York - Sheffield

[bennorthyork]

I'm looking to get the cheapest price for 2 adult tickets from York - Sheffield via Huddersfield on 15th June. I'm looking to catch the 19.18 Huddersfield - Sheffield and the 20.41 from Sheffield - Huddersfield (the music trains). I'm happy to catch any train York - Huddersfield and back. Can someone tell me how to get the cheapest fare please?

 

[ChrisTheRef]

From York, you can take the 1809 First TransPennine Express service to Manchester Airport which arrives in Huddersfield at 1857.

You can then connect with the services you mentioned above.

Back in Huddersfield, you can take the 2216 First TransPennine Express service to Newcastle, which arrives in York at 2312.

To complete the entire journey, simply purchase a "Cheap Day Return" ticket from York to Sheffield. This will cost £16.30. Hope this helps

 

[John @ home]

To complete the entire journey, simply purchase a "Cheap Day Return" ticket from York to Sheffield. This will cost £16.30. Hope this helps

I don't believe a CDR York - Sheffield is valid via Huddersfield.
Permitted routes are on maps ER+YL and NE+YL.
ER allows York - Doncaster, either direct or via Selby.
NE allows the above, and also York - Leeds, either via Church Fenton or via Harrogate, and York - Pontefract.
YL allows Doncaster or Pontefract or Leeds - Swinton - Sheffield.
Huddersfield does not appear on any of these maps.

The best fare I have so far is:
CDR York - Micklefield £8.90
CDR Micklefield - Denby Dale £5.10
CDR Denby Dale - Sheffield £4.60
Total £18.60, and you would need to use the slow train between York and Leeds, stopping at Micklefield. Using a fast train, it would be:
CDR York - Leeds £10.50
CDR Leeds - Denby Dale £4.80
CDR Denby Dale - Sheffield £4.60
Total £19.90
I thought there was a helpful Easement for Micklefield - Leeds, but I can't find it in the current Routeing Guide. No doubt someone else will say whether it has been deleted.

I'll post again if I can find a saving by splitting somewhere else.

John

 

[yorkie]

I'm certain it used to be valid. It will be accepted without question I'm sure! I'd buy it from Poppleton, and there's even less chance of it being questioned.

 

[John @ home]

I don't believe a CDR York - Sheffield is valid via Huddersfield.

I'm certain it used to be valid.

You're right!

Routeing Guide History: Sheffield – York via Huddersfield

July 2005
Permitted
Sheffield Group – York: Maps CE, ER+PS or MM.
MM allows Sheffield – Huddersfield, then to either Wakefield or Leeds, then to York via one or more of Pontefract, Doncaster, Selby or Church Fenton, but not via Harrogate.
CE, ER and PS do not include Huddersfield.

May 2008 and September 2008
Permitted
These rules were still shown on the versions of the Routeing Guide I downloaded on 16 May 2008 and 10 September 2008.

April 2009
Not Permitted
The date on the first page of Section C of the National Routeing Guide, Permitted Routes, claims that the version I downloaded on 1 April 2009 is still the July 2005 version. This is not true. The list of maps showing permitted routes has substantially changed, including:
Sheffield Group – York: Maps ER+YL or NE+YL.
I explained in an earlier post why this is not permitted via Huddersfield. Whether they would be able to enforce this change if a passenger had relied on the accuracy of the date in the Routeing Guide is a different matter.

The date error remains in place today in the pdf version of Section C (http://www.atoc.org/rsp/_downloads/Routeing_Guide/pdf_docs/sectionc.pdf) but the relevant page of the interactive version states Last Updated: 31/03/2009 16:47:30.

It seems to me that ATOC may be a very effective trade association representing the interests of its members. But it is also given additional jobs administering part of a public service. In that additional role, its performance is consistent. By removing much of the Fares Manual from the public domain, failing to implement basic issue control of documents, and removing valid routes without public consultation and without notifying the public, it is consistently dreadful.

John

 

[glynn80]

By removing much of the Fares Manual from the public domain, failing to implement basic issue control of documents, and removing valid routes without public consultation and without notifying the public, it is consistently dreadful.

They would however of needed DfT approval to remove the route via Huddersfield.

Apparently one of the criteria the DfT uses, is whether the validity of a route in the routeing guide creates a fares anomaly for the TOC in question. I have put in an FOI request to obtain the full details and will post here when this has been satisfied.

