Templecombe to Swindon - fares anomaly.

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

I'm making a day trip to Swindon this Friday from Templecombe and I've been looking at my route and fares options.

The Permitted Routes, allowed by the Routeing Guide are:

Templecombe - Yeovil Junction (make own arrangements between YVJ & YVP) - Yeovil Pen Mill - Westbury - Swindon (via Melksham or via Bath Spa)
Templecombe - Salisbury - Westbury - Swindon (via Melksham or via Bath Spa)
Templecombe - Basingstoke - Reading - Swindon

And there are two fares routeings:

Not via London (the more expensive one)
via Salisbury

Now, if you want to go via the Yeovils you'd have to buy a more expensive 'Not via London' fare. As well as pay for buses/taxi/shoe leather for the journey between the Yeovils. There's no direct bus and no bus inclusive fare. So, I'm discounting that route. 

The typically (though not always) quickest journey to Swindon from Templecombe is via Salisbury and Westbury (Melksham or Bath Spa). And that way utilises the cheaper 'via Salisbury' fares.

The route via Basingstoke and Reading is typically around 20-40 minutes longer, but sometimes on a par with via Westbury, and can even be quicker if you can make an unofficial connection at Reading. For this route you should buy a 'Not via London' fare. However this route also goes 'via Salisbury' so you could argue (and I certainly would!) that you only need buy a cheaper 'via Salisbury' fare. You've satisfied the routeing printed on your ticket and you are travelling on a Permitted Route as per the Routeing Guide.

Dare I buy the cheaper 'via Salisbury' fare and go via Basingstoke and Reading? I'd certainly prefer to go that way as, whilst there is more time on trains, there is less time at the interchanges.

[stuving]

The OJP^▸ (Online Journey Planner) (for the times I looked at) only offers a change at Salisbury, and only the "via Salisbury" fare. Of course that may just be because it won't offer journeys that get overtaken. The guidance it offers for the fare is:

Valid only for travel via (changing trains or passing through) Salisbury. This fare is only valid on trains travelling between certain times.

If that is the official meaning of "via", you should be OK - unless you come across someone doesn't know the RG that well, but thinks they do.

[bobm]

Any fare savings can be put towards the beers when you reach Swindon!   

[RichardB]

I'm afraid I think if you try to use a "via Salisbury" ticket via Reading, you will be excessed.

[CyclingSid]

I'm afraid I think if you try to use a "via Salisbury" ticket via Reading, you will be excessed.

Especially if you use Cross Country.

[Ralph Ayres]

Should be "via Dilton Marsh" if that's what they mean.  Alternatively Chippenham would allow the Yeovil route as well.

Routes are meant to be unambiguous; you shouldn't have to know what they are meant to mean to understand them.

[grahame]

Should be "via Dilton Marsh" if that's what they mean.  Alternatively Chippenham would allow the Yeovil route as well.

Routes are meant to be unambiguous; you shouldn't have to know what they are meant to mean to understand them.

Even "via Westbury"

Valid only for travel via (changing trains or passing through) Salisbury. This fare is only valid on trains travelling between certain times.

The Basingstoke - Reading route involves (in normal timetables) a train passing through Salisbury and I can' think of any other route at all which would pass through rather than changing trains there.  So there is an argument to be had that this ticket, as described, is valid via Reading - why else would it say "changing trains or passing through" rather then simply "changing trains" in its clarification of what "via" means?

Having made that point, I suspect the intention is for the journey to be made via Westbury on that ticket, and the description is wrong.  I would certainly not advise any nervous traveller friends to use such a ticket - not because they are not using it within the described terms, but because of the potential need to stand up robustly to authority.

[JayMac]

My intention is to use a 'via Salisbury' fare. If challenged I will of course explain my position. Robustly if need be. However, if I encounter any push-back and/or entrenchment then I will of course pay the correct excess and complain later. I'm unlikely to use CrossCountry between Basingstoke and Reading. Not because of the belief that they are most likely to be the ones who question the ticket, but because their trains are currently reservation only. I'll only consider XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) if I can get a 10 minute reservation on the day. I've never had an issue with CrossCountry when using tickets that meet Routeing Guide rules. The belief that their staff are over-zealous has never been my experience.

