Season ticket question- would London Terminals to Bickley/Petts Wood allow all the routes available via Bromley South and Beckenham Junction?

[interchange423]

I've been reading many threads and have learnt a lot, but have much more to learn about the complexities of ticketing on National Rail!

• In the case of Bickley, there are direct services to London all via Bromley South
• In the case of Petts Wood, there are direct services to London via Bromley South and via Hither Green

Would the Bickley season ticket offer less options than the Petts Wood? The Bickley season to London Terminals has AAA with Sidcup which offers some additional validity over the Petts Wood one.
Would the Petts Wood season ticket allow travel via Catford too?
Would either or both season tickets allow travel via West Norwood (changing at Beckenham Junction)?
Further more would you be able to use either season ticket at Waterloo via Clapham Junction (via Beckenham Junction and Crystal Palace?

Are the any negative easements at work here (such as with Sidcup season where you can't travel the long way via Crayford to London)?

I'm curious to see how broad validity each offers and how they differ, and testing principles to apply other season ticket cases.
Thanks for reading.

 

[Watershed]

Welcome to the forum! As you've identified, determining permitted routes for point to point National Rail tickets can be very complex.

There are a huge number of permitted routes at play here, particularly given that either ticket is issued to London Terminals and it is valid on any route within 3 miles of the shortest route to each of the relevant Terminals, so it's difficult to list them all.

However, to answer your questions:

I've been reading many threads and have learnt a lot, but have much more to learn about the complexities of ticketing on National Rail!

• In the case of Bickley, there are direct services to London all via Bromley South
• In the case of Petts Wood, there are direct services to London via Bromley South and via Hither Green

Would the Bickley season ticket offer less options than the Petts Wood? The Bickley season to London Terminals has AAA with Sidcup which offers some additional validity over the Petts Wood one.

Slightly fewer, yes. Petts Wood is a member of the Orpington Routeing Point Group, whereas Bickley is a member of the Bromley South Routeing Point Group. The range of permitted routes to London is slightly wider for the Petts Wood season (such as via Hither Green), but of course the Bickley one is also valid at Sidcup, which complicates matters.

Would the Petts Wood season ticket allow travel via Catford too?

Yes, going via Catford (or in fact Catford Bridge) would be permitted on both seasons. The former on Routeing Guide map FA, the latter on map TU.

Would either or both season tickets allow travel via West Norwood (changing at Beckenham Junction)?

Yes, both do, under map FC (possibly followed by another map, depending on how you continue from West Norwood).

Further more would you be able to use either season ticket at Waterloo via Clapham Junction (via Beckenham Junction and Crystal Palace?

Yes, on both, under map FC. You can travel as far as all of the former "Southern Region" termini, i.e. Victoria, Waterloo, Charing Cross, City Thameslink, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, and all intermediate stations.

Are the any negative easements at work here (such as with Sidcup season where you can't travel the long way via Crayford to London)?

The only relevant one here would be negative easement 000104, which prohibits you from going from Bickley to London via Petts Wood.

Re: the Sidcup season, the negative easement doesn't apply if you use a direct "rounder" train from Sidcup.

I'm curious to see how broad validity each offers and how they differ, and testing principles to apply other season ticket cases.
Thanks for reading.

I'd say they each offer a similarly broad range of routes, albeit with some differences. The principles are quite complicated to explain and you may wish to attend a (free) forum Fares Workshop to gain a fuller understanding of them.

Incidentally, for the same price you can get a Sidcup to London AAA Bickley/Chislehurst season. You'd still be missing validity between Petts Wood and Chislehurst compared to the Petts Wood season, but it's slightly better than the Bickley to London "only" being valid at Sidcup.

Given that all of these seasons cost the same price, you have to wonder why the Petts Wood one doesn't have an AAA Sidcup option (which would be the simplest option of all worlds), but there you go...

 

[30907]

The only relevant one here would be negative easement 000104, which prohibits you from going from Bickley to London via Petts Wood.

Which I find surprising, but Bickley to Chislehurst is 3.25m according to NRE so you have to walk 0.8miles instead

Given that all of these seasons cost the same price, you have to wonder why the Petts Wood one doesn't have an AAA Sidcup option (which would be the simplest option of all worlds), but there you go...

Perhaps no-one has ever asked - and in terms of the local roads it isn’t an obvious combination to put it mildly (mind you, someone has obviously asked for Bickley and Albany Park which is even less obvious).

 

[interchange423]

Welcome to the forum! As you've identified, determining permitted routes for point to point National Rail tickets can be very complex.

