitted' or the Routeing Guide should be edited.