Routeing guide update 9 Oct 2013

[cjp]

Most of the Routeing Guide files (with the exception of Section F) appear to have been updated today (some have a 'posted on the website' date of 9/10/13)

There are definitely some new easements e.g.


Not sure what in the other files have changed.

edit: old favourite map WA looks like it's been 'simplified'...

More like replaced, to some extent, by TE (although I am not good with maps)

 

[redbutton]

Who do you mean? The DfT? Passenger Focus?

None of the rail companies is subject to FoI, except East Coast, and neither is ATOC.

Yeah, DfT and PF (edit- actually London Travelwatch is more appropriate I think), the usual about whether they were consulted and how, and what justification was given.

 

[muug1982]

I have been starting short using a significantly cheaper ticket than the point to point version. An easement was introduced to try and prevent it, which stopped journeys between the principle stations, but not some of the associate ones hence I continued to use it. I believe that the changes to the routing guide mean that the ticket is no longer valid. However NRE will still provide a routing and virgin trains a ticket and therefore a reservation for TH questionable leg of the journey.

Do we think on-train staff will have briefed on changes and be more likely to challenge? Will a reservation coupon remain sufficient to head off any challenge.

Apologies for vagueness,clearly don't want to draw attention to my route.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I doubt any frontline staff have been told it has changed, nevermind the on train staff. If you have a reservation it is likely to be accepted without question. If it is a reasonable route I doubt they'd even go as far as checking the reservation.

 

[yorkie]

Travelcards from Watford North to Zones 1-6 are still available with itineraries via St Albans (destination: Elstree & Borehamwood) - see attached screenshot.

So either that easement has not yet been implemented, or as I suspect, the easement is in fact not applicable because it cannot overrule the shortest possible route. The right to take the shortest route is defined in the NRCoC. I'd love to see them lose in Court if they try to say a negative easement over-rides the NRCoC.

 

[CallySleeper]

hock:

I see the number of maps (or map pages) has changed a fair bit, up to 346 from 127...

This. Seems to me that a lot of the maps are now duplicates, effectively. Why bother?! What was wrong with it before? Why are there now a load of maps from places like Oxenholme and Grantham...

Also, "Oxenholme" as a routing point, why? For the Windermere branch or to direct routes away from the coast line? Or did they cotton onto my practice of changing trains there

Also; I don't understand why they have bothered linking Lichfield directly to Derby? xD

 

[Eagle]

This. Seems to me that a lot of the maps are now duplicates, effectively. Why bother?! What was wrong with it before? Why are there now a load of maps from places like Oxenholme and Grantham...

They're not quite duplicates. A lot of them are to allow more specific maps for certain flows, rather than having (say) a lot of XC flows all using the same map. This means it'll be easier to change a map to allow or disallow a route without having unexpected consequences on different flows.

Also, "Oxenholme" as a routing point, why? For the Windermere branch or to direct routes away from the coast line? Or did they cotton onto my practice of changing trains there

Most of the new routeing points seem to be at junctions for branchlines which were formerly implicit. I'm not sure why, but given that the new maps are based in the electronic routeing guide it might be a hack due to the electronic version not dealing with branches properly. For example, previously the Windermere branch would have had Lancaster and Carlisle as routeing points, but now it has its own routeing point.

Also; I don't understand why they have bothered linking Lichfield directly to Derby? xD

That line's always been in the RG (as there are at least two XC services a day which go that way).

 

[island]

Is the 3 mile rule still valid?
The instructions document does not mention the 3 mile rule, but the "The National Routeing Guide in Detail (Section F)" document (dated 2010) does mention the 3 mile rule.

It's still mentioned on the first page F1 of Section F

I suppose the fact that all routes that aren't the shortest route or a through train need to be checked on the journey planner captures routes benefitting from the three-mile rule too.

 

[swt_passenger]

This. Seems to me that a lot of the maps are now duplicates, effectively. Why bother?