Thank you!

There are a huge number of permitted routes at play here, particularly given that either ticket is issued to London Terminals and it is valid on any route within 3 miles of the shortest route to each of the relevant Terminals, so it's difficult to list them all.

Okay so among the key ones that I value are:


Bickley/Petts Wood - Bromley South- Beckenham Jn- Crystal Palace - Clapham Jn- London Waterloo/Victoria
Bickley/Petts Wood - Bromley South- Beckenham Jn - Herne Hill - Victoria OR City Thameslink
Bickley/Petts Wood - Bromley South- Catford - Peckham Rye - South Bermondsey - London Bridge

Enabling access to stations such as East Dulwich, Balham, Clapham Jn as well as the obvious ones like Peckham Rye and Elephant & Castle

Via Sidcup

Sidcup - Hither Green - Lewisham - London Bridge (and CX or CS)

However, to answer your questions:

Slightly fewer, yes. Petts Wood is a member of the Orpington Routeing Point Group, whereas Bickley is a member of the Bromley South Routeing Point Group. The range of permitted routes to London is slightly wider for the Petts Wood season (such as via Hither Green), but of course the Bickley one is also valid at Sidcup, which complicates matters.


Yes, going via Catford (or in fact Catford Bridge) would be permitted on both seasons. The former on Routeing Guide map FA, the latter on map TU.

Awesome news

Yes, both do, under map FC (possibly followed by another map, depending on how you continue from West Norwood).

Which route towards London would be forbidden via West Norwood? Would I be able to go onwards either to London Bridge or Waterloo via Clapham Junction?

Yes, on both, under map FC. You can travel as far as all of the former "Southern Region" termini, i.e. Victoria, Waterloo, Charing Cross, City Thameslink, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, and all intermediate stations.

I love the sound of that!

The only relevant one here would be negative easement 000104, which prohibits you from going from Bickley to London via Petts Wood.

Interesting.

Re: the Sidcup season, the negative easement doesn't apply if you use a direct "rounder" train from Sidcup.

Would I be able to break my journey on a long circular way trip at say Woolwich or Crayford? ( This would make the Bixley AAA Sidcup much more attractive than the Petts Wood one!)

I'd say they each offer a similarly broad range of routes, albeit with some differences. The principles are quite complicated to explain and you may wish to attend a (free) forum Fares Workshop to gain a fuller understanding of them.

When are the next ones this year ?!

Incidentally, for the same price you can get a Sidcup to London AAA Bickley/Chislehurst season. You'd still be missing validity between Petts Wood and Chislehurst compared to the Petts Wood season, but it's slightly better than the Bickley to London "only" being valid at Sidcup.

Would the Chislehurst one not lose the Bromley South access offered by Petts Wood and Bickley seasons?

Given that all of these seasons cost the same price, you have to wonder why the Petts Wood one doesn't have an AAA Sidcup option (which would be the simplest option of all worlds), but there you go...

Indeed, there are a lot of discrepancies between which stations have AAA pairs and which don't!

Finally, thanks for such a detailed response!

 

[43066]

Which I find surprising, but Bickley to Chislehurst is 3.25m according to NRE so you have to walk 0.8miles instead

Presumably because Petts Wood is further out, albeit the same fare zone (5), so that is effectively doubling back. If you lived equidistant between Bickley and Chislehurst (or close to either) it would be very useful to have the choice of both for when either line is shut for engineering - I use these two myself as both stations are within easy walking distance of home!

Worth the OP noting that SE tend to be pretty reasonable about people using sensible alternative routes during engineering work. Eg - one I know very well indeed - if you needed to get to/from Chislehurst but the Southeastern Mainline was closed, you would usually be allowed to use Bromley South or Bickley whatever ticket you held.

 

[interchange423]

Which I find surprising, but Bickley to Chislehurst is 3.25m according to NRE so you have to walk 0.8miles instead

Perhaps no-one has ever asked - and in terms of the local roads it isn’t an obvious combination to put it mildly (mind you, someone has obviously asked for Bickley and Albany Park which is even less obvious).

How would one request a new AAA?
I'm mulling a house move and this could make other areas more attractive options in terms of rail access.

