Reading to Oxford - Route Validity

[Train Maniac]

Hey, me again

Is a Off peak return between the above stations valid on the stopping services via Didcot Parkway (specifically want to alight at DPW as well?

 

[Benjwri]

A ticket from Reading to Oxford is valid on a train from Reading to Didcot and then Didcot to Oxford, yes, by virtue of being within 3 miles of the shortest route (Avoiding Didcot).

 

[Train Maniac]

A ticket from Reading to Oxford is valid on a train from Reading to Didcot and then Didcot to Oxford, yes, by virtue of being within 3 miles of the shortest route (Avoiding Didcot).

Perfect, thanks!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

A ticket from Reading to Oxford is valid on a train from Reading to Didcot and then Didcot to Oxford, yes, by virtue of being within 3 miles of the shortest route (Avoiding Didcot).

Is using the avoiding lines at Didcot considered a separate route from running through the platforms then?

As no more than an ordinary user, it surprises me if that's the case (using the avoiding lines doesn't feel much different to me than using the mains through Burnham as opposed to the reliefs which have platforms - and as far as I know there's no dispute that the main and the relief at Burnham are the same route) but the railway does do some odd things sometimes.

 

[Benjwri]

Is using the avoiding lines at Didcot considered a separate route from running through the platforms then?

As no more than an ordinary user, it surprises me if that's the case (using the avoiding lines doesn't feel much different to me than using the mains through Burnham as opposed to the reliefs which have platforms - and as far as I know there's no dispute that the main and the relief at Burnham are the same route) but the railway does do some odd things sometimes.

In terms of the data used for shortest route yes, the shortest route is separate to the route via Didcot. If there was a via Didcot ticket it wouldn't be valid on a train that avoids Didcot. Technically a Season ticket split at Didcot wouldn't be valid to non stop split on a train that uses the avoiding lines.

 

[Watershed]

In terms of the data used for shortest route yes, the shortest route is separate to the route via Didcot. If there was a via Didcot ticket it wouldn't be valid on a train that avoids Didcot. Technically a Season ticket split at Didcot wouldn't be valid to non stop split on a train that uses the avoiding lines.

I'm not sure that a non-public data feed, which isn't referenced anywhere in the NRCoT or Routeing Guide, can be deemed the legal arbiter of what counts as passing through a station vs avoiding it

But whilst we're on the topic of unpublished rules, I believe that journey planners are told to treat any train which passes through Didcot East Jn as passing through Didcot Parkway. This is necessary to make Routeing Guide maps work as not all of them have a direct link from Reading to Oxford avoiding Didcot.

 

[Benjwri]

I'm not sure that a non-public data feed, which isn't referenced anywhere in the NRCoT or Routeing Guide, can be deemed the legal arbiter of what counts as passing through a station vs avoiding it

A similar argument could be made about many things in the routeing guide couldn't it? Luckily for us they obviously removed the issue but just saying what websites say is true.

But whilst we're on the topic of unpublished rules, I believe that journey planners are told to treat any train which passes through Didcot East Jn as passing through Didcot Parkway. This is necessary to make Routeing Guide maps work as not all of them have a direct link from Reading to Oxford avoiding Didcot.

Is this an easement?

 

[Watershed]

A similar argument could be made about many things in the routeing guide couldn't it? Luckily for us they obviously removed the issue but just saying what websites say is true.

The point I'm making is that the public-facing Routeing Guide doesn't say which source should be used to calculate the shortest route. So in my view it is just as valid to use a source which has the avoiding line counted separately, as one which doesn't.

The difference in distance along the avoiding line is so small that you may as well quibble over whether the distance is different when you're taking the Inner Rail of the Circle line or the Outer Rail!

Is this an easement?

I can't remember the term of the file off hand but it's in one of the data feeds that journey planners consume. It's not available in human readable format.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Is using the avoiding lines at Didcot considered a separate route from running through the platforms then?

Surely any member of the public looking at a route map would see that a journey from Reading to Oxford is via Didcot. The precise tracks taken through Didcot should be of no concern.

 

[Train Maniac]

Surely any member of the public looking at a route map would see that a journey from Reading to Oxford is via Didcot. The precise tracks taken through Didcot should be of no concern.

