Stockport to Birmingham

[evoluzione]

After a bit of fares advice please.

Looking to travel to Birmingham from Stockport tomorrow evening (Fri 5th) and back on Sunday 7th.

I have a PRIV card, but the person travelling with me does not.

What would be the best tickets to get? Very flexible on travelling times.

Many Thanks

 

[northwichcat]

Splitting at Stafford may save you money.

 

[bb21]

Rugeley Trent Valley - Stockport Anytime Return is valid via Birmingham.

£5.30 PRIV
£21.10 otherwise

 

[evoluzione]

Rugeley Trent Valley - Stockport Anytime Return is valid via Birmingham.

£5.30 PRIV
£21.10 otherwise

Thanks a lot for the quick reply, sorry for the daft question but would this ticket be ok on VT?

 

[bb21]

Yes, it would. No operator restriction.

 

[telstarbox]

I've used said ticket more than once on VT with no problems.

 

[All Line Rover]

I note that the route via Birmingham has been removed from the NRG. It has also been removed for Stockport to Lichfield, Tamworth and even Nuneaton, all of which are less reasonable changes. It is a stretch to describe the removal for Nuneaton as the removal of a 'circuitous' route, especially given the parity of fares to Birmingham and to Nuneaton (in 1996 and today). Did ATOC request the DfT's consent? They haven't in the past. Are Passenger Focus agreeing to all of these changes? They haven't in the past.

In 1996, SPT to NUN fares were 68.40 (7DS), 37.00 (SOR) and 24.00 (SVR). With the narrow exception of the 7DS, those were higher than SPT to BHM fares, which were 69.90 (7DS), 33.80 (SOR) and 22.10 (SVR). Now that the reasonable route via Birmingham has been removed, half of the journey opportunities displayed by National Rail Enquiries for Stockport to Nuneaton are no longer valid!

 

[Merseysider]

Sent off an FOI, we'll see what comes back...
Update: attached

Second half of the letter

 

[bb21]

Is that from an FoI to PF?

 

[Merseysider]

Indeed, this was the only document they held with regards to correspondence sent or received on the matter.

What concerns me is that they went ahead with the RG changes before awaiting a response from PF, as the "received" stamp shows 9 Sep.

 

[bb21]

So they did not provide any consent for the Routeing Guide to be changed?

Was there any communication with the DfT in that regard?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Does anyone have any historical data regarding when the route via Birmingham started being valid to see if their justification is accurate or not?
Also I think it reminds us all that people in the industry certainly do read this forum and will try to plug gaps as they see them (even if we don't think the changes are fair).

 

[Merseysider]

So they did not provide any consent for the Routeing Guide to be changed?

Was there any communication with the DfT in that regard?

AIUI, no consent was provided prior to the changes being implemented.

RSP seem to be of the opinion that claiming permitted routes were "erroneous" or "circuitous" absolves them from any obligation to seek PF's approval.

However the map permissions removed were entirely reasonable ways of making a journey.

 

[bb21]

I don't think these permissions were erroneous. I would go so far as to say that it was a historical arrangement from before LM's times, and travel was permitted via Birmingham intentionally, not that it will affect how RSP goes about it and how XC will cry about their rip-off fares being attacked. (£77 Stockport - Birmingham return?! :roll: You're having a laugh.)

As to anyone watching, there are even better value fares for making that journey. No, it will never be disclosed publicly after this episode.

 

[Merseysider]

I don't think these permissions were erroneous. I would go so far as to say that it was a historical arrangement from before LM's times.

So now we've proven the changes were implemented without PF's consent, what would the next step be?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If everything that's disadvantageous to the greedy fat cats at Arriva and London Midland is "erroneous" the we may as well do away with the obligation to consult. This is clearly not a historical error. Between 2004 and 2008 via Birmingham was the ONLY way of completing these journeys by train, and prior to 2004 it was the most convenient way given the abysmal local service on the Trent Valley.

I expect the devil will be taking a skidoo to work long before the stooges at DafT make the TOCs abide by the rules, though.

This doesn't surprise me, though, especially with Deutsche Bahn. The rules around free season ticket travel on Chiltern were changed within hours of me mentioning it on here. We should be honoured that they check up on us so regularly, but really it means every bit of fare advice from now on is going to have to be on PM.

 

[bb21]

Not a lot but I will send you a PM.

If everything that's disadvantageous to the greedy fat cats at Arriva and London Midland is "erroneous" the we may as well do away with the obligation to consult.

They already don't. :roll:

According to the DfT, between April 2011 and September 2013, they only approved three changes to the NRG.

Now let me count up the number of changes on 9th October 2013. You might be waiting a while...

 

[WelshBluebird]

I am surprised it took this long mind you. Just glad it doesn't affect me anymore (I used it pretty much every other week when visited my ex earlier this year).

 

[yorkie]

There is no ombudsman to complain to. The DfT do what they want. Who can stop them? No-one.

The DfT will do almost anything ATOC ask them to. ATOC will ask the DfT to do almost anything its member TOCs ask it to do (sometimes to the detriment of other members and/or without other members permissions).

