Routeing guide update 9 Oct 2013

[cjohnson]

Most of the Routeing Guide files (with the exception of Section F) appear to have been updated today (some have a 'posted on the website' date of 9/10/13)

There are definitely some new easements e.g.

700434 Customers travelling from Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood, How Wood, Park Street and St Albans Abbey to or via London St Pancras in possession of tickets routed "Any Permitted" may not travel via St Albans. This easement applies in both directions.

Not sure what in the other files have changed.

edit: old favourite map WA looks like it's been 'simplified'...

 

[mikeg]

A certain ticket I used a lot still remains valid the very long way round but not the slightly long way round... interesting...

That said I haven't checked the easements yet.

Edit:

Customers travelling from Carlisle and Lockerbie to Newcastle, Chester Le Street, Durham, Darlington, Middlesbrough, Thornaby,Yarm, Northallerton and Thirsk in possession of tickets routed "Any Permitted" may not travel via Manchester Stations. This easement applies in both directions.

Oh well, it's not valid any more. That said the Lockerbie route was particularly useful in a genuine sense!

 

[soil]

Not sure what in the other files have changed.

There are literally millions of changes.

They have basically replaced the old printed maps with ones that match those that were already being used by electronic systems.

You can see here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=81467

my impression of map WA as it was, and compare it with that in the new maps guide.


Best way to see the changes is to compare the maps , which remain available here:

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/Maps.pdf (but could be deleted without notice at any moment)(

with those here

http://www.atoc.org/download/clientfiles/files/091013 - Maps sorted alphabetically.pdf

 

[maniacmartin]

700434 Customers travelling from Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood, How Wood, Park Street and St Albans Abbey to or via London St Pancras in possession of tickets routed "Any Permitted" may not travel via St Albans. This easement applies in both directions.

So this is their response to the FCC court case detailed on another thread. I think this is a bit pointless as you don't need to consult the Routeing Guide for the shortest route....

 

[soil]

The instructions include one (and only one) change:

"This National Routeing Guide may be used to identify permitted routes. Please note, however, that to be valid, any journey not undertaken on a through train or the shortest route MUST be checked using the Journey Planner at www.nationalrail.co.uk, inputting the relevant interchange and via points. "

In other words, they can continue to hack at the unpublished electronic routeing guide and make arbitrary changes to it without any kind of record of when or where the change was made, and they won't have to bother updating the printed guide and can invalidate valid routes as they feel fit.

Also it's not clear if 'the shortest route' can include shorter routes involving walks etc.

 

[mikeg]

"This National Routeing Guide may be used to identify permitted routes. Please note, however, that to be valid, any journey not undertaken on a through train or the shortest route MUST be checked using the Journey Planner at www.nationalrail.co.uk, inputting the relevant interchange and via points. "

Doesn't that make the whole paper Routeing Guide kind of pointless then?

Who allowed for this?

If a journey is permitted according to the Journey Planner, surely it should be allowed on contractual reasons? And if a journey isn't but is via the Routeing Guide, it's now meaningless? Am I getting this correctly? I mention this because there are some reasonable but historically valid routes that the NR journey planner doesn't allow. Maybe we should contact the relevant authorities and ask if they authorised the deletion of each route? Individually picking out the routes and asking for an explanation on each one!

 

[soil]

I think what you are getting is that the TOCs can do whatever they like on these issues and nobody at the DFT will stop them.

 

[mikeg]

I think what you are getting is that the TOCs can do whatever they like on these issues and nobody at the DFT will stop them.

I never thought I'd say this but bring back the Strategic Rail Authority!
Oh and a Labour government while you're at it! At least they seemed to curb some of the greater excesses of ATOC, even if not keeping them fully under control. Didn't the SRA actually have overall responsibility for the NRG while it existed? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh and a Labour government while you're at it! At least they seemed to curb some of the greater excesses of ATOC, even if not keeping them fully under control.

Hardly, it was under their watch that 'Simplifcation' took place...

 

[mikeg]

True, very true. I may have just been getting ahead of myself with my political views/rose-tinted glasses!

 

[CheapAndNerdy]

Does the journey planner allow multiple via points to be input? I tried a sample journey, but it responded stating "Please correct the following errors: The via station has already been added."

 

[headshot119]

I've noticed that Llandudno Junction has now become a routing point. And it's been added on to maps CH, and BC as such. It might also have been added to other maps but I'm not sure.

Several anomalies around Wrexham have been closed down by the removal of map BC from a lot of groups. It's only been eighteen months since ATW told me they where going to have them closed.

 

[mikeg]

I'm having no problem putting in multiple journey points at the moment. But it is a highly illogical piece of software so I wouldn't expect it to work properly anyway. Thirsk/York to Rotherham Central not valid via Leeds!? Give me a break! But now it's genuinely not valid via Leeds. I'm going to collect more examples and write a letter/FOI request to the DfT and Passenger Focus asking why each one of these reasonable, historically valid routes has been withdrawn.

Sorry I'm very grumpy with this. When I thought it was just the MBR-CAR anomaly withdrawn and some other anomalies I was a bit disappointed but really couldn't object. But forcing us to use the journey planner, for which we are given no information on how it works, who validates it (I suspect nobody!) is unforgiveable.

 

[LexyBoy]

Wow. I must say that I expected the electronic and "paper" versions to be harmonised at some point, but it's pretty poor that it's been done in such an underhand way. And it doesn't even fix the bloody problem FCC are whining about! (OK, the timing may be a coincidence but I doubt it).

