Routeing with ticket cross acceptance

[walkingsophie]

Consider the following situation:
Due to a railway disruption, there is cross acceptance for SWR tickets on the London Underground District Line. You have a Kingston to Clapham Junction ticket, and want to use it to go from Kingston to Richmond. Can you do Kingston -> Wimbledon -> Earls Court -> Richmond with this ticket? What if you had a Kingston to Richmond ticket instead?

 

[yorkie]

If the line is blocked around Twickenham, you'd surely get the direct bus?

Do SWR ever say that acceptance is available with LU, but not buses?

It's unlikely that such a convoluted route would be the appropriate course of action, but if you are ever in this situation, please provide a link to, and quote from, relevant sources and ask the question at that time.

 

[Kilopylae]

I struggle to see how it wouldn't be fine. The travel from Kingston to Wimbledon is (unambiguously) covered by the Clapham Jn ticket. Wimbledon to Richmond via Earl's Court is a 44 minute journey - not that unreasonable at all. It's something I'd argue at the barriers.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why not just use Oyster or contactless as travel is within the zones. No routing rules as such, just maximum journey times.

 

[Benjwri]

Wimbledon to Richmond via Earl's Court is a 44 minute journey - not that unreasonable at all. It's something I'd argue at the barriers.

On the LU part I don't think you'd have a problem using it for this route if there was acceptance on the District Line, I certainly wouldn't expect to have to have a debate at the barriers unless they aren't aware of the acceptance in it's entirety. LU staff tend not to be bothered about the specifics of NR routeing and as long as they are aware of the acceptance it's likely to be fine.

What I would say is that given the OPs previous postings I suspect there is some further aim behind the question. TfL rules on ticketing are still quite lose, leaving things up to what is reasonable, but if people start abusing them, and it does come to wider attention, that will stop and everyone will lose the freedom. We've already seen it with the at least theoretical loss of the ability to break a cross London transfer.

 

[mmh]

Why not just use Oyster or contactless as travel is within the zones. No routing rules as such, just maximum journey times.

Quite. There'd be no point in buying a National Rail ticket to take advantage of this, it will be significantly more expensive than Oyster / contactless.

Single NR fare: £6.40
Return NR fare: £12.40
(anytime fares)

Oyster single off-peak: £3.20
Oyster single peak: £4.00

Much cheaper, and zero argument over routes / acceptance etc.

 

[walkingsophie]

What I would say is that given the OPs previous postings I suspect there is some further aim behind the question.

Yes, there is. The journey I am considering with a loophole ticket is identical topologically and similar in the reasonableness on the TFL side. I am aware there are way more sensible ways of going between Kingston and Richmond if that was what I was actually doing.
My main question stems from whether you would technically be legally allowed to go to Richmond given that you have taken the national rail on the other route between Kingston and Clapham Junction.

 

[Benjwri]

Yes, there is. The journey I am considering with a loophole ticket is identical topologically and similar in the reasonableness on the TFL side. I am aware there are way more sensible ways of going between Kingston and Richmond if that was what I was actually doing.
My main question stems from whether you would technically be legally allowed to go to Richmond given that you have taken the national rail on the other route between Kingston and Clapham Junction.

Ah I see what you mean. I think you’d have to be prepared for trouble, the routeing guide is obviously nothing to do with TfL, but I think it’s very unlikely that you would get trouble with it. Especially if there is disruption affecting both Richmond and Wimbledon. Legally I think you do have something to stand on if your ticket is valid to Richmond where you intend to break your journey.

In itself I do agree with some posters that it does fall within reasonable to use the tube via Earls Courts to Richmond.

 

[bb21]

Trouble with hypothetical scenarios is that they do not have any context to judge what is reasonable and what not. What is it you are trying to do? Are you trying to use a Kingston - Clapham ticket (single/return?) to do Kingston - Wimbledon - Richmond? What was the disruption for the ticket acceptance?

If, say, the issue is with a block on the line between Wimbledon and Clapham and you have a single ticket, then attempting to go via Earls Court and Richmond can hardly be considered reasonable when a simple change at West Brompton would be much quicker, and would be the preferred option for any reasonably-minded person. If additionally there is disruption on the Overground, then Richmond may well be the quickest route on rail.

In this given case you are unlikely to run into any trouble at gateline as Kingston to Clapham is valid at Richmond, and gateline staff aren't going to know which way you went.

 

[redreni]

Trouble with hypothetical scenarios is that they do not have any context to judge what is reasonable and what not.

But the railway decided circa 1995 that reasonableness should not be a relevant consideration with respect to routeing. So they reap what they sow, in many respects...

 

[Haywain]

But the railway decided circa 1995 that reasonableness should not be a relevant consideration with respect to routeing. So they reap what they sow, in many respects...

But we are discussing a theoretical disruption scenario, so reasonableness is part of the equation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But we are discussing a theoretical disruption scenario, so reasonableness is part of the equation.

Indeed, usually statements of ticket acceptance do say "via any reasonable route".

 

[redreni]

But we are discussing a theoretical disruption scenario, so reasonableness is part of the equation.

Indeed, usually statements of ticket acceptance do say "via any reasonable route".

Fair point!

For my part, if the rules say you have to be reasonable than I will be reasonable.

If the rules disallow things that are reasonable and also permit certain things that are ridiculous, then in my view the quid pro quo for things like not being allowed to go from Dorking to London via Guildford or from Dartford to Cambridge via Gravesend is that, if a journey planner unintentionally allows something very circuitous that undercuts the intended fare, people are entitled to use it.

 

[bb21]

But the railway decided circa 1995 that reasonableness should not be a relevant consideration with respect to routeing. So they reap what they sow, in many respects...

It is still relevant in the context of London Underground. As to how you decide what is reasonable, anyone's guess.

 

[walkingsophie]

It is still relevant in the context of London Underground. As to how you decide what is reasonable, anyone's guess.

The way I interpret it, the reasonableness only matters for the London Underground section itself and does not matter in the greater context of the route.

 

[bb21]

The way I interpret it, the reasonableness only matters for the London Underground section itself and does not matter in the greater context of the route.

It will apply to the diversionary route you take, as the concept of permitted route no longer applies if part of your journey is disrupted and no longer possible.

You have to look at this realistically. In disruption the objective is to get you home. Provided you do not go wildly out of what can be considered "reasonable" by an ordinary person (if the alternative routes are not explicitly specified), no one will bat an eyelid. They usually have far more important things to worry about. Anyone attempting a prosecution will also likely have a big job on their hands if the permitted alternatives are not explicitly spelled out unless you are miles off.