Using part of an impossible route

[PermitToTravel]

Hello guys,

If I would like to use part of an impossible permitted route, and either break my journey, or walk the impossible part, may I do so? For example, say I would like to travel from Reading to London Waterloo along map WR, may I travel as far as Acton Main Line, walk to Shepherd's Bush, and continue on my way to Waterloo? Is this at all a contentious issue?

Many thanks,
Fahad

 

[LexyBoy]

If you can trace a route on the map, then that route will be permitted regardless of the actual service. I suppose there would be an issue if BoJ were not permitted, but it's irrelevant in this case (if you're using a Reading-London Terminals ticket).

However, Shepherd's Bush is managed by London Overground, so I would be very surprised if you have a hassle-free change there. Expect claims that that ticket is from Reading therefore invalid / you cannot break your journey / the Routeing Guide doesn't apply to them / they only accept Oyster.

 

[bb21]

Grey area.

If it were possible on service trains to complete the journey but you can't because of an operator restriction, then I am inclined to agree that you can break your journey in that manner.

In your case I don't think it is a permitted route as it is not a route in the first place. There is no journey to break as by your own admission, it is impossible. I am unconvinced of its merit.

 

[furlong]

Refer to this reported response from ATOC:

Question 9: can a journey involve a walk between stations? For example, map WA includes both Hertford East and Hertford North, on different lines. Would it be legitimate to travel from Cambridge to London via Stevenage, Hertford North, Hertford East, and then Broxbourne? Or, for that matter, via Stansted Airport, Broxbourne, Hertford East, Hertford North, Stevenage, and then Welwyn? Does it matter if the stations involved are in the same group or not?

Some journeys must involve a walk between stations; for example, the fare from Watford Junction to Harpenden is routed "St Albans Abbey" - this must involve a walk between St Albans Abbey and St Albans. As regards permitted routes in the Routeing Guide, there is nothing to prevent a customer using a route that involves a walk between stations (one is not breaking the "no doubling back" rule by doing this).

 

[LexyBoy]

BTW, I assume you only wish to do this for the novelty value or to have an opportunity to argue about routeing? It would be far quicker to go direct to Paddington and walk to Waterloo.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Reading-London is RG or WX. Where does WR come into it?

As far as I can see Reading-Paddington is on RG and Reading-Waterloo is on WX, so it can't possibly be one permitted route, but actually a mix of two permitted routes and this would mean it is not allowed.

If, however, you mean something like Reading to West Ealing by train, then maybe you walk to Ealing Broadway and continue to Paddington by train, I don't see a problem with that as it would be one permitted route (RG), provided of course that break of journey is permitted by the ticket.

 

[IanD]

If you can trace a route on the map, then that route will be permitted regardless of the actual service. I suppose there would be an issue if BoJ were not permitted, but it's irrelevant in this case (if you're using a Reading-London Terminals ticket).

However, Shepherd's Bush is managed by London Overground, so I would be very surprised if you have a hassle-free change there. Expect claims that that ticket is from Reading therefore invalid / you cannot break your journey / the Routeing Guide doesn't apply to them / they only accept Oyster.

One would not be breaking one's journey if leaving the station to join a train at another station.

 

[LexyBoy]

Reading-London is RG or WX. Where does WR come into it?

Ahem... teaches me to assume the OP has quoted correct (or complete) information.

There are some flows which take WR as part of a Reading-London area route, e.g. Reading-Mitcham Junction (WR+SC). Only had a cursory glance but couldn't see any allowing travel beyond Clapham Jn on WR.

edit: Reading-Hastings is WR+LK which would do.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Thanks for all of your replies!

Reading-London is RG or WX. Where does WR come into it?

As far as I can see Reading-Paddington is on RG and Reading-Waterloo is on WX, so it can't possibly be one permitted route, but actually a mix of two permitted routes and this would mean it is not allowed.

If, however, you mean something like Reading to West Ealing by train, then maybe you walk to Ealing Broadway and continue to Paddington by train, I don't see a problem with that as it would be one permitted route (RG), provided of course that break of journey is permitted by the ticket.