The "oh and it's very complicated for your pretty little heads so check NRE first or it's not valid" line in particular means it's hardly worth digging round in the new maps to find interesting routes as there's likely to be a secret easement, or programming "feature", or gap in service trains which means it doesn't show as valid.

I'm going to collect more examples and write a letter/FOI request to the DfT and Passenger Focus asking why each one of these reasonable, historically valid routes has been withdrawn.

This I think is the best strategy - picking up as many individual cases as possible.

I am expecting many more historical rights to be worn away as time goes on. I think many TOCs would love to have real or de facto TOC-only restrictions on most tickets.

 

[Deerfold]

There are literally millions of changes.

They have basically replaced the old printed maps with ones that match those that were already being used by electronic systems.

You can see here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=81467

my impression of map WA as it was, and compare it with that in the new maps guide.


Best way to see the changes is to compare the maps , which remain available here:

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/Maps.pdf (but could be deleted without notice at any moment)(

with those here

http://www.atoc.org/download/clientfiles/files/091013 - Maps sorted alphabetically.pdf

And yet they still can't spell "Principal" - on every page.

 

[WelshBluebird]

So what about journeys that are valid under the routeing guide, show as valid on other booking websites (such as RSH, or a ToC's site) but don't show as vaid on NRE. Are ATOC saying that they are now invalid too?

 

[LexyBoy]

So what about journeys that are valid under the routeing guide, show as valid on other booking websites (such as RSH, or a ToC's site) but don't show as vaid on NRE. Are ATOC saying that they are now invalid too?

Not yet...

When you book your journey online, any ticket offered in connection with the timetable or itinerary produced by the journey planner will be accepted as a permitted route.

 

[maniacmartin]

I'm going to collect more examples and write a letter/FOI request to the DfT and Passenger Focus asking why each one of these reasonable, historically valid routes has been withdrawn.

I'm also interested in doing this. Perhaps we could have a community effort in a dedicated thread where people can gather a list of removed reasonable routes.

 

[tractakid]

I guess trainscanbecheaper is now outdated? That was the easiest way for me to get my head around the routeing guide.

 

[Eagle]

I notice there are a lot of new routeing points in the Strathclyde area (new map AG shows most of them); previously they'd all have been referred to Glasgow group or Paisley GS.

Also, Airdrie to Bathgate has finally been added as a through route.

 

[mikeg]

I'm also interested in doing this. Perhaps we could have a community effort in a dedicated thread where people can gather a list of removed reasonable routes.

Good idea... I'm up for it, but my knowledge of fares and routes is limited to Yorkshire and Teesside really.

 

[JamesRowden]

The 'Reading-GW-Gatwick-SN-Hastings' route is no longer valid according to the new routing guide. NRE shows it as requiring two tickets but the Southern website still shows it as valid. Splitting the tickets at Dorking (thus making the route valid) works out cheaper than the through tickets anyway (off-peak and peak singles, day returns and 30-day returns [but NRE doesn't show the split returns ]).

 

[Eagle]

Oh here's a fairly big change:

Salford Crescent is no longer part of the Manchester group, but is now a separate routeing point. That could have a big effect on cross-Manchester routes.

 

[furlong]

The instructions include one (and only one) change:

"This National Routeing Guide may be used to identify permitted routes. Please note, however, that to be valid, any journey not undertaken on a through train or the shortest route MUST be checked using the Journey Planner at www.nationalrail.co.uk, inputting the relevant interchange and via points. "

Unbelievable! Were the DfT's lawyers asleep or ignored?

 

[Eagle]

Ooh, who can spot the pretty huge mistake on map FO?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm also interested in doing this. Perhaps we could have a community effort in a dedicated thread where people can gather a list of removed reasonable routes.

Define 'reasonable' though.

In that recent thread about Fareham to Basingstoke via Salisbury, I'd have agreed that massive dog-leg was quite UNreasonable...

 

[LexyBoy]

Unbelievable! Were the DfT's lawyers asleep or ignored?

I doubt the DfT had any involvement whatsoever, except perhaps to lend ATOC their rubber stamp...

 

[swt_passenger]

hock:

I see the number of maps (or map pages) has changed a fair bit, up to 346 from 127...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Oh here's a fairly big change:

Salford Crescent is no longer part of the Manchester group, but is now a separate routeing point. That could have a big effect on cross-Manchester routes.

Not really, the only station really causing an issue for double-back is Deansgate and that is still part of Manchester Group.

 

[SickyNicky]

I guess trainscanbecheaper is now outdated? That was the easiest way for me to get my head around the routeing guide.

TrainsCanBeCheaper has been updated so that the old public routeing guide options are no longer available. We will bring the new routeing guide stuff online as soon as possible. However, as long as the National Rail website remains the arbiter of what is and isn't valid, TCBC can't be relied upon to check is a route is valid.

Instead, the focus will have to shift to finding split fares as well as journeys that save money by starting/ending short.

However, the existing "Permitted Stations" function will be left online. This will allow you to compare the old and new routeing guides to see what stations have been lost/gained for a given ticket.

If anyone has any ideas about how the data could be presented usefully, please let us know. You never know, it might be simple for us to do something that would be useful.

There is a lot of work to be done, so please bear with us and please also complain as loudly as you can to whoever will listen.