Help with Routeing Guide please

[baza585]

Travelling tomorrow from Hook to Cambridge and back again. Due to the vagaries of the SWT timetable it is quicker on the return journey to go from Waterloo to BSK on a fast train and then back again to Hook. Is there an easement which allows this as a permitted route or will I have to twiddle my thumbs at Waterloo?

I have tried to use Routeing Guide and retired head hurting. Any help greatly appreciated.:cry::cry:

Thanks

 

[maniacmartin]

Since this involves doubling back, an easement is the only way that this would be allowed, but I can't see any relevant easements in the Routeing Guide.

Inputting this journey into National Rail Enquiries, forcing via: BSK, and clicking on a search result, it says "You need to buy more than one ticket for this journey".

It looks like you will be twiddling your thumbs, unless you buy the original ticket from or excess the return to Basingstoke, and then buy a separate BSK - Hook ticket.

 

[baza585]

Since this involves doubling back, an easement is the only way that this would be allowed, but I can't see any relevant easements in the Routeing Guide.

Inputting this journey into National Rail Enquiries, forcing via: BSK, and clicking on a search result, it says "You need to buy more than one ticket for this journey".

It looks like you will be twiddling your thumbs, unless you buy the original ticket from or excess the return to Basingstoke, and then buy a separate BSK - Hook ticket.

Thanks for your help; will be propping up the bar in Waterloo for a bit then! Shame

 

[Be3G]

I must say (well, OK, want to say) that this is something I do find very frustrating about the routeing guide and ticketing: the fact that sometimes the quickest journey (taking in to account waiting times for trains) isn't a permitted route for any available ticket. If a route such as the one being discussed here is too much to expect from what we currently know of as the ‘any permitted’ ticket, then fair enough – but it'd be nice then if a higher priced ticket could be available which allows the (at times fastest) route.

 

[maniacmartin]

But according to ATOC, passengers want to take the shortest route, not the quickest

 

[SickyNicky]

But according to ATOC, passengers want to take the shortest route, not the quickest

Oh dear. Don't get me started on that one...

 

[kieron]

I must say (well, OK, want to say) that this is something I do find very frustrating about the routeing guide and ticketing: the fact that sometimes the quickest journey (taking in to account waiting times for trains) isn't a permitted route for any available ticket.

Sometimes the quickest journey from Lockerbie to Carstairs involves doubling back at Watford Junction.

I see nothing wrong with requiring more than one ticket for a journey. I just find it disappointing that most of the web sites ignore multiple ticket journeys (or, at best, print a little "this train is overtaken" symbol) but still claim that "Results are based on the fastest available trains".

 

[barrykas]

I see nothing wrong with requiring more than one ticket for a journey. I just find it disappointing that most of the web sites ignore multiple ticket journeys (or, at best, print a little "this train is overtaken" symbol) but still claim that "Results are based on the fastest available trains".

Impartial websites, like Ticket Offices, are obliged to sell the cheapest through ticket for the journey being made, and only sell splits if explicitly requested.

As has been pointed out several times before, programmatically checking every possible split and combination of tickets, whilst possible, would almost certainly take longer than most people are willing to wait, and throwing in starting/stopping short/long would make it even more complex.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[yorkie]

barrykas - fair point. The solution could be to be to drop false & misleading claims such as "Results are based on the fastest available trains". It would also be more helpful if they clarified that the results are based purely on what is available with one ticket.

 

[barrykas]

barrykas - fair point. The solution could be to be to drop false & misleading claims such as "Results are based on the fastest available trains". It would also be more helpful if they clarified that the results are based purely on what is available with one ticket.

Of course, what would be even more helpful is if the fares system was structured in such a way that you didn't need to use splits to get the cheapest fare...but that would likely result in lots of unpalatable fare rises to remove anomalies, especially in PTE areas.