Also I guess the ticket gates would likely open the barriers at a fraction of all the stations that say a Chislehurst/Bickley AAA Sidcup would enable me to break my journey at ( I'd use a paper ticket rather than smartcard version)

 

[43066]

Also I guess the ticket gates would likely open the barriers at a fraction of all the stations that say a Chislehurst/Bickley AAA Sidcup would enable me to break my journey at ( I'd use a paper ticket rather than smartcard version)

Hardly any have gates, to be fair! In fact only Orpington and Bromley South do, in the immediate area…

 

[interchange423]

Welcome to the forum! As you've identified, determining permitted routes for point to point National Rail tickets can be very complex.

Thanks again for such a detailed response! ( I think my earlier response may not have tagged you)

Hardly any have gates, to be fair! In fact only Orpington and Bromley South do, in the immediate area…

LOL but I think most of the more urban stations like Balham and Clapham that I'd frequently use all do!

 

[Watershed]

Bickley/Petts Wood - Bromley South- Beckenham Jn- Crystal Palace - Clapham Jn- London Waterloo/Victoria

Yep, permitted under map FC.

Bickley/Petts Wood - Bromley South- Beckenham Jn - Herne Hill - Victoria OR City Thameslink

Permitted under map FH.

Bickley/Petts Wood - Bromley South- Catford - Peckham Rye - South Bermondsey - London Bridge

You can use map DE or FA as far as Peckham Rye, then "finish short" and immediately "start late" again to continue to London Bridge on map FT.

Enabling access to stations such as East Dulwich, Balham, Clapham Jn as well as the obvious ones like Peckham Rye and Elephant & Castle

Yes, you can break your journey at all of those stations using either season.

Via Sidcup

Sidcup - Hither Green - Lewisham - London Bridge (and CX or CS)

Also permitted.

Which route towards London would be forbidden via West Norwood?

Just about any route you can imagine is permitted, but as with Bickley-Catford-Peckham Rye-London Bridge, you may have to rely on multiple maps rather than being able to justify it on one map.

Would I be able to go onwards either to London Bridge or Waterloo via Clapham Junction?

Yes, the various maps would allow routes from West Norwood to London Bridge, such as via Tulse Hill, Peckham Rye and South Bermondsey - or via Tulse Hill and Blackfriars.

West Norwood to Waterloo would be permitted via Streatham Hill and Clapham Junction, amongst other routes.

Would I be able to break my journey on a long circular way trip at say Woolwich or Crayford? ( This would make the Bixley AAA Sidcup much more attractive than the Petts Wood one!)

No. Whilst in principle break of journey is permitted at all intermediate stations, this doesn't apply if the only way that a route is permitted is by virtue of the "direct trains" rule. This is the case for Sidcup to London the "long way round" - it's only permitted under the "direct trains" rule and you are no longer using a direct train if you break your journey at Woolwich or Crayford.

When are the next ones this year ?!

I'd advise you to post in this thread. I don't think any are currently scheduled, but there tend to be several each year, in several parts of the country.

Would the Chislehurst one not lose the Bromley South access offered by Petts Wood and Bickley seasons?

No; the AAA Bickley/Chislehurst season allows you to use it from either of those two stations, in addition to being valid from Sidcup. So it's arguably the most flexible of all of the options, only losing validity between Bickley/Chislehurst and Petts Wood.

 

[MikeWh]

Within zones 1-6 the AAA seasons lost their price differential when fares were converted to zonal in 2007 or 2008, in readiness for Oyster. Usually there is a premium for adding an AAA to a different station.

 

[Kilopylae]

No. Whilst in principle break of journey is permitted at all intermediate stations, this doesn't apply if the only way that a route is permitted is by virtue of the "direct trains" rule.

Has this ever been officially confirmed?

 

[Watershed]

Has this ever been officially confirmed?

Condition 13.1 of the NRCoT says that:

Your Ticket ... will be valid on ... any direct train service between the station(s) shown on your Ticket;

I think it would be difficult to argue that you are using a "direct train service" if you break your journey.

Condition 16.2 also makes clear that break of journey won't necessarily be permitted in the case of circuituous through trains:

Generally, you may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return Ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the Ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. However, this may not be the case with some through services that take an indirect route.

And the Information box below says:

For example, where a train service makes a circular journey, you may travel either way to the destination on your Ticket. However, you would not normally be allowed to get off at an intermediate station where the fare would have been higher.

Although the Information box is said to be non-contractual (someting that was done to avoid it having to be scrutinised when the NRCoT were changed), unfortunately there is still a reasonable chance that it would be considered when interpreting condition 13.1 or 16.2.