Look at new map XR as an example. As I pointed out earlier, this appears to have been tailored specifically to prevent the Fareham to Basingstoke via Salisbury route that someone raised with SWT (discussed recently in the disputes section).

The new map itself is effectively a subset of one of the earlier maps shown for the above journey, restricting you to only one of the previous options.

 

[RJ]

With regards to the new maps, I've found a few instances where routes are shown in the yellow pages using maps that don't actually share any routing points. Anyone else come across any?

 

[causton]

I sincerely hope not, given the new status they appear to be wishing upon this system...

Defence: I checked the Journey Planner, as required by the contract, and it confirmed my proposed journey was valid.

Prosecution: I performed the same query and it is definitely not valid.

Defence: How were you able to do that for a date in the past? I stand by what I say the system told me. Has any of the data or software changed since I used it? Who had access to the computers since then? Precisely what did they change, when and why? How do you know they didn't change anything that affected what it told you now about this journey? How do you know the software has no bugs in it? My experts need to examine everything....

So can we now just say any ticket is valid for any route, as NRE said it is, and because it is being constantly messed with and added to that there is no way of verifying that it didn't actually say it was valid?

 

[kieron]

I've had a look through the guide and this thread, and I've thought of a couple of issues with the former.

1.

The rules NRE uses to determine validity don't appear to be the ones they give in the routeing guide. For instance, they may be trying to using the 3 mile rule more strictly now, but still without reference to the distance tables they say to use for the purpose.

For instance, if I select a journey from Wrexham Central to Liverpool Central, it thinks the ticket is only valid via Chester if I don't select any via points. Either way is valid in the other direction, but the same pattern occurs if I select a journey from Moorfields to Wrexham. A journey via Bidston but not Liverpool Lime Street is considered to be valid, though (you may need to remove NRE's cookies to get these links to work properly, as.they sometimes affect the route shown).

If I check the timetable (tables 75, 101, 104, 106 and 107 as appropriate), Wrexham Central to Liverpool Central is 31 miles via Bidston and Liverpool Lime Street, 30 miles via Chester and the Northern Line. In the other direction, Moorfields-Wrexham is 32.75 miles via Bidston and the Loop, 30.25 by the shortest route. Both are therefore valid.

Using the RJIS distances, the shortest route is 29.66 mile (and doesn't follow a route shown in the timetable). Going around the loop via Liverpool Lime Street adds 0.96 miles to this, and going via Bidston adds 2.45. So NRE decides that using both makes the route invalid.

To summarise, then, the decision to remove ME from the list of valid maps for Wrexham-Liverpool was probably a mistake.

2.

In a few weeks' time, TPE will start diverting Scotland trains via Golborne, meaning that they won't pass through any routeing points between Manchester and Wigan.

Under the old maps, there were plenty of maps which allow this (GM+WG+FC being one option). Under the new one, there's exactly one, CL.

This map is not actually used on any routes from Manchester, though. In fact, I'm pretty sure you could remove Cheadle Hulme, Manchester, Stockport and Wilmslow from the map without losing any valid routes. Hooton and Huyton too, for that matter. The direct Wigan-Earlestown link is useful for Wigan-Chester via Earlestown, though. They could do with adding Preston to it, given that some of the maps expect it to be on there.

To summarise, this probably wasn't the best time to remove Salford Crescent from Manchester group.

 

[redbutton]

I've just noticed a response to an FOI request to Passenger Focus:

Does Passenger Focus agree that this new requirement goes against the best
interests of rail passengers, in that the NRE journey planner is
programmed to a set of rules known only to the train operating companies,
and not the travelling public?

Passenger Focus believes that the detail contained in the National
Routeing Guide itself must take precedence, irrespective of the
interpretation built into the National Rail Enquiries online journey
planner.

