Route/break of journey query - Glasgow to London Terminals

[theironroad]

If I have a off peak return from Glasgow to London Terminals (£142.50) validity 3A, I understand I can use:

1) Glasgow central to London Euston direct
2) Glasgow queen Street to Edinburgh then down east coast to kings cross
3) Glasgow central to Carlisle then via settle on s and c to Leeds then King's cross.

Are there any other permissible routes?

On the outward leg it seems it's not possible to break journey overnight (unless too late to complete), but on return leg it can be broken for multiple overnight stops. Is that correct?

However, an off peak return for £142.90 from Edinburgh to London Terminals 1K validity seems to allow break of journey on outward leg. Am I reading this right?

Many thanks.

 

[AlterEgo]

You may always break your journey on the return portion of an Off Peak Return. Not exhaustive, but you can also go via Reading, or up the MML. Not sure if the Cumbrian Coast or Durham Coast lines are still permissible.

 

[yorkie]

Are there any other permissible routes?

Permitted routes are shown on the following maps:

• BE+GC
  
• EG+EC+WA
  
• GK+BE+GC
  
• GK+LM
  
• GK+WS+GC
  
• GO+IN+LM
• GY+ER+WA
  
• KG
  
• LM
  
• PG
  
• TC
  
• WN+GY+ER+WA
• WS+GC

Not sure if the Cumbrian Coast or Durham Coast lines are still permissible.

These are among the routeing options RDG is trying to hoodwink the DfT into agreeing to remove in order to make things "simple" but they've not been removed (yet).

RDG only want the more obvious routeings to be permitted; anyone wanting to break their journey at any of the affected locations would need to purchase a combination of tickets.

RDG is trying to convince DfT that this to be simpler than giving passengers the right to use one ticket on any reasonable route.

 

[theironroad]

Many thanks both of you.

I've always avoided the routeing guide as it was or is a minefield but those drop down maps help.

Don't suppose you know of a map that links toegther those routes that have multiple valid routings?

 

[yorkie]

Not a publicly available one, no.

Open multiple browser windows and put them side by side in a wide screen monitor should do the trick though

If you want to double check if a specific itinerary is deemed valid, I can do that.

 

[alistairlees]

Permitted routes are shown on the following maps:

• BE+GC
  
• EG+EC+WA
  
• GK+BE+GC
  
• GK+LM
  
• GK+WS+GC
  
• GO+IN+LM
• GY+ER+WA
  
• KG
  
• LM
  
• PG
  
• TC
  
• WN+GY+ER+WA
• WS+GC

These are among the routeing options RDG is trying to hoodwink the DfT into agreeing to remove in order to make things "simple" but they've not been removed (yet).

RDG only want the more obvious routeings to be permitted; anyone wanting to break their journey at any of the affected locations would need to purchase a combination of tickets.

RDG is trying to convince DfT that this to be simpler than giving passengers the right to use one ticket on any reasonable route.

You are (in my view) making some accusations about the intent of RDG that I have not seen any evidence for. I have highlighted the words in particular that I do not agree with the use of, unless there is evidence that there is a policy of RDG to do this. Given the complexity of fares, I could equally see many outcomes being unintended consequences of actions whose effects are poorly understood.

I do not want a diminution of passenger rights either, and I too would like to see any attempt to change anything following a documented process in a transparent way (which is certainly not the case at the moment). But the absence of good process is not, in itself, clear intent to do the things that you are accusing RDG of. A more plausible explanation is, as I suggested earlier, poor understanding (combined with pressures to fix other things, leading to unintended consequences).

Whatever the reason, I think it is essential that the process to achieve change is transparent, understood by all, and followed properly. Change is inevitable too - insisting on retaining a system and structure that is ossified as it was in 1996 is not, in my view, plausible - new stations, new routes, new technology, changing consumer expectations, etc.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Here's some evidence of RDG's intentions with respect to "simplyfying" routeing. i.e. removing passenger choice by culling many routes that have been historically permitted.

It's a presentation that was released under a Freedom of Information request, and is in the public domain via the website www.whatdotheyknow.com.

 

[alistairlees]

Thanks lyndhurst25 that is very helpful. I have not actually seen that particular presentation before.

 

[alistairlees]

Regarding the RDG presentation that lyndhurst25 kindly shared:
- it seems to be a proposal from RDG to DfT. Does anyone know if it was ever adopted and has become policy?
- if it has become policy, then there should be (assuming there have been no material changes) 1. "Consultation with stakeholders" and 2. "transparency" according to the document. Is there a definition of "stakeholder"? Has there been 'transparency'? I can only see that there have been changes without either of these.
- the document is titled "removal of jargon". Under the disguise of "removal of jargon" (which is never discussed really anyway) it then discusses removal of rights. Rights are definitely not jargon.
- there seems to be a presumption that journey planners can't show this information, and never will be able to. And that, as a result, customers will never know about it - ergo, if they never know about it it will never be used, so there's no point having it. I'd largely disagree - journey planners will soon start to show all of this.

As it happens, I think there is plenty of room for an open and transparent discussion about the issues at stake; and there are points that are valid on both sides of the argument. Some simplification and change is inevitable (for instance, Oyster PAYG didn't exist at all when the routeing guide was written). But I think there's a right way and a wrong way to go about that.

 

[JB_B]

(0) theironroad, I've attached a pdf map of the currently available routes for 'Any Permitted' tickets from Glasgow to London.

(1) Yorkie, I agree - while a wholesale culling of permitted routes hasn't yet occurred ( and perhaps in some cases where it's happened so far it's quite possibly incompetence rather than malice ) RDG's intended direction of travel seems pretty clear and I think it is worth resisting.

(2) Lyndhurst25, thanks very much for posting - for anyone interested in passenger rights that's pretty rubbish, isn't it? Plenty of elisions, straw-men and plain inaccuracy. There's zero acknowledgement of passenger requirements for flexibility and weird misinformation about the current state of TIS IT. Does anyone know what "using standard rules" or "under normal conditions" means? Presumably requesting a via point is "against the standard rules" and "abnormal".

I also love the note that the proposals will require "buy in" from the regulator - hopefully ORR won't prove to be another "chocolate teapot regulator" on this.


(3) alastairlees, good to see you recognise some of the issues with RDG presentation. I don't think anyone thinks that nothing must change. Presumably the ideas presented are just an RDG aspiration rather than policy. When you say ".. journey planners will soon start to show all of this.." - can you expand on that? IIRC the NRE 'other routes you can use' facility never worked properly.

 

[theironroad]

@ JB_B

Many thanks for the maps and to Yorkie for the original list.

There's definitely a couple of different routes I wouldn't mind trying out