Changes to the (NRG) may be needed from time to time, if errors are discovered, new rail routes opened or reopened, additional routes are to be allowed, or train operators propose to disallow a route. The ATOC document, the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) allows changes to permitted routes to be made. The TSA requires ATOC to obtain approval from the Secretary of State for any changes, and that the SoS consults with Passenger Focus to ensure that passengers' routing flexibility is preserved.
Approximately 20,000 flows were amended in and around 2001/2 through this full change process. Since the Department for Transport have been responsible for the change approval process to the NRG no such requests have been received at all from ATOC in the intervening period. Recently First Scotrail proposed changes to some local and middle distance journeys involving the "Fife Circle" route that have been approved by Transport Scotland. ATOC and Passenger Focus have approved these too. Formal approval by the Secretary of State will shortly be given and the changes incorporated into the NRG. Essentially these are negative easements.
It may be helpful to explain the concept of easements. A normal easement allows additional permissions, even including doubling back which is normally forbidden. One such example is a trip from Spooner Row to Cambridge via Norwich even though this adds 25.50 miles to the shortest route because the service from Spooner Row is very sparse. A negative easement however as in the Scotrail application prevents for example, a journey from Edinburgh to Rosyth (27 minutes and 14.75 miles apart) being made via Kirkcaldy which takes over 70 minutes and is a trip of 52 miles which the routeing guide would normally allow solely because it is a through train providing the journey. In this instance the Fife circle services are regular.
The ATOC National Routeing guide permissions feature on the internet in their own right but they also show up in journey planners such as that on the hugely popular NRE website and these sort of sites function on extremely complex software and are dynamic, being subject to routine maintenance by ATOC at the request of train operators and passengers. Many of these maintenance functions are driven by the need to make additional permissions for passengers, typically changes are made to allow additional routes during engineering blockades. Others involve the development of additional mapping to illustrate more clearly the actual routes which are permitted from one station to another. These routine functions do not require the use of the formal change process because they are either relaxations of restricted routes or clarifications of existing routes
If you believe there have been substantive changes to the guide that may have reduced passenger choice between two stations it really would be best to approach ATOC in the first instance providing them with the fullest details so that they can investigate. Given the necessarily tortuous complexity of the suite of software architecture that supports the guide and journey planners. mistakes can and are occasionally made.
ATOC are however keen to ensure the continuing accuracy and integrity of the guide and has told me he would be prepared to examine any written specific station to station list of submissions from you regarding the accuracy of the guide.
I am sure they would welcome your positive input. If you are not satisfied with their response then a dispute on any flow and the permitted routes that remained outstanding would be formally referred to the Department by ATOC for a judgment to be made.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/changes_to_naitonal_rail_routein#incoming-65101