Well no, as Journey Planners automatically show the non stop services via the East Curve. Splitting the ticket at DPW ends up being about £2 more than direct. Hence my question. (FWIW i was fairly certain it was valid, i just didnt want a confrontation at the ticket gates Haha)

 

[Haywain]

Surely any member of the public looking at a route map would see that a journey from Reading to Oxford is via Didcot. The precise tracks taken through Didcot should be of no concern.

More to the point, no member of staff is going to question a Reading to Oxford ticket being used on a train to or from Didcot, or being used at Didcot station.

 

[A S Leib]

I've come across "via Gloucester" fares rather than via Cheltenham ones for Bletchley to Taunton; does a similar principle apply where taking direct trains from Birmingham (or Tamworth?) to Taunton, avoiding Gloucester, is allowed?

Edit: my guess would be that it is allowed, as I can't imagine the direct route being more than three miles longer than via Gloucester, and that stating via Gloucester means taking a diversion there is explicitly allowed. What that doesn't explain is why some fares say via Gloucester and others via Birmingham.

Bletchley to Exeter's via Honiton, via Taunton (including Paddington), or via Gloucester; Rugby to Taunton's via Gloucester; Rugby to Exeter says via Birmingham, so changing once is definitely permitted but that's inconsistent.

 

[Haywain]

I've come across "via Gloucester" fares rather than via Cheltenham ones for Bletchley to Taunton; does a similar principle apply where taking direct trains from Birmingham (or Tamworth?) to Taunton, avoiding Gloucester, is allowed?

For the purposes of those fares, Gloucester is deemed to be one of the junctions on the direct/avoiding line.

 

[Watershed]

I've come across "via Gloucester" fares rather than via Cheltenham ones for Bletchley to Taunton; does a similar principle apply where taking direct trains from Birmingham (or Tamworth?) to Taunton, avoiding Gloucester, is allowed?

Edit: my guess would be that it is allowed, as I can't imagine the direct route being more than three miles longer than via Gloucester, and that stating via Gloucester means taking a diversion there is explicitly allowed. What that doesn't explain is why some fares say via Gloucester and others via Birmingham.

Bletchley to Exeter's via Honiton, via Taunton (including Paddington), or via Gloucester; Rugby to Taunton's via Gloucester; Rugby to Exeter says via Birmingham, so changing once is definitely permitted but that's inconsistent.

There is a data feed used by journey planners which lists junctions on avoiding lines and associated stations. If a train that uses an avoiding line is timed to pass one of the junctions listed in the feed, then it is treated as still passing through the associated station for the purposes of the Routeing Guide and any route restrictions.

I'm aware of this covering trains that avoid Gloucester, York and Didcot. It might also cover Westbury, I'm not quite sure. This feed exists to prevent restrictions like "via Gloucester" from barring journey opportunities that are intended to be valid.

There's no real justification for why restrictions like "via Gloucester" are used for fares on those XC journeys. It's probably a historical hangover from the days when almost all trains used to stop and reverse at Gloucester, but that's not been the case for decades now.

The "via Honiton" fares exist for Bletchley to Exeter because this is a journey that was historically within the Network Southeast area, so the NSE sector (or shadow TOCs) wanted to offer a fare that let them keep all most of the revenue. The Intercity sector/shadow TOCs would have created the "via Taunton" fare to compete and keep most of the revenue on the faster route.

For Rugby to Exeter there really should be a fare that allows travel via London, but I imagine the fare structure has not changed since before the days of WCML route modernisation. Since then the frequency and speed of Rugby-Euston has improved significantly, meaning it's a much more viable option. Paddington-Exeter services have also become significantly more frequent, whilst Birmingham-Exeter services are only marginally better than in the HST era.

 

[imagination]

The "via Honiton" fares exist for Bletchley to Exeter because this is a journey that was historically within the Network Southeast area, so the NSE sector (or shadow TOCs) wanted to offer a fare that let them keep all most of the revenue. The Intercity sector/shadow TOCs would have created the "via Taunton" fare to compete and keep most of the revenue on the faster route.

It also enables a network railcard to be used for the journey of course.