Should the routeing guide be recursive? Or exist at all?

[mikeg]

A while ago I heard that the old British Rail book of routes, which I believe dates from before you were allowed to take any reasonable route was recursive and tended to be a little more restrictive in most places than the present Routeing Guide but more logical.
I quite like this idea, but I don't like the restrictive part.
That said I'm not against giving up some routes in favour of a more logical approach and I'm sure the issues like the recent 'Durham to Milton Keynes' issue would be resolved a lot more easily, as they wouldn't be problems in the first place. After all, passengers from Sheffield to Milton Keynes may travel via Bedford, so if that is a permitted route and Sheffield is on a permitted route from Durham to Milton Keynes, why shouldn't all permitted routes from Sheffield apply?

Or should we just admit defeat in trying to have a solid guide and go back to 'any reasonable route'?
Personally I don't like the uncertainty of 'any reasonable' - I like a definitive way to check that my chosen route is valid so I can defend it if challenged. The only way to get definitive answers would be through case law and personally I wouldn't like to be the ones involved in setting the precedent!

So what are your views? I'm rather undecided but would go for one of the first two options (most likely!)

 

[Harpers Tate]

Accepting that this might prejudice the specific revenue streams of specific operators (which is in any case, not what the Franchised National Railway should be all about IMO) I tend to prefer a much simplified approach. Off the top of my head, something as simple as along these lines:

Calculate the shortest distance between start and end point of the journey using services that regularly stop at these two ends and at any necessary change point.

Add a fixed percentage to this distance - perhaps something like 25%.

Any routeing between the two points which is within this 125% distance (say) is "reasonable".

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Reasonable routes won't work for two reasons, revenue allocation and what exactly is a reasonable route?

In it's paper form The Routeing Guide was quite good, sure the 'in detail' section was, at best, contradictory, but get rid of that and you only have a few circular routes to get rid of to be acceptable by most people, and they could probably disappear with some minor map modifications.

The first bad step for The Routeing Guide was when they modified it for online use, changing maps and adding 'negative easements' and 'bug fix easements'. The second bad thing they did was try to correct their mistakes.

 

[RJ]

It depends on who you're asking.

From a passenger's perspective, we're already on an "any reasonable route" system. How many railway staff actually know how to use the Routeing Guide? Many front line ticket office and ticket inspection staff haven't heard of it, or haven't got a clue how to use it. Go to a ticket office and ask for a list of all routes you're allowed to take with the ticket you're buying - more's the pity that you're unlikely to get a helpful answer. Ticket inspection staff don't have access to the resources they need to verify the validity of a ticket so their only options are to guess or let it go. That's before you factor in the entrenched inspectors who go on about "any reasonable route" being what they were trained on in BR days.

There have been instances where I have spoken to senior staff at some TOCs and asked "Is there at least one identifiable person in your organisation who knows how to use the Routeing Guide?" No is usually the answer.

Permitted routes are are essentially an accounting exercise, now we have private firms running the trains so the revenue needs to be allocated to the most appropriate place.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It's all a bit superfluous really. How many railway staff actually know how to use the Routeing Guide? Many front line ticket office and ticket inspection staff haven't heard of it, or haven't got a clue how to use it. Go to a ticket office and ask for a list of all routes you're allowed to take with the ticket you're buying - more's the pity that you're unlikely to get a helpful answer.

In practise, we are already running with an "any reasonable route" system. Ticket inspection staff don't have access to the resources they need to verify the validity of a ticket so their only options are to guess or let it go. That's before you factor in the entrenched inspectors who go on about "any reasonable route" being what they were trained on in BR days.

For the most part you'd be right (though this is more of a training issue than a system issue). I have, in recent years, been stopped with a priv discounted ticket because the member of train staff was "not havin' it". The route was rather circular and perhaps not immediately obvious, but it was valid so the member of staff was the issue rather than the system.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Permitted routes are are essentially an accounting exercise, now we have private firms running the trains so the revenue needs to be allocated to the most appropriate place.

I wonder if, for example, NXEA got any revenue from Finsbury Park to London tickets

 

[TUC]

There must have been disputes with passengers about reasonable routes in BR days. How were these resolved? There is an argument that, as long as there is an appropriate method of resolving disputes, on an 80/20 basis (or more like 99/1 in this case given the relatively small number of passengers who take unusual routes), it would be more cost-effective to use a reasonable route system, even though this would mean a small amount of revenue risk for TOCs.

 

[mikeg]

I'm going to change my mind. I liked the idea of a recursive routeing guide but:

Any reasonable route could be made to work. I suspect that the revenue doesn't always line up with the existing Routeing Guide in the first place and as we all know revenue doesn't necessarily affect validity anyway. So I think that's a null argument.

Secondly, how much money is wasted on maintaining the Routeing Guide? What I suspect it would be better to do is allow any reasonable route and for Rail Settlement Plan Ltd. to establish a reasonable route arbitration service, likely to cost less than the routeing guide as it'd only need to be used on the odd occasion a dispute comes up and isn't dealt with sufficiently internally by the TOC concerned. This could have a few functions:

1. The route is reasonable and gets allowed, yet the TOC doesn't get revenue, it could mandate a change in ORCATS or override its automatic revenue allocation
2. The route is disputed as to whether it is reasonable or not - provides a ruling
3. Revenue is being given to non reasonable routes which would not be allowed - same as number 1 or publish an easement allowing the route.

This would actually result in less revenue risk as most loopholes would be closed at a stroke and would save maintaining the routeing guide. Individual TOCs would be allowed to implement their own routeing systems for their journey planners, with all itineraries being honoured, the exception being that the Routeing Arbitration Panel could mandate they stop offering a ticket via a certain route if it is unreasonable.

In time, something akin to case law would be established as to what routes can be taken.

 

[Oswyntail]

As the industry is providing a service to customers, there should only be two possible approaches.
a) Any "reasonable" route - in most cases with the reasonableness of the route determined by the customer. Most passengers will want to get from A to B, and it is very few who will abuse the system. And this can be addressed with one simple move - stopping break of journey. If you want to go from A to B but break at Z then get your tickets A to Z and Z to C. So long as there is no financial disbenefit in this it is simple. Applicable to open tickets
b) Exactly specified routes, with the details printed on the ticket, so that the customer knows exactly what they are getting. Applicable to Advance and the like.
IMHO, the routeing guide is a scam.

....
Permitted routes are are essentially an accounting exercise, now we have private firms running the trains so the revenue needs to be allocated to the most appropriate place.

Exactly, and it can be calculated in a straightforward way entirely separately from the routeing guide. Use network analysis and base the revenue distribution on that basis. Ilkley to Guiseley - only one operator, they get all the revenue; Ilkley to Huddersfield - two potential operators, with varying provision, but they are both known so can be calculated. Same applies for Wick to Penzance. Massive database needed, but surely most of it is already there. Objective and simple.