 

[Merseysider]

There is no ombudsman to complain to. The DfT do what they want. Who can stop them? No-one.

The DfT will do almost anything ATOC ask them to. ATOC will ask the DfT to do almost anything its member TOCs ask it to do (sometimes to the detriment of other members and/or without other members permissions).

The word corrupt comes to mind?

 

[All Line Rover]

It is notable that in the letter to Passenger Focus, ATOC did not mention that it had withdrawn the route via Birmingham for Stockport to Nuneaton. This was the most unreasonable of the changes, both on a fares basis and a journey opportunities basis.

None of the Trent Valley changes were implemented to correct 'errors'. They were all implemented to remove routes that ATOC believe are no longer necessary given improved local services on the Trent Valley. This does not fall within the remit of the DfT's implied consent. Once again, ATOC has breached its agreement with the DfT by not obtaining the DfT's consent. As ATOC is a private body, it is difficult to hold it to account. Such are the disadvantages of railway privatisation.

I find it very misleading that ATOC points to Anytime fares when 'justifying' (n.b. not 'requesting') changes to the NRG. The DfT's regulatory remit is limited to regulated fares and the entire NRG is based on historical regulated fares. Therefore, permitted routes should be based on regulated fares. If the NRG were based on unregulated fares, TOCs could manipulate permitted routes by raising or lowering unregulated fares as they see fit. This would undermine the entire mechanism of regulating the NRG.

I would support going back to the British Rail rule of "any route is permitted providing no fare between intermediate stations exceeds the throughout fare" (which, given the complexity of fares on the modern railway, "fare" would probably have to be defined as "the regulated fare in NFM64"), with the NRG remaining purely as a mechanism of revenue allocation between the TOCs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The word corrupt comes to mind?

I think corrupt is a bit strong, but the mandarins at DafT (and in other Government departments, to be fair) have a clear ideological agenda. And that agenda is to transfer state assets into private assets at a price most beneficial for the buyer.

It is a toxic ideology, and one that has given us a network where profit is very much privatised but risk still remains a state problem. The fact that TOCs make a profit from delay attribution is only one example of what I mean. And it's a toxic ideology all the main parties have bought into, given that the kleptomaniac politicians and the kleptomaniac corporate directors all went to the same schools.

 

[DarloRich]

May i PM someone with a few questions on this (and a related subject) ?

 

[Wolfie]

There is no ombudsman to complain to. The DfT do what they want. Who can stop them? No-one.

The DfT will do almost anything ATOC ask them to. ATOC will ask the DfT to do almost anything its member TOCs ask it to do (sometimes to the detriment of other members and/or without other members permissions).

Advice from a Whitehall insider (not from DfT!)....

DfT officials are responsible to Ministers. Ministers have no choice but to be responsive to MPs. Make life VERY unpleasant for DfT Ministers and officials by referring EVERY such change which was not subject to the agreed process to relevant consituuency MPs and ask them to correspond/raise questions in the House.... indeed send a bundle of cases to the Transport Select Committee... believe me DfT will VERY soon be playing by the correct rules (the ones which they told the House they would follow!).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think corrupt is a bit strong, but the mandarins at DafT (and in other Government departments, to be fair) have a clear ideological agenda. And that agenda is to transfer state assets into private assets at a price most beneficial for the buyer.

It is a toxic ideology, and one that has given us a network where profit is very much privatised but risk still remains a state problem. The fact that TOCs make a profit from delay attribution is only one example of what I mean. And it's a toxic ideology all the main parties have bought into, given that the kleptomaniac politicians and the kleptomaniac corporate directors all went to the same schools.

The term "mandarins" is normally used to refer to senior Civil Servants. While I am no great fan of the SCS I must rebut this post. The CS (or the SCS) have no ideological agenda. Ministers, on the other hand, who set the strategic direction for Government Departments......

 

[bb21]

May i PM someone with a few questions on this (and a related subject) ?

I am sure people such as me, JakeF and yorkie would be more than happy to answer questions relating to loopholes in private.

 

[Merseysider]

I am sure people such as me, JakeF and yorkie would be more than happy to answer questions relating to loopholes in private.

Yep. I'm currently working to get that particular ticket's validity via Birmigham reinstated, or at the very least, temporarily reverse the relevant changes.
Also,

As to anyone watching, there are even better value fares for making that journey. No, it will never be disclosed publicly after this episode.

could you send me a PM?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Wolfie, I know a fair few civil servants (in and out of DafT) and used mandarins deliberately. The staff at the lower levels do what they're told, it's the more senior ones who implement the policy in the way it's being imemented. The mandarins, the ministers and the corporate kleptocrats are all from the same schools and they all scratch each other's backs.

I don't buy the argument that it's all about what the minister wants.

 

[jimjim]

I am sure people such as me, JakeF and yorkie would be more than happy to answer questions relating to loopholes in private.

I don't think I can PM yet so if you could make that available that would be great. I lurk a lot but I do have loopholes to discuss

 

[Starmill]

jimjim - just a thought, are you able to use the Contact Us form? It might speed that request up for you

 

[leet19790]

I will definitely PM in future