Updated Easements list

[cjohnson]

The list has been updated again (possibly today, or the 16th).

The last one is interesting (my emphasis):

700366 Customers travelling from Brentwood to Stratford (London) or beyond may double back via
Shenfield. They may not leave the station. This easement applies in both directions

 

[Deerfold]

The list has been updated again (possibly today, or the 16th).

The last one is interesting (my emphasis):

700366 Customers travelling from Brentwood to Stratford (London) or beyond may double back via
Shenfield. They may not leave the station. This easement applies in both directions

Also interesting is the note at the top:

Note:
Easements are relaxations of Routeing Guide rules to allow journeys that strict adherence to the rules would forbid. Some previously published easements are no longer exceptions to Routeing Guide rules and have therefore been deleted as unnecessary.

That's how I'd describe a genuine easement but plenty of them don't fit that definition. It doesn't lead you to belive that the list may contain a "relaxation" of the rules that stops you doning something which would otherwise be fine.

 

[Goatboy]

I don't understand why they update some but ignore others.

Why is this still in there?

700184
During the period 06-22 August 2011 customers travelling from Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall or Ledbury via Abergavenny, Newport and Bristol Parkway may travel via Hereford. This easement applies in both directions.

How hard is it to remove all the expired date specific ones?

What was the point in that anyway? It's physically impossible to travel from Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall or Ledbury via Abergavenney, Newport and Bristol Parkway WITHOUT passing through Hereford anyway!

Sad to see this is still in there:

700189
Customers travelling from Hereford, Ledbury, Colwall, Great Malvern, Malvern Link, Worcester Foregate Street and Worcester Shrub Hill to Cheltenham Spa and beyond, may not travel via Bromsgrove. This easement applies in both directions.

Wish they'd get rid of that - especially since the London Midland timetable change in December removed the connecting service from Hereford, Ledbury, Colwall, GMV and Malvern Link thorugh to Cheltenham on a Sunday afternoon.

There service between GMV and beyond and Cheltenham Spa is sufficiently infrequent for the ability to change at Bromsgrove to offer quite an advantage.

 

[John @ home]

It seems to me that new Easement 700365 contradicts the first page of the National Routeing Guide Instructions.

700365 Customers travelling from London Euston to Broome and stations on the Central Wales line to Llangadog (inclusive) in possession of tickets routed "via Craven Arms" may not travel via Shrewsbury. This easement applies in both directions.

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/13-04-18 Easements for ATOC website.pdf

But the shortest route by rail from London Euston to Broome (and stations to Llangadog) goes via Shrewsbury and Craven Arms.

According to the Network Rail timetable, these are the shortest routes:

Shortest route from London Euston to Broome (180.25 miles)

London Euston 0, South Hampstead 2.5, Kilburn High Road 3, Queens Park (London) 3.75, Kensal Green 4.5, Willesden Junction 5.5, Harlesden 6, Stonebridge Park 7, Wembley Central 8, North Wembley 9, South Kenton 9.5, Kenton 10.25, Harrow & Wealdstone 11.25, Headstone Lane 12.5, Hatch End 13.25, Carpenders Park 14.75, Bushey 16, Watford Junction 17.5, Kings Langley 21, Apsley 23, Hemel Hempstead 24.5, Berkhamsted 28, Tring 31.75, Cheddington 36, Leighton Buzzard 40.25, Bletchley 46.75, Milton Keynes Central 49.75, Rugby 82.5, Coventry 94, Canley 95.75, Tile Hill 97.75, Berkswell 99.75, Hampton-In-Arden 103, Birmingham International 104.75, Marston Green 106.75, Lea Hall 108.25, Stechford 109.5, Adderley Park 111.25, Birmingham New Street 113.25, Smethwick Rolfe Street 116.5, Smethwick Galton Bridge 117.25, Sandwell & Dudley 119.25, Dudley Port 121.25, Tipton 122, Coseley 123.5, Wolverhampton 127.75, Bilbrook 131.75, Codsall 132.25, Albrighton 135.5, Cosford 137, Shifnal 140.25, Telford Central 143.25, Oakengates 144.25, Wellington (Shropshire) 147.25, Shrewsbury 157.75, Church Stretton 170.5, Craven Arms 177.75, Broome 180.25

http://www.bukitlawang.com/routes/routes.aspx

and "You only need refer to the Routeing Guide when a customer is not using an advertised through train or the shortest route."

I will seek the assistance of Passenger Focus in having this negative Easement removed.

 

[bb21]

I don't understand why they update some but ignore others.

Why is this still in there?

I would guess that each easement is the responsibility of the TOC who added it in there in the first place. While some TOCs have been very active in updating (read "increase") the list of easements they are in charge of (eg. ScotRail), others appear to be less so.

