Saltaire > Leeds routing question

[Phunky]

It would seem that buying a ticket from Saltaire to Bradford (any station) is a valid when going through the ticket barrios at Leeds, but is drastically cheaper - £225 for 6 months compare to £400+.

Now i've checked through the routes from ATOC.org and cant see anything that says this is not a not a valid route but want to double check before I buy a long term ticket.

Can anyone confirm if I would be challenged with this ticket, even though I'll only be going Saltaire > Leeds. The only thing I can see is that its not the shortest journey, but if that's the case why does it let me through the ticket barriers?

Thanks in advance

 

[barrykas]

It would seem that buying a ticket from Saltaire to Bradford (any station) is a valid when going through the ticket barrios at Leeds, but is drastically cheaper - £225 for 6 months compare to £400+.

Now i've checked through the routes from ATOC.org and cant see anything that says this is not a not a valid route but want to double check before I buy a long term ticket.

I refer you to Step 3 of the Instructions for the Routeing Guide.

Saltaire has Bradford Group as a routeing point, so only the direct route via the shortest distance would be permitted.

From the eNRT, that would be the direct route into Forster Square via Shipley.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[Flying Snail]

It would seem that buying a ticket from Saltaire to Bradford (any station) is a valid when going through the ticket barrios at Leeds, but is drastically cheaper - £225 for 6 months compare to £400+.

Now i've checked through the routes from ATOC.org and cant see anything that says this is not a not a valid route but want to double check before I buy a long term ticket.

Can anyone confirm if I would be challenged with this ticket, even though I'll only be going Saltaire > Leeds. The only thing I can see is that its not the shortest journey, but if that's the case why does it let me through the ticket barriers?

Thanks in advance

Saltaire to Bradford is not valid via Leeds, the detour off the direct route, doubling back Shipley-Leeds-Shipley would be considerably longer than the entire direct journey, to think this would be valid is rather daft. The fact that the fare is less than half that should be paid is another hint that it may not be valid.

The ticket barriers accepting it is not an indication of validity rather an indication of badly programmed barriers. If caught using this ticket to travel to Leeds you would be open to prosecution for fare evasion.

 

[yorkie]

Now i've checked through the routes from ATOC.org and cant see anything that says this is not a not a valid route but want to double check before I buy a long term ticket.

I wouldn't say it's valid, but some people may try to argue otherwise. I'm sure there are other loopholes though (although note that any that are discussed here are more likely to then be removed!)

You may wish to look at the 'Group stations' topic.

(Note that the term "Group stations" can be confusing, and confusion did arise in the thread. ATOC's definition of Grouped stations for Routeing purposes is not the same as the Group stations for ticketing purposes, although in a some cases by co-incidence it is possible they may happen to be identical)

Can anyone confirm if I would be challenged with this ticket, even though I'll only be going Saltaire > Leeds. The only thing I can see is that its not the shortest journey,

I think I will "confirm" you will be challenged Well, no, I can't really confirm such a thing, but given that you are talking about doing this journey regularly for 6 months, I think it would be a fairly safe bet!

but if that's the case why does it let me through the ticket barriers?

It depends on how the barriers are set up. There are various options, ranging from "accept all tickets" to being very strict indeed.

 

[Phunky]

You don't loop back you can go Saltaire > Leeds > New Pudsey > Bradford Interchange. It does sound like it's one of these odd ones out and will be down to the conductor, will see how I go for a week and try and find out more.

 

[dzug2]

Well the journey planner seems to allow it on an 'any permitted' ticket. Saltaire - Shipley - Leeds - Bradford Interchange anytime day single at £1.60

 

[323235]

Yeh but more importantly would it allow it on a return ticket?
That's the real acid test

 

[dzug2]

Yeh but more importantly would it allow it on a return ticket?
That's the real acid test

It not so much as doesn't allow it but ignores the 'via Leeds' on the return leg and just gives times for Forster Square

And East Coast's site (ie the 'mixer' results) doesn't allow it at all.

I can't see it actually being valid but something in thetrainline type sites seems to let it through one way.