It seems to me that ATOC may be a very effective trade association representing the interests of its members. But it is also given additional jobs administering part of a public service. In that additional role, its performance is consistent.

This is an issue I have had qualms with for a while but one that I fear is unlikely to ever be changed. The TOCs being given free reign over the prices and validities of unregulated fares was an important component of fares policy when privatisation was initiated. Removing this freedom would create a backlash from private industry and cries of increased governmental interference and I can only presume as the economic regulator, the ORR would also be asked to rule on this issue before being legislated upon. As we move closer to a system of reduced subsidies and premium payments it is likely the TOCs will be given even greater freedoms to increase revenue extraction rather than restrict their current unprincipled methods.

I don't believe a CDR York - Sheffield is valid via Huddersfield.

With regard to the above point, my interpretation of the guide gives the following permitted routes:

Maps ER+YL:
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Doncaster- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Doncaster- Selby- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Doncaster- Goole- Gilberdyke- Selby- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Wakefield- Doncaster- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Wakefield- Doncaster- Selby- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Wakefield- Doncaster- Goole- Gilberdyke- Selby- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Wakefield- Leeds- Cross Gates- Doncaster- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Wakefield- Leeds- Cross Gates- Doncaster- Selby- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Wakefield- Leeds- Cross Gates- Doncaster- Goole- Gilberdyke- Selby- York

Maps NE+YL:
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Pontefract- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Doncaster- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Doncaster- Selby- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Wakefield- Leeds- York
Sheffield- Meadowhall- Swinton- Wakefield- Leeds- Harrogate- York


So as John has already pointed out, Huddersfield features on none of the maps and therefore there is no permitted routes that are valid via Huddersfield.

 

[bennorthyork]

Thanks for all the useful replies.

I've also noticed thinking about other stations on the Penistone line that another route that I used to travel on frequently has increased massively in price as a result of removing the Huddersfield route. I used to travel York - Dodworth only a couple of years ago quite frequently at a fare of about £8 and now it's £15.10.

 

[John @ home]

I used to travel York - Dodworth only a couple of years ago quite frequently at a fare of about £8 and now it's £15.10.

I don't understand what's going on here!

The NXEC booking engine agrees with you and gives the following fares:
York - Dodworth
Route Leeds SDS £10.40, SDR £15.10.
Route Any Permitted SDS £16.00, SDR £19.60, SOR £21.10.

The Avantix NFM 03 CD, on the other hand, lists fares much closer to what you were used to paying:
York - Dodworth
Route Leeds SDS £5.20, SDR £7.55.
Route Any Permitted SDS £8.00, SDR £9.80, SOR £10.60.
(These are identical to the fares in NFM 02, valid January to May 2009.)

What on earth is the point of ATOC selling Fares CDs for £14.67 if their members can charge 100% more than the quoted amount for a route Any Permitted ticket? Isn't the SDR fare supposed to be regulated where there is no SVR?

John

 

[tony_mac]

I have Avantix 02 and 03 versions that I downloaded - they both give £15.10 for a route Leeds SDR, so I guess that its a mistake in yours.

 

[glynn80]

I don't understand what's going on here!

The NXEC booking engine agrees with you and gives the following fares:
York - Dodworth
Route Leeds SDS £10.40, SDR £15.10.
Route Any Permitted SDS £16.00, SDR £19.60, SOR £21.10.

The Avantix NFM 03 CD, on the other hand, lists fares much closer to what you were used to paying:
York - Dodworth
Route Leeds SDS £5.20, SDR £7.55.
Route Any Permitted SDS £8.00, SDR £9.80, SOR £10.60.
(These are identical to the fares in NFM 02, valid January to May 2009.)

Its a mistake in the NFM 03 CD as the FRPP quotes the following on the York to Dodworth flow:

YORK - DODWORTH
(Derived from YORK. - BARNSLEY.)

rte LEEDS
SDS 10.40
SDR 15.10
7DS 53.80
7DF 80.70

rte Any Permitted
SOR 21.20
SDS 16.00
SDR 19.60

 

[Max]

The Avantix NFM 03 CD, on the other hand, lists fares much closer to what you were used to paying:
York - Dodworth
Route Leeds SDS £5.20, SDR £7.55.
Route Any Permitted SDS £8.00, SDR £9.80, SOR £10.60.
(These are identical to the fares in NFM 02, valid January to May 2009.)