Of course, this is in addition to the usual reasons that some of them are merely there to help the booking engines and not meant for public scrutiny.

 

[MikeWh]

The list has been updated again (possibly today, or the 16th).

The last one is interesting (my emphasis):

700366 Customers travelling from Brentwood to Stratford (London) or beyond may double back via
Shenfield. They may not leave the station. This easement applies in both directions

This is good. It reinforces the allowance of doubling back when using Oyster. It also clarifies whether someone can start "short" at Shenfield on a Brentwood to London ticket.

 

[jkdd77]

This is good. It reinforces the allowance of doubling back when using Oyster. It also clarifies whether someone can start "short" at Shenfield on a Brentwood to London ticket.

Can they legitimately do this if the ticket is routed "Shenfield" (such that Shenfield must be an 'intermediate station' regardless of easement) and also permits BoJ (e.g. is a season ticket)?

 

[soil]

I will seek the assistance of Passenger Focus in having this negative Easement removed.

I wouldn't bother. They are all nonsensical.

How is this a public-facing document?

62 Tickets routed Retford for Lincoln-London or Saxilby-London are also valid on permitted routes that do not pass through Retford. This easement applies in both directions.(Not implemented or tested yet. To go live on 23rd May 2004)
68 Tickets routed Any Permitted for journeys Lincoln-London and Saxilby-London are not valid via Retford. This prohibition applies in both directions. (Not implemented or tested yet. To go live on 23rd May 2004)
700039 test
700288 test
700334 Negative Map Easement. Carlisle to Preston via Hellifield Group
700335 Negative Map Easement. Lancaster to Wigan via Blackburn.
700336 Negative Map Easement. Preston to Warrington via Manchester
700337 Negative Map Easement. Wigan to Warrington via Manchester.
700338 Negative Map Easement. Warrington to Crewe via Wilmslow.
700339 Negative Map Easement. Manchester to Wilmslow via Crewe.
700340 Negative Map Easement. Crewe to Stafford via Stoke On Trent.
700341 Negative Map Easement. Crewe to Stoke On Trent via Stafford.
700342 Negative Map Easement. Wilmslow to Stoke On Trent via Crewe.
700343 Negative Map Easement. Stafford to Wolverhampton via Rugeley Trent Valley.
700344 Negative Map Easement. Stafford to Rugeley Trent Valley via Wolverhampton.
700345 Negative Map Easement. Bolton to Manchester via Wigan.
700346 Negative Map Easement. Birmingham to Smethwick via Walsall.
700347 Negative Map Easement. Stoke On Trent to Stafford via Crewe
700348 Negative Map Easement. Wilmslow to Stafford via Crewe.
700356 Negative map easements for INV-G01, covering WCML & ECML. Entered by Fujitsu under negative map easements work for RSP.

These negative easements, are, as per page 1, only hacks for the electronic routeing engine.

ATOC should publish only a list of positive easements and just hide away the rest of the crap like they have already hidden the entire set of routeing guide maps. Why publish one half of the system?

This is an earlier list of easements:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070928...ownloads/Routeing_Guide/pdf_docs/sectione.pdf There were then only 58 easements. Now there are 10 times that number.

Interestingly of those 58 easements, 8 were negative - all 8 are still in force. Of the 50 positive easements, only 30 remain in force.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I have always assumed that EMT asked for this easement to be added:

"Cheap Day Single and Return tickets for travel between Newark Northgate and London or Newark Castle and London are not valid for journeys via Nottingham. This applies in both directions."

but presumably this would not be enforceable should someone be travelling on EMT's own through train from Newark to St Pancras.

 

[Goatboy]

ATOC should publish only a list of positive easements and just hide away the rest of the crap like they have already hidden the entire set of routeing guide maps.

What do you mean with this?

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/Maps.pdf is advertised on the ATOC website?

 

[soil]

The easements relate, not to the Maps published on the ATOC website, but to the maps used by the electronic routeing system, which are fundamentally different.

It doesn't make sense to publish old maps but then current easements.

 

[RJ]

What do you mean with this?

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/Maps.pdf is advertised on the ATOC website?

Possibly in line with the point soil has been making about the NRE booking engine reading from an entirely different set of maps to those ones we know.

Edit: Missed soil's post!

 

[maniacmartin]

This is good. It reinforces the allowance of doubling back when using Oyster. It also clarifies whether someone can start "short" at Shenfield on a Brentwood to London ticket.

But I was told in another recent thread that the Routeing Guide apparently doesn't apply to NR Oyster. If so, then this easement can't apply to Oyster.

 

[bkhtele]

Is my interpretation of this newish negative easement correct: that I cannot travel on the east coast route via Newcastle & Carlisle if I am going to Glasgow?