Does PF agree that it is burdensome on passengers to require that routes
be checked by electronic means, when not all passengers or train staff
will have access to the NRE journey planner on board trains? It is
possible to print a copy of the NRG, but this is useless if it has to be
cross-checked against the NRE website.

Passenger Focus believes that it is in passengers’ interest that the
National Rail Enquiries online journey planner correctly reflects what the
National Routeing Guide says, but that the latter should be the governing
document. Therefore passengers should be able to rely on either the NRG
or the National Rail Enquiries online journey planner for accurate
routeing information and should not need to consult both.

Was PF consulted by ATOC or individual TOCs with regard to these changes?
If so, please provide copies of all such correspondence.

Passenger Focus was not consulted about the proposal to introduce a
National Routeing Guide/National Rail Enquiries online journey planner
cross-reference requirement. We now intend to challenge its introduction
and thank you for drawing it to our attention.

 

[Deerfold]

I've just noticed a response to an FOI request to Passenger Focus:

Now that *is* interesting.

 

[redbutton]

Now that *is* interesting.

What, the content of the reply, that they responded to it, or that I noticed it?

 

[bb21]

The reply is more or less what I would expect. There is not much else they could say.

 

[jon0844]

Now that *is* interesting.

And worrying. How did they NOT know about such a change? What exactly do they do all day?

 

[bb21]

What exactly do they do all day?

Answering FoI requests?

 

[Deerfold]

What, the content of the reply, that they responded to it, or that I noticed it?

Yep.

 

[swt_passenger]

Answering FoI requests?

At the risk of a slight subject drift, why is someone apparently using an FOI request to ask PF a question? Hammer to crack a nut surely?

 

[jon0844]

It's the BBC Newsnight way of doing things? Whatever comes back looks like something that was being kept secret, and you've just 'exposed' it!

 

[Goatboy]

A shame they are almost entirely focused on the cross check requirement and not the sweeping changs to the guide itself rendering previously reasonable routes invalid.

 

[Stats]

At the risk of a slight subject drift, why is someone apparently using an FOI request to ask PF a question? Hammer to crack a nut surely?

Quite. It is not an FOI request as the FOI Act can only be used to request documents or information that already exist. Asking the opinion of a public body falls outside the scope of the FOI Act and such a request should be treated as general correspondence.

I notice ian has also submitted the same FOI request to DfT and London Travelwatch.

A shame they are almost entirely focused on the cross check requirement and not the sweeping changs to the guide itself rendering previously reasonable routes invalid.

Oh, he has done that as well - well, for Shortlands station. He has submitted to the same three organisations an FOI request regarding the status of Shortlands station in the new routing guide, specifically that a number of historically permitted routes on rail only tickets are now only valid on a travelcard and not a rail only ticket.

 

[redbutton]

Okay, I'll out myself and say those are mine.

I used FoI requests through WhatDoTheyKnow for two reasons:

1. To make sure the responses would be archived publicly.
2. Because I was asking for the contents of communications between DfT, Travelwatch, and Passenger Focus. In the case of PF, it turns out there was no communication.

As for why I only asked about the cross-check requirement and Shortlands:

1. The cross-check requirement seems to be the most sweeping change, since it basically means that no one can rely on the NRG at all.
2. Shortlands is local to me, and the change there affected my commute costs. I've since found a better ticket with more validity, but I was peeved at the time. I'm sure there are other passengers in the same situation, and I would encourage them to speak out. Squeaky wheels, et cetera.

 

[PG]

I've had a look at the Dft response to a FOI request (not mine) on the changes to the routing guide.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/national_routeing_guide_changes

It includes this from ATOC (my bold) :

This is because the interactive graphical maps when tested, displayed unexpected and unreasonable routes which would result in confusion to passengers and expose TOC revenue.
As the starting point of this work was to give passengers certainty on what they could do with their ticket, this was clearly counterproductive. The way around and to give certainty is to augment the Routeing Guide data.
The result is that we have more Routeing Points and more maps to ensure the graphical displays reflect the rules and intentions of the Routeing Guide.