These are the child fares!

 

[John @ home]

These are the child fares!

Yes, I appear to have typed a 1 in the Child box without noticing!

Sorry,
John

 

[John @ home]

I don't believe a CDR York - Sheffield is valid via Huddersfield.

I'm certain it used to be valid.

You're right!

They would however have needed DfT approval to remove the route via Huddersfield.

Not on this occasion!

A new version of the National Routeing Guide appeared on the ATOC web site today, and seems to take immediate effect.

I have concerns that new versions appear and are deemed to be immediately effective, even when they limit journey opportunities. For example, from July 2005 to March 2009 a York - Sheffield ticket was valid via Huddersfield. At 16:47:30 on 31 March 2009, a new version of the Routeing Guide was posted on the web, to take effect from 1 April. This new version withdrew that route (and also withdrew York - Sheffield via Wakefield and Barnsley).

Irrespective of whether or not it was a good idea to change the Guide, this is wholly inadequate notice. The absence of public access to historical guides means that anyone holding the return portion of a York - Sheffield ticket at the date of the change has no means of demonstrating that they are exercising their contractual right to travel by the route valid at the time of purchase.

There is a complex consultation process involving members of ATOC before a routeing change is determined. I believe this is described in the "Ticketing and Settlement Agreement". But the public appear to be wholly excluded from this process, except that they are the people expected to pay for the tickets! ...

Are Passenger Focus satisfied that members of the public receive sufficient protection in the way that ATOC make changes to its National Routeing Guide?

This change had not come to our attention and we welcome your timely intervention as having alerted us to it. I contacted the Department for Transport about this as soon as your message was received.

The Department has advised that ATOC will amend the flow to which you refer so that it reverts to its former permissions. Apparently no formal applications for change had been made and it is unclear how this change occurred. There is a meeting with ATOC next week about the Guide and we have asked that this incident be raised to avoid any future repetition or changes occurring without formal application.

Many thanks for alerting us to this error.

It is good that we are now at least on the way to having York - Huddersfield - Sheffield and York - Wakefield - Barnsley - Sheffield restored as permitted routes. It is not good that no formal applications for change had been made. I will pursue this with DfT.

John

 

[yorkie]

Well it's clear what ATOC's policy is, and I find it disgraceful.

The Routeing Guide is primarily for protecting the customers' interests with protecting TOCs revenue secondary to that, but ATOC have changed the priorities.

ATOC are constantly changing the RG, making it more and more restrictive. The excuse is that they are "correcting mistakes" and that as a by-product of this some routes that SHOULD be valid are being made invalid and they say this is "regrettable". Because they are doing this under the guise of correcting "mistakes" they claim they do not need DfT approval!! Even if they did need DfT approval, Gordon Brown's cronies are committed to increasing prices for customers and ensuring that fare payers pay an ever increasing amount of money to travel as they want to reduce subsidy as they prefer people to travel by car (which they don't publicly admit but they do!)

ATOC are abusing their position and breaking the rules, but the DfT are happy for them to do so and even "support" ATOC in carrying out these unjust acts.

Many routes that should be valid are becoming invalid and ATOC are not consulting with anyone and are not carrying out the proper procedures. We have got to stop them doing this.

 

[John @ home]

Many routes that should be valid are becoming invalid and ATOC are not consulting with anyone and are not carrying out the proper procedures. We have got to stop them doing this.

I take a more positive view.

ATOC is a trade association. The job of a trade association is to promote the interests and represent the views of its members. It appears that ATOC does that job robustly.

If, at times, it appears that ATOC are behaving like a regulator of railway routeing issues, then we have to ask what that implies about the effectiveness of the real regulator.

The appropriate regulator for railway routeing issues used to be the Rail Regulator. It appears that, when he was Rail Regulator, John Swift QC took a robust approach to this part of his job. See http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5492 and http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5510 .

It seems that later the appropriate regulator for railway routeing issues was the Strategic Rail Authority. I have not traced any evidence of activity on routeing issues by the SRA but would welcome feedback from anybody who does know about this period.

Following the abolition of the Strategic Rail Authority, it seems the appropriate regulator is the Secretary of State for Transport. I think our job is to ensure that his approach to regulation of railway routeing issues is at least as robust as John Swift's. That is work in progress.

John