 

[island]

The Sidcup to London Terminals AAA Bicky/Chshst ticket is pretty flexible already I should think. In a previous Routeing guide it was possible to map a route via Dover Priory on it

No. Whilst in principle break of journey is permitted at all intermediate stations, this doesn't apply if the only way that a route is permitted is by virtue of the "direct trains" rule. This is the case for Sidcup to London the "long way round" - it's only permitted under the "direct trains" rule and you are no longer using a direct train if you break your journey at Woolwich or Crayford.

Journeys to/from London and travelling via two of Crayford, Barnehurst, or Slade Green are also prohibited by a negative easement, though there are arguments that easements need not be consulted on a through train/shortest route journey.

 

[Watershed]

Journeys to/from London and travelling via two of Crayford, Barnehurst, or Slade Green are also prohibited by a negative easement, though there are arguments that easements need not be consulted on a through train/shortest route journey.

Negative easements have no effect when a journey is permitted directly under the NRCoT. They are only relevant if you rely on having to consult the Routeing Guide.

 

[interchange423]

Yep, permitted under map FC.


Permitted under map FH.


You can use map DE or FA as far as Peckham Rye, then "finish short" and immediately "start late" again to continue to London Bridge on map FT.


Yes, you can break your journey at all of those stations using either season.


Also permitted.


Just about any route you can imagine is permitted, but as with Bickley-Catford-Peckham Rye-London Bridge, you may have to rely on multiple maps rather than being able to justify it on one map.


Yes, the various maps would allow routes from West Norwood to London Bridge, such as via Tulse Hill, Peckham Rye and South Bermondsey - or via Tulse Hill and Blackfriars.

West Norwood to Waterloo would be permitted via Streatham Hill and Clapham Junction, amongst other routes.

Thank you for that.

The tickets would also allow travel via New Beckenham & Ladywell - but not via Hayes (Kent)

No. Whilst in principle break of journey is permitted at all intermediate stations, this doesn't apply if the only way that a route is permitted is by virtue of the "direct trains" rule. This is the case for Sidcup to London the "long way round" - it's only permitted under the "direct trains" rule and you are no longer using a direct train if you break your journey at Woolwich or Crayford.


I'd advise you to post in this thread. I don't think any are currently scheduled, but there tend to be several each year, in several parts of the country.


No; the AAA Bickley/Chislehurst season allows you to use it from either of those two stations, in addition to being valid from Sidcup. So it's arguably the most flexible of all of the options, only losing validity between Bickley/Chislehurst and Petts Wood.

Thanks.

I will do.

I thought you had to choose one as your alternative stations, so you you have 2 stations on the also available at for the same price to London Terminals season ticket ?

 

[Watershed]

I thought you had to choose one as your alternative stations, so you you have 2 stations on the also available at for the same price to London Terminals season ticket ?

Yes, that's right. The AAA Bickley/Chislehurst routed season ticket from Sidcup is described as "Also valid for travel to or from Bickley or Chislehurst". You don't have to choose one of those stations when buying the ticket; the ticket is valid to/from all three stations (Sidcup, Bickley and Chislehurst).

 

[interchange423]

Yes, that's right. The AAA Bickley/Chislehurst routed season ticket from Sidcup is described as "Also valid for travel to or from Bickley or Chislehurst". You don't have to choose one of those stations when buying the ticket; the ticket is valid to/from all three stations (Sidcup, Bickley and Chislehurst).

Thank you.
Just a shame that it isn't priced below a lot below the Z1-5 annual travelcard!

 

[thedbdiboy]

Condition 13.1 of the NRCoT says that:

I think it would be difficult to argue that you are using a "direct train service" if you break your journey.

Condition 16.2 also makes clear that break of journey won't necessarily be permitted in the case of circuituous through trains:

And the Information box below says:


Although the Information box is said to be non-contractual (someting that was done to avoid it having to be scrutinised when the NRCoT were changed), unfortunately there is still a reasonable chance that it would be considered when interpreting condition 13.1 or 16.2.

Everything in the NRCoT gets scrutinised by DfT including the info boxes. Their inclusion was part of an attempt to make the document easier to read by having explanations that did not have to be written in legalese. It's still pretty tough going though.
As to the original question, no, you do not have automatic entitlement to break of journey when using a direct train to make a point-to-point journey where it uses parts of the network that would otherwise not be allowed in the routeing guide. If it were allowed it would open up a whole cornucopia of new loopholes, there are already quite enough of those.

 

[43066]

Everything in the NRCoT gets scrutinised by DfT including the info boxes. Their inclusion was part of an attempt to make the document easier to read by having explanations that did not have to be written in legalese.