In effect this is ‘super’ maintenance, ensuring Permitted Routes are defined in a way within the Routeing Guide that facilities a graphical display. It is not about taking away ‘Permitted Routes’ that currently exist or constraining passenger options.

Interesting how ATOC are now magically able to infer what the intentions of the Routeing Guide were/are and thus amend the maps.

Of course they wish to protect their members revenue interests (the TOC's) but I wonder where the justification for NOT leaving in existing routes as that'd cause confusion to passengers comes from?

As well as describing it as a "super maintenance" exercise they also talk about it as a "data cleansing" exercise - certainly to my mind cleansing implies removal... in this case previously valid routes

Elsewhere in the FOI response there is, from Dft, a convoluted (and IMO half hearted) attempt at rectifying any errors which may come to light... but since it involves ATOC and the TOC's acting as arbiters in any dispute brought by a passenger I'm not about to hold my breath on any removed validities being reinstated!

Forgot this wee gem from Dft (again my bold) :
"It [was] not necessary for the Department to give its formal approval since ATOC advised us that there was no intention to remove any previously permitted routeings."
Oh well thats fine then, as long as a gentleman gives you his word ie ATOC, then you can just believe it... and not investigate - after all it'd be a shame to get your hands dirty :-x

 

[Greeby]

One major change I've noticed is that all Anglo-Scottish from Milton Keynes has to be via Carlisle. Using East-West connections to travel via ECML is not permitted anymore. Well if that's the case, then Off-Peak to Scotland should go back to being unrestricted as it was before.

 

[bakerstreet]

"It [was] not necessary for the Department to give its formal approval since ATOC advised us that there was no intention to remove any previously permitted routeings."
Oh well thats fine then, as long as a gentleman gives you his word ie ATOC, then you can just believe it... and not investigate - after all it'd be a shame to get your hands dirty :-x

If ATOCs intention was not to remove any previously permitted routeings then perhaps we can continue to use the rouetings from the very first post privatisation routing guide - and then go to DfT to sort out our problem!

Don't forget NOWHERE in the routeing guide or background to it does it mention revenue. It is only there for one reason - to protect passenger's rights to historically permitted routes - it is our legally given defense against the TOCs - now they're using it to attack!

 

[Goatboy]

One major change I've noticed is that all Anglo-Scottish from Milton Keynes has to be via Carlisle. Using East-West connections to travel via ECML is not permitted anymore. Well if that's the case, then Off-Peak to Scotland should go back to being unrestricted as it was before.

This is the same from other random locations too - for example from Worcester but not from Bromsgrove or Cheltenham :roll:

 

[soil]

Full context:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/180563/response/447396/attach/3/Annex 1.pdf
"As I have previously mentioned XXXX XXXXX has been working on a project to
represent the data held within the static Routeing Guide pages published on the
ATOC website, (rules, tables, easements and static maps), into an interactive
map display on the NRE website. The aim is to help passengers understand
what the routeing on their tickets really means. "

So they were writing a tool that showed people what routes they could take.

Which is a laudable aim.

"the interactive graphical maps when tested, displayed unexpected and
unreasonable routes which would result in confusion to passengers and expose
TOC revenue. As the starting point of this work was to give passengers certainty
on what they could do with their ticket, this was clearly counterproductive. "

In other words, the existing routeing guide included a lot of routes they didn't like, but the number of people who understand it was so small that it wasn't a concern. They believed when developing their tool that by making the routeing guide accessible for more than a tiny tiny number of rail nerds that the outcome would be significant numbers of people buying cheaper tickets, and they'd lose money, but they didn't want to say that, so they spouted some BS about 'certainty'.