"700303
Customers travelling from London Kings Cross to Carlisle using fares routed "Any
Permitted" may not travel via Newcastle. This easement applies in both directions."

 

[maniacmartin]

Is my interpretation of this newish negative easement correct: that I cannot travel on the east coast route via Newcastle & Carlisle if I am going to Glasgow?

"700303
Customers travelling from London Kings Cross to Carlisle using fares routed "Any
Permitted" may not travel via Newcastle. This easement applies in both directions."

The usual interpretation of these easements is that to Carlisle is different from via Carlisle - ie it only applies if Carlisle is the final destination on the ticket

 

[bkhtele]

The usual interpretation of these easements is that to Carlisle is different from via Carlisle - ie it only applies if Carlisle is the final destination on the ticket

Excellent thanks, much better

 

[RJ]

I have always assumed that EMT asked for this easement to be added:

"Cheap Day Single and Return tickets for travel between Newark Northgate and London or Newark Castle and London are not valid for journeys via Nottingham. This applies in both directions."

but presumably this would not be enforceable should someone be travelling on EMT's own through train from Newark to St Pancras.

If travelling on a through train, the NRG need not be consulted so that should be ok.

As for the Shenfield thing, I assume that easements only apply to paper ticket fares unless otherwise stated. The only Oyster easement I know of is the one forbidding travel between the Ewell stations via Epsom when using PAYG, which goes without saying as Epsom is outside of the Oyster zone anyway. I can only assume Greater Anglia don't want people travelling from Shenfield to London on the cheaper Brentwood to London tickets and are using easements to apply a selective BoJ restriction to Anytime fares. It just so happens that the fare from Brentwood to London via Shenfield is cheaper than the fare from Shenfield to London.

 

[MichaelAMW]

If travelling on a through train, the NRG need not be consulted so that should be ok.

As for the Shenfield thing, I assume that easements only apply to paper ticket fares unless otherwise stated. The only Oyster easement I know of is the one forbidding travel between the Ewell stations via Epsom when using PAYG, which goes without saying as Epsom is outside of the Oyster zone anyway. I can only assume Greater Anglia don't want people travelling from Shenfield to London on the cheaper Brentwood to London tickets and are using easements to apply a selective BoJ restriction to Anytime fares. It just so happens that the fare from Brentwood to London via Shenfield is cheaper than the fare from Shenfield to London.

Forgive me if I'm confused... but doesn't this new Brentwood/Shenfield easement *also* mean that the double back via Shenfield is now allowed on "Any Permitted" tickets, which are generally cheaper than the "via Shenfield" fares from Brentwood? The easement doesn't say it applies to those travelling via Shenfield *on via Shenfield tickets*; it seems to specifically permit a *new* double-back. Also, one for the detail merchants: it doesn't say you can't *enter* the station at Shenfield...

As for my remark about Newark London CDS and CDR tickets, I was being a bit tongue in cheek as I imagine there might be a conversation as you sped up the MML...

 

[kieron]

I've attached a list of deliberate changes, and also a list of what may be accidental ones.

I've included 700279 in the latter category. It did read:

Customers travelling from Beltring, Yalding or Wateringbury via Strood in possession of tickets routed "Plus High Speed" may travel via Maidstone West. This easement applies in both directions.

but now they've replaced "Strood" with "Stroud", something which seems a little less useful.

Ignoring the temporary easements and the Negative Map Easements, they've only changed are to the Brentwood/Shenfield easement (300429, 700005 and 700366) and the Felixstowe-Lowestoft one (700269), and added new ones for London-Didcot and London-Broome (700364 & 700365).

 

[furlong]

700366 Customers travelling from Brentwood to Stratford (London) or beyond may double back via
Shenfield. They may not leave the station. This easement applies in both directions

Nice try What business is it of the routeing guide to make any pronouncement about break of journey? (Consider the name of the document as well as the way it is incorporated into the contract and the 'Instructions'.)

The way NRCoC paragraph 16 looks to me, BoJ may be restricted only by ticket type - not by route or location - and this is a matter solely for the relevant Train Companies' own notices and publications and therefore any specific restrictions must surely be outside the scope of NRCoC/NRG, mustn't they?

 

[Paul Kelly]

FWIW I agree with furlong here and it is my opinion that a similar caveat applies to the phrase "for interchange purposes only", where the routeing guide allows doubling back within a station group. I don't think this is enforceable to mean a passenger may not start/stop short, as that is a function of the ticket type and nothing to do with routeing.

A related discussion about stopping/starting short when travelling on a train that was only permitted by the direct train rule was also recently discussed [thread=81010]here[/thread].