Routeing guide update 9 Oct 2013

[All Line Rover]

The instructions include one (and only one) change:

"This National Routeing Guide may be used to identify permitted routes. Please note, however, that to be valid, any journey not undertaken on a through train or the shortest route MUST be checked using the Journey Planner at www.nationalrail.co.uk, inputting the relevant interchange and via points. "

This is clearly unenforceable for a variety of reasons.

The NRCoC makes reference to the National Routeing Guide, not the National Rail Enquiries website.

Websites are arbitrary - they are subject to change without notice and can be subject to failure. If the NRE website suffers an outage or malfunctions in some way (which is a frequent occurrence), are we to conclude that passengers are unable to determine permitted routes?

The NRE website is unable to cope with multiple via/avoid points.

The NRG instructions make two references to NRE, the second being the quote above, the first being:

"The National Rail Conditions of Carriage refers to the National Routeing Guide when defining the route(s) that a customer is entitled to take when making a journey on the National Rail network. These routes are known as "permitted routes". The National Routeing Guide is incorporated into the data used to support the Journey Planner on the National Rail website (www.nationalrail.co.uk). This document provides the background data and process used to determine whether a proposed journey is via a "permitted route"."​

This makes it clear that the NRE routeing engine is a derivative of the NRG. One can therefore conclude that the NRG supersedes NRE.

Notwithstanding these points, the second reference (as quoted by soil) is shocking, completely unacceptable and must be removed immediately.

 

[bb21]

Notwithstanding these points, the second reference (as quoted by soil) is shocking, completely unacceptable and must be removed immediately.

I wonder what the DfT would make of that. :roll:

There is another implication stemming from that requirement. Do you have to have internet connection in order to determine permitted routes?

 

[maniacmartin]

I believe that the Routeing Guide that was present when your ticket was issued applies. As such, if I buy an annual season ticket, and save a copy of the Routeing Guide at the time of purchase, I can't now check a route 6 months down the line, as NRE may have a new Routeing Guide by then.

 

[All Line Rover]

I wonder what the DfT would make of that. :roll:

I do wonder. If it was the DfT's intention for this to be a new requirement, I would have expected them to amend the NRCoC.

There is another implication stemming from that requirement. Do you have to have internet connection in order to determine permitted routes?

I suspect the answer would be "visit a ticket office" or "call NRE". Both useless, of course.

 

[crispy1978]

I am a relative novice at the routeing guide - I understand the principles, but wouldn't call myself an expert on them by any stretch.

Looking at map MN - has there been clarification there of the York-Leeds route - shows the Harrogate loop now?

 

[bb21]

Map MN did not use to exist.

 

[crispy1978]

Map MN did not use to exist.

I appreciate that, but there has been no clear guidance from what I can see on previous routeing queries I have posted whether Leeds-Harrogate-York is equally as permissible as Leeds-Micklefield-York. The thought has been that it is allowable, but map MN does clearly show Harrogate and the two lines marked - that was my point.

 

[bb21]

I appreciate that, but there has been no clear guidance from what I can see on previous routeing queries I have posted whether Leeds-Harrogate-York is equally as permissible as Leeds-Micklefield-York. The thought has been that it is allowable, but map MN does clearly show Harrogate and the two lines marked - that was my point.

The consensus seemed to be that if intermediate stations are not marked, and none of them are routeing points, then a line between two routeing points can represent multiple routes, as there is no way to differentiate between them.

There is no routeing point between Leeds and York via either Harrogate or Micklefield, so a line without intermediate stations being marked could be used to represent either route.

 

[soil]

Yes the new maps are mostly more geographically accurate than the old ones.

However they still forgot the Harrogate line on maps AA, AL, AT, AY, BY, CE, CY, DY, EC, EY, GG, GS, GT, TY and YS

It's included on maps
GY, LS, MN, MT NP, VN, VT, XY, YN, YT

The significance or otherwise of the omission is left to your imagination.

 

[Deerfold]

I appreciate that, but there has been no clear guidance from what I can see on previous routeing queries I have posted whether Leeds-Harrogate-York is equally as permissible as Leeds-Micklefield-York. The thought has been that it is allowable, but map MN does clearly show Harrogate and the two lines marked - that was my point.

Perhaps.

There's clearly still mistakes in it - map WY still shows a route from Skipton to Bradford avoiding Shipley.

 

[Sacro]

Seen a few references to "Redhilll"

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I'm going to collect more examples and write a letter/FOI request to the DfT and Passenger Focus asking why each one of these reasonable, historically valid routes has been withdrawn....