I could of course point out the anomaly to the fare setter for these fare routeings - that's GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) for both the 'via Salisbury' and 'Not via London' fares. But I've never seen it as the job of the passenger to do the Fares Implementation Team's job. If someone from GWR should read this thread and fix the anomaly then that's all good. I see no reason why 'via Salisbury' can't be changed to 'via Westbury'. That then allows for the Routeing Guide Permitted Routes to match what I believe is the intended use of the cheaper fares. Changing the fare routeing to 'via Westbury' would also then allow journeys via the Yeovils using the cheaper routed fares. Although you'd still have to make your own arrangements between those stations except on the odd occasion when there is a suitable through train to Yeovil Pen Mill.

[stuving]

Yes, the labelling of routes is the real issue, rather than the definition of "via". Obviously whoever provided the guidance to put on Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE^‡(resolve)) thought there was one: changing trains or passing through. But elsewhere in the system routes are given labels that don't actually define which routeings they are valid for. That's clear if you ask theOnline Journey Planner (OJP^▸ (Online Journey Planner)) for a fare via Basingstoke: it only offers the higher one - and that's not called Via Basingsoke, and of course both journeys go via Salisbury.

I suspect this is that old railway practice of keeping operating instructions and rules like this to themselves, and not letting us see them - despite expecting us to obey them. The route label doesn't need to be a definition as that's done somewhere else (in the data feeds, if nowhere else).  I've never been sure how lawful that was, in terms of contract law, even if they had by-laws in place of an actual signed contract. But it can't be acceptable today, surely? And while a lot of internal material has been published, or has become visible (such as the routeing guide and the non-published restrictions), this has not.

By rights, someone ought to have taken this specific issue to court (I assume no-one has). Not that it would be a smart thing to do, just that it's about the only way such issues get to be addressed. I wonder, is this kind of misrepresentation - in this case verging on entrapment - covered by the recent consumer laws?


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

[JayMac]

The Routeing Guide is pretty comprehensive. And a very useful tool once you've got your head around it. As its in the public domain I think it can be used to make a strong case for the passenger in any routeing dispute with a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company), provided the passenger (and/or their advocate) have used it correctly. Yes, the Routeing Guide says you should use the NRE^‡(resolve) journey planner to confirm a route validity, but it doesn't say you MUST.

TOCs can't hide behind unpublished rules, their interpretation, or their intention, when it comes to what would be a contractual dispute. Consumer contract legislation prevents that.

That said, I don't think the Routeing Guide, or fares routeings, have ever been tested in court. Its highly unlikely a TOC would want to go anywhere near a court with a contractual dispute.

[brooklea]

I’m intrigued by the Anytime Return(not via London) being £4 less than the Off-Peak Return by the same routing. It would be interesting to see how an excess fare would be calculated in this situation, not, I hasten to add, that I wish for you to find out!

[Ralph Ayres]

That Anytime/Off-peak anomaly makes no sense at all; until I checked I expected the Anytime to have some detailed restriction that in particular circumstances would make it a little less useful than the Off-peak one, but there's nothing at all. 

I suspect part of the problem here is that fares regulation makes it so hard to iron out anomalies that the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) doesn't bother.  They can't increase a fare (even if they reduce another at the same time to balance it out) without going through a long-winded process with the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), so removing an anomaly would always lose them money and ultimately they're running a business. Come to think of it, they're probably not allowed to reduce fares either at the moment without DfT permission.

[grahame]

I suspect part of the problem here is that fares regulation makes it so hard to iron out anomalies that the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) doesn't bother. 

As you say, that's part of the problem.  But only a part.  Irrespective of the regulation rules, if you try to iron out one anomaly you can very easily create another. The whole thing is a like a cross between a game of logic and chucking a single stone of change into a pond and watching the ripples spread far and wide.   It gets to the point, on infrequently used flows and tickets , that the anomalies are just not worth sorting out, and a pragmatic "yeah - we know - we have other things to do than try to fix it" makes sense to the TOCs and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about).   

[stuving]

We (and them) have now been talking about some big simplification of fares, or some bigger reform of the system that would include it, for ages. No doubt that has led to anything bearing the label "difficult" or "dangerous" being put off until that jubilee happen.

[rogerw]

Not in my lifetime then