Route LONDON NOT UNDERGROUND

[Ritchie333]

I'm looking at a day trip from Ashford International to Southampton Central tomorrow. Looking at brfares.com, I can see the following restrictions, which I assume are the following :
VIA BARNHAM (set by Southern) - using Southern services from Victoria
NOT VIA LONDON (set by South Western Railway) - via Tonbridge / Redhill / Barnham, or the Marshlink and East / West Coastway lines
LONDON NOT UNDERGROUND (set by SWR) - the more expensive, but faster route via St Pancras and Waterloo.

What exactly does NOT UNDERGROUND mean in this situation? Does it mean I have to pay separately for the tube trip across London, or is it more restrictive? There doesn't seem to be any ANY PERMITTED route available using SWR fares.

Or should I just play it safe, and get the most expensive option of separate returns from Ashford to St Pancras, and Waterloo to Southampton, plus TfL cross London fares?

 

[CyrusWuff]

London Not Underground is intended to be used to do Southampton - Waterloo - (walk) - Waterloo East - Ashford International.

There is no through ticket for the journey that allows you to use HS1 from St Pancras.

 

[hkstudent]

I'm looking at a day trip from Ashford International to Southampton Central tomorrow. Looking at brfares.com, I can see the following restrictions, which I assume are the following :
VIA BARNHAM (set by Southern) - using Southern services from Victoria
NOT VIA LONDON (set by South Western Railway) - via Tonbridge / Redhill / Barnham, or the Marshlink and East / West Coastway lines
LONDON NOT UNDERGROUND (set by SWR) - the more expensive, but faster route via St Pancras and Waterloo.

What exactly does NOT UNDERGROUND mean in this situation? Does it mean I have to pay separately for the tube trip across London, or is it more restrictive? There doesn't seem to be any ANY PERMITTED route available using SWR fares.

Or should I just play it safe, and get the most expensive option of separate returns from Ashford to St Pancras, and Waterloo to Southampton, plus TfL cross London fares?

The south limit of *Any Permitted ticket from Ashford International would be to Eastleigh.

So it may probably be cheaper to get to Eastleigh, then a local single / return from Eastleigh to Southampton (most regional / intercity trains call at both stations).
Or, alternatively, buy from Sandling (next station away from Ashford) and to start short your journey.

 

[Watershed]

VIA BARNHAM (set by Southern) - using Southern services from Victoria

The intended use of that route is for you to avoid London altogether and travel via Tonbridge and Redhill, or via Eastbourne before using the West Coastway.

There are unpublished electronic restrictions in the fares data which prevent you from getting itineraries from journey planners via London and Barnham, but ultimately it's a route which complies with the published restrictions and the Routeing Guide, so it is valid nonetheless.

London Not Underground is intended to be used to do Southampton - Waterloo - (walk) - Waterloo East - Ashford International.

There is no through ticket for the journey that allows you to use HS1 from St Pancras.

That's certainly the intended route but similar to above, under the Routeing Guide and based on the published restrictions (which are the binding ones) you could travel on HS1 to St Pancras, then use Thameslink to cross London - e.g. changing at London Bridge, Waterloo East/Waterloo or going down the Brighton Main Line.

There are unpublished restrictions preventing journey planners from offering itineraries via Stratford International but if that was intended to be an enforceable restriction they should have used a route code such as 00339 "Not HS1 not Und".

 

[walkingsophie]

There are unpublished electronic restrictions in the fares data which prevent you from getting itineraries from journey planners via London and Barnham, but ultimately it's a route which complies with the published restrictions and the Routeing Guide, so it is valid nonetheless.

The way NRCoT 13.1.2 is phrased implies that you have to rely on itineraries rather than the routeing guide, which is just in an information box phrased in a way that implies it does not itself determine validity, so I would not rely on this.

 

[CyrusWuff]

That's certainly the intended route but similar to above, under the Routeing Guide and based on the published restrictions (which are the binding ones) you could travel on HS1 to St Pancras, then use Thameslink to cross London - e.g. changing at London Bridge, Waterloo East/Waterloo or going down the Brighton Main Line.

There are unpublished restrictions preventing journey planners from offering itineraries via Stratford International but if that was intended to be an enforceable restriction they should have used a route code such as 00339 "Not HS1 not Und".

Doing some digging, London Not Underground has been in use since at least NFM64, so it looks like they didn't think to change it when HS1 opened.

 

[JonathanH]

Doing some digging, London Not Underground has been in use since at least NFM64, so it looks like they didn't think to change it when HS1 opened.

I think it was introduced in late BR days. I remember an article by Barry Doe in one of the magazines. The original routeing had included a maltese cross, and making it 'London Not Underground' when the expected interchange was Waterloo to Waterloo East saved part of the payment from British Rail to London Underground.

 

[Watershed]

The way NRCoT 13.1.2 is phrased implies that you have to rely on itineraries rather than the routeing guide, which is just in an information box phrased in a way that implies it does not itself determine validity, so I would not rely on this.

The NRCoT claim that information boxes are non-contractual, but this clearly not intended to be the case when you read the other information boxes which the industry would like to rely on!

The suggestion that the industry publishes a public-facing version of the Routeing Guide but then intends it to be of no contractual force doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

 

[walkingsophie]

The NRCoT claim that information boxes are non-contractual, but this clearly not intended to be the case when you read the other information boxes which the industry would like to rely on!

The suggestion that the industry publishes a public-facing version of the Routeing Guide but then intends it to be of no contractual force doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

I would be curious to see if that holds up in court, but I personally would not want to be the one to test it out.

 

[Watershed]

I would be curious to see if that holds up in court, but I personally would not want to be the one to test it out.

Fair enough, I guess your experience with SWR has understandably put you off trying anything that could be seen as remotely controversial!

 

[furlong]

Train companies remain contractually obliged (to the government) to carry passengers who are following permitted routes (which include whatever the approved version of the routeing guide says) for the fares they purchased.