Manchester-Didcot rte 'Any Permitted', valid via London in the NRG (even now), not valid via London on NRES.

....The NRCoC makes reference to the National Routeing Guide, not the National Rail Enquiries website....

True, but no longer important, the NRG now states that a route shown in the Routeing Guide can only be permitted if NRE allows it (I'm not saying I agree with it being put in). But in any case, no Guard/Conductor/Train manger/other generic name or RPI is going to deny a route which is obviously reasonable.

....If the NRE website suffers an outage or malfunctions in some way (which is a frequent occurrence), are we to conclude that passengers are unable to determine permitted routes?....

Ticket office? Phone line (for NRES, assuming you speak the same language as the person who answers)

....The NRE website is unable to cope with multiple via/avoid points....

True, do we know how many reasonable routes actually need two or more via/avoid locations though?

....This makes it clear that the NRE routeing engine is a derivative of the NRG. One can therefore conclude that the NRG supersedes NRE....

Not sure I can agree there. The NRG now stating that the NRE site should be consulted means technically that the NRE site is part of the NRG.

....Notwithstanding these points, the second reference (as quoted by soil) is shocking, completely unacceptable and must be removed immediately.

You'd have to remove both to make any difference I think.

 

[SussexMan]

The Maps baffle me but Polegate [PLG] on map CW as a "Non Routeing Point Interchange on route" has appeared and is certainly not where Polegate Station is in comparison to the other stations marked on the map.

Does that have any implications?

 

[CheapAndNerdy]

Does the journey planner allow multiple via points to be input? I tried a sample journey, but it responded stating "Please correct the following errors: The via station has already been added."

Problem solved. Looks like adblock plus was inadvertantly blocking the section of the page where the VIA options can be set.

 

[furlong]

True, but no longer important, the NRG now states that a route shown in the Routeing Guide can only be permitted if NRE allows it (I'm not saying I agree with it being put in).

Except it doesn't. It seemingly introduces a hitherto undefined concept of a "valid journey".

Some of the worst drafting in the Routeing Guide IMHO. Quite how this addition helps anyone - be they passenger or prosecutor - is simply beyond my comprehension.

 

[ainsworth74]

Map EE appears to be just wrong, completely. Advertised as being London to Teeside (sic) it goes no further north on the ECML than Selby and goes as far west as Bradford. This map previously used to go all the way to Newcastle (via Darlington and Middlesbrough) and also included Hull via York and Scarborough...

 

[RJ]

Map EE appears to be just wrong, completely. Advertised as being London to Teeside (sic) it goes no further north on the ECML than Selby and goes as far west as Bradford. This map previously used to go all the way to Newcastle (via Darlington and Middlesbrough) and also included Hull via York and Scarborough...

The release does appear to be an unfinished draft version, still riddled with errors and anomalies.

 

[yorkie]

It is unacceptable to claim you "have to" get an itinerary BUT...

When you book your journey online, any ticket offered in connection with the timetable or itinerary produced by the journey planner will be accepted as a permitted route.

.... needs to be briefed to ALL staff.

Some members of this forum have been given a load of abuse and threats by a ferocious minority of rail staff for travelling on the exact trains shown on the itinerary produced by the journey planner / booking engine.

Such threats/actions have included:

• stranding a teenager from Manchester in Perth (or was it Stirling, I can't remember) - take a bow, EC
• informing LU staff that the passenger had a gun (as an excuse to enter the LU station and as an excuse to delay an underground train)- take a bow, FGW
• wasting police time by telling untruths to the police and making them detain a passenger - take a bow, EC
• ejecting passengers from trains - take a bow, SE
• preventing passengers from leaving at their required station, making them stay on board the train to another station - take a bow, XC
• prosecution (and only caving in on the day of the court case, resulting in costs) - take a bow, FCC
• Charging passengers for new tickets and threatening them with BTP - take a bow, Scotrail

and that's not all, just a few I am aware of off the top of my head, that have been mentioned to me at forum meals and other forum events. The vast majority go unreported on this forum, let alone in the media.

The vast majority of the time tickets are honoured without question, as the vast majority of rail staff are great, but sadly incidents such as the above do happen occasionally. They are more common at some TOCs than others, and some areas than others.

 

[furlong]

The release does appear to be an unfinished draft version, still riddled with errors and anomalies.

What gets me is why a document like this has to be updated in secret then thrust upon the world, fixing a few old problems but in turn creating many new ones?