Reading to Waterloo was just a hypothetical journey, and I didn't check whether or not WR was a permitted map for this (although I must admit that I did assume). For the journey I am actually making, I may use map WR (although I may not go to Waterloo)

Grey area.

If it were possible on service trains to complete the journey but you can't because of an operator restriction, then I am inclined to agree that you can break your journey in that manner.

In your case I don't think it is a permitted route as it is not a route in the first place. There is no journey to break as by your own admission, it is impossible. I am unconvinced of its merit.

What do you think is the difference when it comes to validity, out of interest? In both cases the NRG shows an unusable route, due to the lack of allowed services. In my opinion it is unlikely that my scenario is less valid than yours, especially as no arguments can be made about revenue allocation (although, as we all know, this obviously has no bearing on validity)

Refer to this reported response from ATOC:

This seems really silly. Using the example of Waterloo to Reading (in a world where WR is a valid map for this journey), can I walk from Waterloo to Bristol and then use this ticket on a BRI-RDG HST? If not, why not?

BTW, I assume you only wish to do this for the novelty value or to have an opportunity to argue about routeing? It would be far quicker to go direct to Paddington and walk to Waterloo.

If you can trace a route on the map, then that route will be permitted regardless of the actual service. I suppose there would be an issue if BoJ were not permitted, but it's irrelevant in this case (if you're using a Reading-London Terminals ticket).

However, Shepherd's Bush is managed by London Overground, so I would be very surprised if you have a hassle-free change there. Expect claims that that ticket is from Reading therefore invalid / you cannot break your journey / the Routeing Guide doesn't apply to them / they only accept Oyster.

I was intending to break my journey at either Hayes and Harlington or Ealing Broadway, but you have reminded me about London Overground's ticketing expertise, something which I had forgotten. I am now rather tempted to make my own way to SPB just to have some fun with their gateline staff, and tape it - my ticket is between two stations a hundred miles away from SPB, rather close to each other, and for bonus points, routed "NOT LONDON"

 

[34D]

Didn't the DfT only allow the withdrawal of the relevant services contingent on passengers not having validity taken away like this?

Oh they don't care about passengers? Silly me

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Reading to Waterloo was just a hypothetical journey, and I didn't check whether or not WR was a permitted map for this (although I must admit that I did assume). For the journey I am actually making, I may use map WR (although I may not go to Waterloo)....

Real journey plans do tend to make it easier to say one way or the other.

 

[PermitToTravel]

A possible real example with the same issue would be an SDS from Didcot Parkway to Brighton, route NOT VIA LONDON.

"LONDON" is a permitted route combination for Didcot Parkway to Brighton Group, therefore we may look at the permitted route combinations from Didcot Parkway to London Group, and from London Group to Brighton Group ("LONDON" and "NOT VIA LONDON", of course, not being mutually exclusive ).


Didcot Parkway to London Group is valid along map BL, which shows the direct link between Hayes and Harlington and Kensington Olympia.

London Group to Brighton Group is valid along map LB.

Maps BL and LB join up at Clapham Junction. Holding the aforementioned "NOT VIA LONDON" ticket, may I travel to Acton Main Line?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

There is disagreement on the forum in regard to using the Routeing Guide to find a permitted route for a 'Not Via London' ticket where a map combination of 'LONDON' is given. I can recall several long threads about it. This is largely because the 'Routeing Guide in Detail' section (Section F) contradicts itself and the 'Instructions' section (Section A) could possibly be read two ways (both of which are covered by Section F).

Personally I find the idea of using 'LONDON' to find a route for a ticket routed 'Not Via London' somewhat laughable.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The Association of Train Operating Companies explicitly permit it:

Qu.5: What are the permitted routes where a ticket is routed "not London"; in particular, what if the only route given in the Guide is "London"?

In this case, you can use the ticket via London. The routes "London" and "not London" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[maniacmartin]

But it is only explcit when the only route in the Guide is London!

 

[PermitToTravel]

That's true, although I think that it is contextually clear what is meant.