The highest number of splits I've seen on a single journey is four: Boundary Zone 6 - Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes - Rugby, Rugby - Stafford, Stafford - Runcorn, bringing the cost of a PRIV Single down from £34.65 to £20.65.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm not picking yorkie up specifically on this, but I've highlighted where I think confusion can be caused.....

barrykas - fair point. The solution could be to be to drop false & misleading claims such as "Results are based on the fastest available trains". It would also be more helpful if they clarified that the results are based purely on what is available with one ticket.

I have highlighted where yorkie has used "available". The problem here is that the wording can be seen as the same meaning and so it *may* be wording and interpretation that is to blame, not what is actually meant (though that could be open to debate). I think simply adding "for the fare shown" would clarify it.

 

[wintonian]

But according to ATOC, passengers want to take the shortest route, not the quickest

Someone should tell the journey planners that.

 

[Goatboy]

But according to ATOC, passengers want to take the shortest route, not the quickest

It amazes me that they would ever think that. On a train journey it matters not to a passenger how many miles the route taken is, only how long it takes.

In a situation where two choices are available, 30 miles and 45 miles, but the latter was quicker, no passenger would elect for the first option on the basis it is 'shorter'. The distance becomes fairly meaningless.

 

[kieron]

Impartial websites, like Ticket Offices, are obliged to sell the cheapest through ticket for the journey being made, and only sell splits if explicitly requested.

Are there any "impartial web sites"? My impression was that web sites which sell train tickets are unregulated. It would be interesting to see what is covered.

I've omitted the rest of your post, as it doesn't appear to be in reply to mine.

 

[barrykas]

Are there any "impartial web sites"? My impression was that web sites which sell train tickets are unregulated. It would be interesting to see what is covered.

Websites are covered by the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement in the same way that Ticket Offices, Business Travel Offices and Telesales Offices are.

The only ones that aren't impartial would be ones that only sell a TOC-specific product, like the old Scotrail Bargain Berths site, the Southern Daysave site and the various "Airport Express" sites.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[calc7]

Websites are covered by the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement in the same way that Ticket Offices, Business Travel Offices and Telesales Offices are.

The only ones that aren't impartial would be ones that only sell a TOC-specific product, like the old Scotrail Bargain Berths site, the Southern Daysave site and the various "Airport Express" sites.

Cheers,

Barry

Can you elaborate? At one point or another I'm sure each TOC's website has had a sale selling its own cut-price tickets, along with the usual non-sale ones.
e.g. East Coast/Virgin "flat fare", LM "half price", TPE "student 50% off"?

 

[barrykas]

Can you elaborate? At one point or another I'm sure each TOC's website has had a sale selling its own cut-price tickets, along with the usual non-sale ones.
e.g. East Coast/Virgin "flat fare", LM "half price", TPE "student 50% off"?

Full requirements are given in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, but the basic summary is that an impartial point of sale isn't allowed to favour one TOC over another, so if London Midland's site, for example, showed their Advance fares for London - Birmingham, and only showed the Anytime Return fares for Virgin and Chiltern, that would be a breach of the impartiality rules. (A rather extreme example, admittedly, and one that shouldn't happen assuming Advances are available at the time).

Offering a discount for buying your ticket from a TOC website is perfectly legitimate, and a commercial decision for the operator concerned, it doesn't stop the site from being impartial providing you can still buy tickets for journeys on other TOCs.

Similarly, if you went to the main ticket office at Victoria (which is run by Southern) and were looking to buy a ticket in advance to travel to Gatwick, they should ask further questions to determine what the most suitable ticket is, be that one for First Capital Connect, Gatwick Express or Southern.

If, on the other hand, you went to the Gatwick Express ticket office at Victoria (assuming it's still open), they're only obliged to sell you a Gatwick Express ticket, as they're not the lead retailer. (And yes, I'm well aware that Gatwick Express is a brand of Southern, but for this particular purpose they're separate).

HTH,

Barry