What's wrong with publishing draft versions and then seeking public feedback on how to improve it and then acting on that feedback?

 

[CNash]

Easier to ask forgiveness than permission, I suppose. That and the fact that there's literally nothing stopping them from doing it; the DfT don't care and there's no effective regulator.

 

[Pumbaa]

Ooh, who can spot the pretty huge mistake on map FO?

Hehehe. The whole thing is a mess.

 

[snail]

Some odd changes affecting Preston. As one example, NRE (and logic) says it's ok to travel to Manchester via Wigan but the only mapped route is KM, the Chorley/Bolton route. Looking further north, the new Oxenholme maps allow Wigan and Warrington as interchange points.

On the plus side, last month it wasn't clear if Preston-Liverpool via Warrington was allowed. It was on the old map LM but not on NRE. Now it is mapped (KW) and NRE allows it.

 

[RJ]

What gets me is why a document like this has to be updated in secret then thrust upon the world, fixing a few old problems but in turn creating many new ones?

What's wrong with publishing draft versions and then seeking public feedback on how to improve it and then acting on that feedback?

The problem with that is that it'd never be published.

 

[Altnabreac]

Yes the new maps are mostly more geographically accurate than the old ones.

Bizarrely all the maps showing Edinburgh - Glasgow via Shotts line now show it passing through 2 routing points (Motherwell and Newton) that the line doesn't actually pass through. Don't think it affects any validities but just seems shoddy work.

 

[Clip]

What gets me is why a document like this has to be updated in secret then thrust upon the world, fixing a few old problems but in turn creating many new ones?

What's wrong with publishing draft versions and then seeking public feedback on how to improve it and then acting on that feedback?

Because most of the public have no idea about the routeing guide so what is the point of asking them about it?

 

[34D]

So with the requirement to check the planner can we assume that ALL esoteric tickets are now invalid

 

[Eagle]

Bizarrely all the maps showing Edinburgh - Glasgow via Shotts line now show it passing through 2 routing points (Motherwell and Newton) that the line doesn't actually pass through. Don't think it affects any validities but just seems shoddy work.

It passes through Motherwell Group (which is new, and includes Holytown); and Newton is considered to include the avoiding lines (this is quite common at other locations, such as Darlington, Westbury and Willesden Junction). This is perfectly accurate and allows them to simplify the complicated mass of chords around Motherwell, Holytown and Mossend by sticking them all in one group.

 

[Searle]

On Map JL, Barnetby appears in two seperate places, and there's a mysterious caption for Gainsborough Lea Road with no indication of where it's meant to be!

If I'm travelling from York to Lincoln on Map NS (York to Doncaster) and Map JL (Doncaster to Lincoln), what are the chances that I'd be allowed to go via Barnetby, even though it appears in two different places?

 

[yorkie]

ATOC spokesperson Mr Cod Swallop stated "There is no material change; the Guide corrects errors and nothing more. Any additional routeing opportunities provided in the Guide are errors and will be rectified to ensure fairness for passengers. Also, we will provide clarity with a new easement #902121212: "Passengers in possession of a ticket may not travel by any route where the price for any part of that route at any time would be higher than the price they paid. Passengers are required to search for all intermediate journey opportunities when purchasing a ticket, to ensure none of the tickets cost a higher amount. This easement applies in all directions", which takes immediate effect, is not a material change, corrects all errors, and applies even if you have not read the Routeing Guide, and is only fair to our customers.."

Before you say that's bonkers, it is only about as bonkers than “Unlike season tickets, there is no economic justification for [Off Peaks] because they are being offered to customers who are using their income on a leisure journey rather than going to the theatre or buying CDs.” which is a real quote by David Mapp, Commercial Director of ATOC.

This is an organisation who knows that commuters have no viable alternative, but don't want leisure passengers to pack onto the trains, all paying less than what the TOCs would want to charge.

Would this happen in any other industry? “Unlike Season tickets, there is no economic justification for matchday tickets because they are being offered to customers who are using their income on a football match rather than going to the theatre or buying CDs.” could that be a quote from the football industry? Hmm....

 

[sheff1]

If I'm travelling from York to Lincoln on Map NS (York to Doncaster) and Map JL (Doncaster to Lincoln), what are the chances that I'd be allowed to go via Barnetby, even though it appears in two different places?

Perhaps you are expected to walk from Barnetby to Barnetby, although having to go via Gainsborough Lea Rd would make it a rather long walk .