 

[kieron]

But it is only explcit when the only route in the Guide is London!

Is it time to ask whether or not someone can travel via Stratford with a "not London" Colchester-Cambridge ticket (with routes LONDON and EA)?

 

[furlong]

Personally I find the idea of using 'LONDON' to find a route for a ticket routed 'Not Via London' somewhat laughable.

Indeed. Notwithstanding the routes spewed out by some websites, I'd suggest it's pretty clear from the Routeing Guide instructions that the original authors only meant you to use the LONDON routeing code for journeys to/from/via London.

I think the London/not London Q5 answer above is most easily understood if you interpret the routeing guide instructions as only having you consider fare routeings when faced with a choice of routes. But if you prefer, go with the literal interpretation that just disregards the word 'Not'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it time to ask whether or not someone can travel via Stratford with a "not London" Colchester-Cambridge ticket (with routes LONDON and EA)?

I'd say only if you're prepared to walk from Stratford to Stansted

 

[sarahj]

I love these threads in a way. Pages of, is a ticket valid. Then when rail staff question a ticket, its 'more training needed'.

My view, from a looking at checking and selling tickets pov, a not london means not a london terminal. You often see this on a ticket from say clapham junction to gatwick. Means the pass cannot go into Victoria, catch an express and come back out, but must catch a direct train from clapham to gatwick.
Of course I could be wrong and need more training.

 

[kieron]

I think the London/not London Q5 answer above is most easily understood if you interpret the routeing guide instructions as only having you consider fare routeings when faced with a choice of routes.

What's a fare routeing?

I'd say only if you're prepared to walk from Stratford to Stansted

Why Stansted?

I did overlook the fact that Stratford isn't actually between London and Cambridge, though.

It is between London and both Southend and Ipswich, although the only Southend-Ipswich route I can see via Stratford which doesn't double back or rely on TfL services goes via Gospel Oak and takes hours.

More practically, allowing C2C services to be used on a mapped route would allow someone to go via Tilbury, Upminster and Romford.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Is it time to ask whether or not someone can travel via Stratford with a "not London" Colchester-Cambridge ticket (with routes LONDON and EA)?

When I first read this I misunderstood, but I looked at the Routeing Guide (RG) and realised what you meant.

Colchester and Cambridge are both Routeing Points and have a map combination of 'London' or map EA. EA allows travel via Stowmarket only.

'London' is where the trouble starts. Colchester to London is map CO and London to Cambridge is WA. If the combination were written in the RG as CO+WA rather than 'London' the answer would be a clear yes it is okay, provided you don't class Stratford as 'London', but we don't have that. The RG Instructions (Section A) tell us to cross reference the map combinations to find a route, but it does not say how to do this.

Section F (The Routeing Guide in Detail) then states:

If there is a route “LONDON” as one of the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide,
the range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method:
1. Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London.
2. Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point.
3. Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any
route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are
permitted routes for the journey except those with a repeated map.

Which seems to say that you find a route to 'London' and a route from 'London'. This makes it clear that a 'Not Via London' ticket could not possibly use this map combination as we would have to reach 'London' (whichever way you choose to define it).

However, it then goes on to suggest in the example below that passage that we put the maps together (CO+WA) and then find a route, which would suggest it might be allowed depending on how you define 'London'. The example given by the RG, however, is not like the Colchester-Cambridge example, it has a definite cross-London element.

Then there is this little gem:

Routes created from the route LONDON in the yellow pages do not oblige you to
change in London. For example Oakham to Brighton has the route LONDON which
yields LB+MM. This allows the journey Oakham – Leicester – Bedford – Brighton,
changing at Bedford and continuing via Thameslink to Brighton.

Which is rather non-specific and some have taken it to mean you do not have to go to London, I disagree with that.

So it really depends how you read the RG. I would say no personally, because using 'London' to find a route that is 'Not Via London' is plain silly, especially when it is, to my mind atleast, clearly obvious what is actually meant by 'Not Via London'.

What's a fare routeing?.....

Presumably the routeing found on the ticket.

 

[furlong]

Why Stansted?