If that’s the case they’ve done a very poor job of it. What they’ve ended up with is something that’s neither easy to understand, nor at all clear from a contract law perspective.

Very much the worst of both worlds.

 

[Watershed]

Everything in the NRCoT gets scrutinised by DfT including the info boxes.

FoI requests revealed that ATOC tried to sneak this change through without consulting Transport Focus etc. on the purported basis that the fact they're information boxes means they "don't form part of the contract" - all rather disingenuous.

Their inclusion was part of an attempt to make the document easier to read by having explanations that did not have to be written in legalese.

Contracts don't have to be written in legalese; indeed the NRCoT aren't really written in legalese at all. The most important thing is that terms and conditions are clear.

Unfortunately the NRCoT totally fail in this respect, as they are neither clearly worded (lacking definitions for some of the most important terms, for instance) nor sufficiently informal that the average person can be expected to read them.

 

[thedbdiboy]

If that’s the case they’ve done a very poor job of it. What they’ve ended up with is something that’s neither easy to understand, nor at all clear from a contract law perspective.

Very much the worst of both worlds.

I wouldn't disagree, it's a mess but that's because it's the end result of a hotchpotch of special interests, historic hangovers and political gameplaying. No-one actually 'owns' the document

FoI requests revealed that ATOC tried to sneak this change through without consulting Transport Focus etc. on the purported basis that the fact they're information boxes means they "don't form part of the contract" - all rather disingenuous.


Contracts don't have to be written in legalese; indeed the NRCoT aren't really written in legalese at all. The most important thing is that terms and conditions are clear.

Unfortunately the NRCoT totally fail in this respect, as they are neither clearly worded (lacking definitions for some of the most important terms, for instance) nor sufficiently informal that the average person can be expected to read them.

I've no idea what was included in the FoI disclosure but the situation is nevertheless as described - the DfT are required to approve the whole of the document (by dint of it being a schedule in the TSA and their role as 'Franchising Director').
The lack of definitions as an example is a case of no overall ownership. Someone - ORR, Transport Focus, a TOC for example, might want to tighten up a definition but then someone else realises that tightening that up might close a loophole and object.
The only way the document could be properly overhauled would be to remove a number of the ambiguities and that means political decisions on various practices such as split ticketing, break of journey, route permissions, rights of the operators versus passengers where the wrong ticket is held etc. The conversation with the Minister you can imagine will be along the lines:
'Why don't we simplify things by making it easier and giving passengers clear rights?'
'Well, the Treasury think that the railways are already costing too much and we don't want to let even more revenue walk out of the door'
'Well then, let's just tighten up the rules and at least make the conditions simple'
'Ah but we will get all sorts of objections, risk of legal challenges, FoI requests and so on'
'Oh I see...better just leave it alone then...'

 

[Watershed]

I've no idea what was included in the FoI disclosure but the situation is nevertheless as described - the DfT are required to approve the whole of the document (by dint of it being a schedule in the TSA and their role as 'Franchising Director').

That might be the case in theory, but just like the requirement for the DfT, Transport Focus etc. to be consulted before a change is made to the Routeing Guide, it's another example of a rule more honoured in the breach than in the observance...

The lack of definitions as an example is a case of no overall ownership. Someone - ORR, Transport Focus, a TOC for example, might want to tighten up a definition but then someone else realises that tightening that up might close a loophole and object.
The only way the document could be properly overhauled would be to remove a number of the ambiguities and that means political decisions on various practices such as split ticketing, break of journey, route permissions, rights of the operators versus passengers where the wrong ticket is held etc. The conversation with the Minister you can imagine will be along the lines:
'Why don't we simplify things by making it easier and giving passengers clear rights?'
'Well, the Treasury think that the railways are already costing too much and we don't want to let even more revenue walk out of the door'
'Well then, let's just tighten up the rules and at least make the conditions simple'
'Ah but we will get all sorts of objections, risk of legal challenges, FoI requests and so on'
'Oh I see...better just leave it alone then...'

The lack of overall ownership and strategic direction for the industry certainly doesn't help, and of all the issues the industry faces this is clearly far down the list.

That being said, I don't see that a new version of the NRCoT would necessarily have to change anything. It could simply serve to formalise the current situation - one which even those hardy souls who read the NRCoT cannot really appreciate without further research or practical experience.

The old Conditions of Carriage were much clearer and less wooly-worded. The new Conditions of Travel purported to make things more readable, but in the process just made everything messier and more ambiguous - and snuck through a few nasty changes.