 

[Phunky]

So it sounds that it's not valid, even though both parts of a return ticket works via a barrier. Guess I'll stick with the Saltaire > Leeds ticket them.

 

[yorkie]

I don't normally approve of 'bumping' old threads but this thread is very short, is still quite recent, and there is something very significant to add:

There is a new negative easement in the Routeing Guide Section E:

700143 Customers travelling from Frizinghall, Shipley, Saltaire, Bingley, Crossflats, Keighley and Steeton & Silsden to Bradford Stations in possession of tickets routed 'Any Permitted' may not travel via Leeds. This easement applies in both directions.

My conclusion:

If ATOC believed we were interpreting the Routeing Guide incorrectly, they would not have needed to introduce this easement.

It is therefore my belief that this is effectively an implied admission that ATOC agree with spasmj's analysis in the 'Group stations' thread. Given that National Rail Enquiries journey planner, ATOC's own routeing engine, agreed with spasmj, this is not entirely surprising but is still significant.

This negative easement implies that without it, such travel would be permitted. This therefore means that any such tickets purchased by Phunky were valid, and if they remain within the validity period, remain so until the tickets expire. If Phunky had bought an Annual season ticket to Bradford Stations, it would remain valid via Leeds as the negative easement cannot take effect on tickets already purchased.

Other interesting things to note:

1) A date should clearly be added to indicate when any negative easement was introduced, as any tickets bought before that date were bought on the previous terms
2) ATOC clearly do read this forum and will take action to remove routeings that are disclosed on this forum. (therefore tickets I find particularly useful myself that are clear anomalies that could easily be removed will only be disclosed to people I have met and not posted to any publicly viewable forum... if you want them, get yourself to a forum meet and demonstrate that you don't work for ATOC! ) I already knew that, but I don't think some people believe it, here is strong evidence (I believe we have enough evidence to prove it).

 

[Oswyntail]

Would it be relevant to point out that we are talking WYPTE here. A zones 1-3 (I think those are the relevant ones) season would cover travel via Leeds.

 

[spasmj]

I don't normally approve of 'bumping' old threads but this thread is very short, is still quite recent, and there is something very significant to add:

There is a new negative easement in the Routeing Guide Section E:

700143 Customers travelling from Frizinghall, Shipley, Saltaire, Bingley, Crossflats, Keighley and Steeton & Silsden to Bradford Stations in possession of tickets routed 'Any Permitted' may not travel via Leeds. This easement applies in both directions.

My conclusion:

If ATOC believed we were interpreting the Routeing Guide incorrectly, they would not have needed to introduce this easement.

It is therefore my belief that this is effectively an implied admission that ATOC agree with spasmj's analysis in the 'Group stations' thread. Given that National Rail Enquiries journey planner, ATOC's own routeing engine, agreed with spasmj, this is not entirely surprising but is still significant.

This negative easement implies that without it, such travel would be permitted. This therefore means that any such tickets purchased by Phunky were valid, and if they remain within the validity period, remain so until the tickets expire. If Phunky had bought an Annual season ticket to Bradford Stations, it would remain valid via Leeds as the negative easement cannot take effect on tickets already purchased.

Other interesting things to note:

1) A date should clearly be added to indicate when any negative easement was introduced, as any tickets bought before that date were bought on the previous terms
2) ATOC clearly do read this forum and will take action to remove routeings that are disclosed on this forum. (therefore tickets I find particularly useful myself that are clear anomalies that could easily be removed will only be disclosed to people I have met and not posted to any publicly viewable forum... if you want them, get yourself to a forum meet and demonstrate that you don't work for ATOC! ) I already knew that, but I don't think some people believe it, here is strong evidence (I believe we have enough evidence to prove it).

The adding of this easement simply re-enforces my view that ATOC don't really have anyone working for them who understands the routeing guide. Its such a short-sighted move.


To ATOC: Since your preferred method to solving routeing guide problems is to add 100s of exceptions rather than make the rules less ambiguous, might I suggest this:

Easement: 700144 - Customers travelling from New Pudsey, Bramley (W Yorks), Halifax, Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge to Bradford Stations in possession of tickets routed 'Any Permitted' may not travel via Leeds. This easement applies in both directions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It is nice to know that ATOC agree with my interpretation of the rules though .