"The way around and to give certainty is to augment the Routeing Guide data.
The result is that we have more Routeing Points and more maps to ensure the
graphical displays reflect the rules and intentions of the Routeing Guide. In effect
this is ‘super’ maintenance, ensuring Permitted Routes are defined in a way
within the Routeing Guide that facilities a graphical display. It is not about taking
away ‘Permitted Routes’ that currently exist or constraining passenger options. "

This is a barefaced lie, since they have changed the paper guide, removing huge numbers of permitted routes, and haven't published any graphical tool, so in fact the ONLY thing they have done is take away 'Permitted Routes', but as per the above only a tiny number of nerds know any different, so they just spout s**t rather than actually speak the truth.

"Attached are the amended pages, and before we publish them I just want to
reassure you, and to check that you are happy that they fall under the
maintenance category."

Translation: 'I am a liar'

Response from the DFT:

"Thanks you for allowing us to look at the proposed National Routeing Guide data
before it is published.

I note that the purpose is to help clarify the permissions for passengers and also
to close off potential risks to TOC revenue. I also note your statement that there
is no intention to remove any current permitted routes or to constrain passengers’
options. On that basis, I agree that the work amounts to ‘maintenance’ (albeit
extensive) and that the Department’s formal consent is therefore not needed for
publication. "

Translation: 'I haven't read the hundreds pages of gobbledegook you sent me but I'll take your word for it when you say it's maintenance'

"However, I note that XXXX XXXXX has recognised that there remains a
possibility that you may have restricted existing permissions inadvertently in the
course of the maintenance work. Before you publish the data, I would be grateful
if you would confirm that, as a matter of course, you will seek to correct any such
instances of this as soon as they are brought to light and that you will advise us
of any such occurrence."

Translation: 'I haven't read the gobbledeegook, I don't understand it, but if you are lying to me then I'm covering my backside'

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/180563/response/447396/attach/5/Annex 3.pdf

"The data cleansing exercise has highlighted specific needs for enhanced data and the changes that we are making fall into the following areas; "

" To include missing Route Permissions that give customers additional benefits "

hmm, not really

" To introduce new Maps which clarify Route Permissions, and do not allow circuitous routes which have previously resulted in revenue abstraction risk "

This seems to be the overriding purpose

" To remove out of date and expired easements "

ORLY?

From the new 'cleansed' easement list:

"Customers holding tickets to Ireland routed through either Nottingham or Derby can travel via Birmingham New St to connect with the 2230 Birmingham New St to Holyhead service"

There is no 22:30 service. It's 22:55 now.

'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)'

'000068
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)'

'300409
Due to engineering works during the period 23rd to 30th Oct inclusive customers in possesion of tickets routed STROUD AND EVESHAM/STROUD may travel via Bristol Parkway. This easement applies in both directions.'

'Customers in possession of tickets routed 'Birmingham' may travel on direct West Coast Main Line services from Crewe via Nuneaton. This easement applies in both directions and is applicable on Sundays only up to and inclusing 5th December 2010.'

'During the period 27th December 2010 to 03rd January 2011 inclusive, customers travelling from Pewsey, Bedwyn, Hungerford, Kintbury, Newbury, Newbury Racecourse, Thatcham, Midgham, Aldermaston and Theale to Salisbury and beyond may travel via Westbury. This easement applies in both directions.'

 To remove and correct (where necessary) errors and omissions in the current Routeing
Guide data

 To remove Route Permissions for lines of route where services no longer operate and/or where no valid fares routes exist. (As requested I attach correspondence dated 2 February 2012 where DFT gave approval to this concept)


So in one set of correspondence they claim to be 'maintaining' the data in order to support a nice graphical routeing tool, and in another they admit that the purpose is to close perceived loopholes (they certainly are not cleaning things up judging from the easements file). And the 'maintenance' they claimed to need to do so urgently is to support a graphical tool to 'benefit' customers that still doesn't exist.

So many lies.

 

[maniacmartin]

I agree with soil's analysis.

The graphical tool sounds like the long-overdue basemaps project.