Route changes reducing flexibility

[Sleepy]

Tickets from Wymondham and Attleborough to London have always had route via Norwich or Cambridge, it seems they have been adjusted so journey planners will not allow return via Cambridge on the higher priced via Norwich ticket anymore which is not good if returning at the weekend if wishing to avoid engineering work on Colchester route ! If it will be enforced is a different story of course.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Tickets from Wymondham and Attleborough to London have always had route via Norwich or Cambridge, it seems they have been adjusted so journey planners will not allow return via Cambridge on the higher priced via Norwich ticket anymore which is not good if returning at the weekend if wishing to avoid engineering work on Colchester route ! If it will be enforced is a different story of course.

The higher priced 'via Norwich' ticket is also de facto valid via Cambridge. If whomever was checking tickets was not happy at you using a 'via Norwich' ticket via Cambridge, they could issue a zero fare change-of-route excess to 'via Cambridge'.

If you intend to go out via one route and return via another then the correct procedure, if you are sold a ticket at a ticket office and say what you want to do, is to be sold the cheaper routed fare, and to be issued with an excess to the more expensive route for the desired leg at the time of purchase. Unlike other excesses, a change of route excess is leg-specific, so you only pay half the difference between the price of each route for a one-leg excess.

 

[Sleepy]

Just a shame online journey planners show incorrect info.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Just a shame online journey planners show incorrect info.

Unfortunately online journey planners are merely following the instructions put into the electronic data by GA, namely that itineraries provided in connection with 'via Norwich' tickets must, in fact, involve going via Norwich. I don't think it's easy for them to program in that 'via Norwich' tickets can sometimes also be used via other places which aren't Norwich, as for example not all journeys with a 'via Norwich' routed ticket also have a cheaper 'via Cambridge' routed ticket. Short of programming in every eventuality this is the kind of thing you can only really find out if you involve a person.

 

[JB_B]

Could you explain this a bit more fully FTLA?

To recap: for the journeys the OP requires ( from Wymondham and Attleborough to London ) , the cheaper (route Cambridge) tickets are not valid via Norwich although change-of-route excess is, naturally, a possibility.

The more expensive (route Norwich) tickets are valid via Norwich (and, of course, Cambridge as well if wanted.)

So the OP should not have any problem with the intended journey (on a via-Norwich ticket going via Cambridge for one of the legs.) .

AFAICS journey planners should show via-Cambridge routes for the via-Norwich ticket but not vice-versa.

..I don't think it's easy for them to program in that 'via Cambridge' tickets can sometimes also be used via other places which aren't Cambridge..

Are you suggesting the journey planner should be able to pre-empt a potential change-of-route excess? If so, that's quite an ask.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Could you explain this a bit more fully FTLA?

To recap: for the journeys the OP requires ( from Wymondham and Attleborough to London ) , the cheaper (route Cambridge) tickets are not valid via Norwich although change-of-route excess is, naturally, a possibility.

The more expensive (route Norwich) tickets are valid via Norwich (and, of course, Cambridge as well if wanted.)

So the OP should not have any problem with the intended journey (on a via-Norwich ticket going via Cambridge for one of the legs.) .

AFAICS journey planners should show via-Cambridge routes for the via-Norwich ticket but not vice-versa.



Are you suggesting the journey planner should be able to pre-empt a potential change-of-route excess? If so, that's quite an ask.

I understand the OP's issue to be that online journey planners are not offering a 'via Cambridge' route on the return leg of a 'via Norwich' ticket. If so, whilst this does not reflect the ticket's full validity, I don't think it's practicable to program in every such eventuality. And I thought that's what I said?

 

[JB_B]

I understand the OP's issue to be that online journey planners are not offering a 'via Cambridge' route on the return leg of a 'via Norwich' ticket.

Yes - that's how I understood the question.

If so, whilst this does not reflect the ticket's full validity, I don't think it's practicable to program in every such eventuality.

It shouldn't be a problem - the OP is just stopping short at ( Wymondham and Attleborough ) on the London-Norwich Leg.

And I thought that's what I said?

OK - it read to me as if you thought the OP held a via-Cambridge ticket - sorry if I've misunderstood.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Yes - that's how I understood the question.



It shouldn't be a problem - the OP is just stopping short at ( Wymondham and Attleborough ) on the London-Norwich Leg.



OK - it read to me as if you thought the OP held a via-Cambridge ticket - sorry if I've misunderstood.

Sorry, I've mixed up Norwich and Cambridge in my post. Fixed.

 

[JB_B]

OK - that makes a lot more sense.

 

[lyndhurst25]

If the tickets were instead routed either "via Cambridge" or "any permitted", would that not fix the journey planner problem?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If the tickets were instead routed either "via Cambridge" or "any permitted", would that not fix the journey planner problem?

It would. But that solution would not be in line with the current policy of fares simplification, which takes the shape of, for example, more of these prescriptive route restrictions. It is claimed that the point is that passengers can then understand their ticket's validity better than if they simply say 'valid via any permitted route'. I don't see why there couldn't be a middle ground - a 'via Cambg/Norwich' option. Route restrictions with two alternative via points do exist - e.g. GWR's 'via Evesham/Stroud' options.

 

[Sleepy]

The original route description of " Not via Norwich" was more customer friendly IMO !