 

[bluenoxid]

Something for those of us up the Valley who suffer the odd bit of disruption, is it valid to travel via Bradford to Leeds?

 

[island]

From where to Bradford?

 

[tony_mac]

a 'negative' easement makes no difference to a shortest route anyway; the NRCoC says that the shortest route is valid, without any reference to the routeing guide.

However, the entire routeing guide, particularly the easements, is an absolute embarassment. Taxpayers contribute billions of pounds to the railway industry - yet they are not competent enough to produce an understandable method of determining valid routes, and insist on making it worse with every (unannounced) change.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Good point about the shortest route! Since this easement has been published, the National Rail Enquiries journey planner no longer shows via Leeds as a permitted route for these journeys - I take this as the best proof yet that Jeppesen IPTIS (which it uses as a journey planning backend) clearly has a flaw in the logic in which it applies the rules. This one isn't even ambiguous! If the route via Leeds was valid via the shortest route rule, then it can't be made invalid via a negative easement, since the shortest route is always valid. Unless the NRCoC is going to be amended to say the shortest route is only a permitted route if there isn't a negative easement in the routeing guide. Would they really get away with that?

In this case though, all that would really be needed to clear up the whole mess is a list of pairs of stations that it is valid to walk between as part of a permitted route.

 

[John @ home]

all that would really be needed to clear up the whole mess is a list of pairs of stations that it is valid to walk between as part of a permitted route.

Valid or compulsory?

 

[Paul Kelly]

Well I was thinking valid in the general sense, but compulsory in the sense that if, allowing for valid "permitted walks" and considering them to have zero length, the shortest route involved one of those walks, then the shortest rail-only route would not be a permitted route by the shortest route rule. It seems quite clear-cut for the Bradford situation; I suppose there are other places it could make things much messier?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....My conclusion:

If ATOC believed we were interpreting the Routeing Guide incorrectly, they would not have needed to introduce this easement.

It is therefore my belief that this is effectively an implied admission that ATOC agree with spasmj's analysis in the 'Group stations' thread. Given that National Rail Enquiries journey planner, ATOC's own routeing engine, agreed with spasmj, this is not entirely surprising but is still significant.

This negative easement implies that without it, such travel would be permitted. This therefore means that any such tickets purchased by Phunky were valid, and if they remain within the validity period, remain so until the tickets expire. If Phunky had bought an Annual season ticket to Bradford Stations, it would remain valid via Leeds as the negative easement cannot take effect on tickets already purchased....

That's quite an assumption, but given that, as noted, the easements in the routeing guide can't alter the routes made valid by the NCoC, of which the shortest route is one, the easement actually changes nothing, regardless of which side of the fence you sit.

The other assumption is that ATOC are attempting to clarifying the situation which they believe only applies to that set of stations, rather than attempting to re-write the guide and NCoC (which is now long over-due).

 

[clagmonster]

a 'negative' easement makes no difference to a shortest route anyway; the NRCoC says that the shortest route is valid, without any reference to the routeing guide.

The wording in the NRCoC is:
"13. The route you are entitled to take
(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:
...
(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by scheduled
passenger services;"
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

The destination on the ticket is Bradford (Yorkshire) Stations, the shortest route to Bradford stations is to Forster Square. The routeing guide, as shown by John in a previous post, seems to give choice as to where we are calculating the shortest route to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well I was thinking valid in the general sense, but compulsory in the sense that if, allowing for valid "permitted walks" and considering them to have zero length, the shortest route involved one of those walks, then the shortest rail-only route would not be a permitted route by the shortest route rule. It seems quite clear-cut for the Bradford situation; I suppose there are other places it could make things much messier?

I don't see that a walk could ever be defined as having zero distance, as the Routeing Guide requires reference to the National Rail Timetable to determine the shortest route. What I think would work is reintroducing the walking distances to the preamble in the NRT so as to make walks such as this the shortest route.

Of course, the whole easement could be abolished if the tickets had the destination changed to Bradford F Sq and/or the route changed to 'Not Leeds'.