Because to get to Stratford on a Not Via London routeing you have to use map EA. Another of those answers from ATOC made clear that there's nothing to prevent you walking between two stations on a map - it doesn't count as doubling-back. (But if you were going to walk like that, why would you bother buying that ticket in the first place?)

 

[LexyBoy]

The Routeing Guide Instructions say on page 2:

If a choice of routes is available and the fare for the
journey is described as "Any Permitted" route or is unrouted, you are free to
choose any of the routes listed in the Guide. Where the fare specifies a
particular route, you may choose only those routes listed in the Guide which
pass through the station shown in the route description.

which seems fairly clear that you may use any permitted routes, except those which pass through the excluded station.

Anyway, it's an old argument and leads to discussion about the contradictions in the RG...

 

[PermitToTravel]

Anyway, it's an old argument and leads to discussion about the contradictions in the RG...

I'm sorry to have brought this argument up again then, as I see it seems to be a very emotive topic on this forum! I have found an example that does not rely upon it holding true.

There is an SDS from Ash Vale to Brighton routed "NOT VIA LONDON". The valid map combinations between routing points Ash Vale and Brighton Group are LONDON (whether or not this is valid, it confers no validity between Reading and Paddington), WW+LB (similarly invalid between Reading and Paddington), and WW+CS+LB.

A route can be traced from Ash Vale to Reading along map WW; from Reading to Clapham Junction via Hayes and Harlington, Acton Main Line, Shepherd's Bush, and Kensington Olympia along map CS; and from Clapham Junction to Brighton along map LB. There are, as we all know, no direct trains between Acton Main Line and Shepherd's Bush.

In your opinions, can this ticket be used to finish short at Acton Main Line, or start short at Clapham Junction, or to make the entire journey with the part of it that has no regular passenger train services being bypassed on foot / by 607 bus / by Central Line?

 

[furlong]

I think I recall that - while the calculation of the shortest route does take some limited account of the timetable - permitted routes don't, and walking between stations (and by extension, other public transport at your own expense) is allowed.

So it does look like just one more circuitous route the government foisted upon the train operating companies through this "too clever by half" document.

 

[34D]

I'm sorry to have brought this argument up again then, as I see it seems to be a very emotive topic on this forum! I have found an example that does not rely upon it holding true.

There is an SDS from Ash Vale to Brighton routed "NOT VIA LONDON". The valid map combinations between routing points Ash Vale and Brighton Group are LONDON (whether or not this is valid, it confers no validity between Reading and Paddington), WW+LB (similarly invalid between Reading and Paddington), and WW+CS+LB.

A route can be traced from Ash Vale to Reading along map WW; from Reading to Clapham Junction via Hayes and Harlington, Acton Main Line, Shepherd's Bush, and Kensington Olympia along map CS; and from Clapham Junction to Brighton along map LB. There are, as we all know, no direct trains between Acton Main Line and Shepherd's Bush.

In your opinions, can this ticket be used to finish short at Acton Main Line, or start short at Clapham Junction, or to make the entire journey with the part of it that has no regular passenger train services being bypassed on foot / by 607 bus / by Central Line?

I would say definitely, because you are following a mapped route.

The grey area in your circumstance is whether Acton Main Line-Shepherds Bush could form part of the shortest route - and I don't think it could any more (but could until a few months ago).

By definition of course, it doesn't form part of a route used by direct trains.

Do note that some journeys may have no mapped routes (or no valid mapped routes).

Finally regarding Kensington Olympia, it _was_ a London Terminal in the 1980s and early 90s (does anyone have any exact dates?) so the right to go via the WLL on a not London ticket (if indeed there is such a right) is only a fairly recent phenomenon.

 

[John @ home]

Kensington Olympia ... was a London Terminal in the 1980s and early 90s (does anyone have any exact dates?)

Footnote 5 of the wiki article on London station group indicates that National Fares Manual NFM 57 states that Kensington Olympia ceased to be a member of the group in May 1994. This pre-dates the introduction of the National Routeing Guide by over two years.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Thank you very much for your advice, everybody!