I see - so I presume this is automatically integrated into the likes of the National Rail journey planner? (Turns out yes, read before you reply, silly me!)
Yes, and they are required to comply with the results of the fares check, as a condition of their accreditation (i.e. right to sell tickets). Though
not all retailers do comply - e.g. Pico4UK, which powers the Avanti and C2C sites.
So, what do people mean when they say a journey may fail a "fares check"? Surely you just look if the journey planner populates a fare and that's your answer?
It means that a particular associated Routeing Point can't be used when determining the mapped routes for the journey. In this example, Walsden is associated with Manchester Group, Accrington and Halifax Group. Sheffield is its own Routeing Point so there's no need to check anything on that end.
The fares check involves looking at the fares from Sheffield to each of Manchester, Accrington and Halifax - and seeing whether those fare is higher than the fare to Walsden. If the fare is higher (as is the case for Manchester and Accrington), then they are deemed not to be appropriate Routeing Points, hence you cannot use mapped routes from Sheffield to Manchester or Accrington for this journey. If the fare is the same (or less) then they are appropriate Routeing Points and so you can use mapped routes from Sheffield to Halifax for this journey.
The additional complexity here is that it's actually fares from September 1996 ("NFM64") which are used for the purposes of this check. This is to ensure that post-privatisation disparities in fare policies (which resulted in some TOCs' fares rising faster than others) don't change which Routeing Points can be used.
And as previously mentioned, the validity via the shortest route (or on a direct train) is not affected by the fares check, as this is something that is permitted under the NRCoT itself, without needing to refer to the Routeing Guide.
Right, okay - so is the fares check purely for TOCs to avoid fiddles?
I think "fiddles" might be a strong word, but yes - it's a way to prevent the anomalous use of fares.
(I think there may have been one from Scarborough to York where it'd be cheaper to buy a ticket to Brough or somewhere, as the planners work on the assumption you're routing via the Yorkshire wolds).
If that was the case, it's no longer an anomaly as Scarborough to Brough tickets are now explicitly routed 'via Hull' (plus the other associated Routeing Point, Gilberdyke, doesn't have any mapped routes to Scarborough via York). But you get the gist.
Personally I'd say it's certainly a good idea to reduce ambiguity so I salute the sentiment, it's just a shame that the answer isn't too clear, and, the majority of journey planners arent clever enough to populate split tickets if the route is more important to the customer than journey time.
Whilst the sentiment may have been nice in theory, it's useless if staff aren't actually trained. If even you - as someone who worked in revenue protection for several years - didn't know this kind of thing existed until now, what chance does the average punter have?
And yes, journey planners should include split ticket functionality by default in my view, at the very least employing it when someone asks to travel via a non-permitted route. NRE is OK in this regard, as it does suggest splits in these cases; the problem is that it tries to hand people over to TOC retailers that generally can't handle several tickets arriving into a basket at once!
I suppose this is where staff discretion comes in handy - though of course its not ideal that it cannot be relied upon.
Whilst it's always welcome, people shouldn't have to rely on it. The fastest route should always be permitted in my view.
Well thank you very much for such an insightful answer - very much appreciated!
No problem!
