In message , at 16:21:37
on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Roy Badami remarked:

N.B. The doubling back rule is for journey from FPK to specific
destinations - I'm not suggeting there's a general overarching
permission to double back at KGX

It's only for "Cambridge and beyond", so I suspect it's there for the
trains formerly known as Cambridge Cruiser. If it were for the general
convenience of passengers, then there would at least be a similar
easement for Peterborough trains from Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:38:15
on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Roy Badami remarked:

I didn't realise that exceptions to the through train rule were
possible, but there is apparently a (fairly new) such easement for
some loop line (I'm sure others can fill in the details) to prevent
you from going the long way round the loop even though it's a direct
train.

"Customers travelling from Richmond to St Margarets and beyond may not
travel via Twickenham. This easement apllies(sic) in both directions."

....sounded plausible for a moment, but (eg) Feltham is "beyond St
Margarets", and it seems very odd not to allow travel via Twickenham
(the only other way is via Barnes and Brentford, but that's not actually
a loop).

Getting back to the through train rule, can you remind me how it's
expressed? There's a difference between:

(Routing Guide allowed + Direct Trains ) +/- Easements and
(Routing guide allowed +/- Easements) + Direct trains

--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
16:38:15 on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Roy Badami remarked:

I didn't realise that exceptions to the through train rule were
possible, but there is apparently a (fairly new) such easement for
some loop line (I'm sure others can fill in the details) to prevent
you from going the long way round the loop even though it's a direct
train.

"Customers travelling from Richmond to St Margarets and beyond may not
travel via Twickenham. This easement apllies(sic) in both
directions."

...sounded plausible for a moment, but (eg) Feltham is "beyond St
Margarets", and it seems very odd not to allow travel via Twickenham
(the only other way is via Barnes and Brentford, but that's not
actually a loop).

Getting back to the through train rule, can you remind me how it's
expressed? There's a difference between:

(Routing Guide allowed + Direct Trains ) +/- Easements and
(Routing guide allowed +/- Easements) + Direct trains

(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:
(i) a through train;
(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by scheduled
passenger services; or
(iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide
(details as to how you can obtain this information will be available
when you buy your ticket).

So I think your second interpretation is correct and the Routeing Guide
does not have any power to ban you from using through trains or the
shortest route.

Peter Smyth

In message , at 09:51:35 on Sun, 27 Feb
2011, Peter Smyth remarked:
Getting back to the through train rule, can you remind me how it's
expressed? There's a difference between:

(Routing Guide allowed + Direct Trains ) +/- Easements and
(Routing guide allowed +/- Easements) + Direct trains

(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold
in:
(i) a through train;
(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by
scheduled passenger services; or
(iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide
(details as to how you can obtain this information will be available
when you buy your ticket).

So I think your second interpretation is correct and the Routeing Guide
does not have any power to ban you from using through trains or the
shortest route.

And the table of easements says:

"Easements are relaxations of Routeing Guide rules to allow
journeys that strict adherence to the rules would forbid."

So even if we allow the possibility of dis-easements (which some might
claim are unconstitutional), that would then read as:

"Dis-Easements are tightenings of Routeing Guide rules to
disallow journeys that strict adherence to the rules would
allow."

And as the "direct train" rule is *not* a "Routing Guide Rule" (and it
trumps the Routing Guide), we are home and dry. I think!
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Peter Smyth wrote:
So I think your second interpretation is correct and the Routeing Guide
does not have any power to ban you from using through trains or the
shortest route.

This FoI request seems to suggest otherwise:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...l_rail_routein

The pertinent extracts:

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. [...] 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 message , at 10:07:13 on Sun, 27 Feb
2011, Roland Perry remarked:
Getting back to the through train rule, can you remind me how it's
expressed? There's a difference between:

(Routing Guide allowed + Direct Trains ) +/- Easements and
(Routing guide allowed +/- Easements) + Direct trains

(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold
in:
(i) a through train;
(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by
scheduled passenger services; or
(iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide
(details as to how you can obtain this information will be available
when you buy your ticket).

So I think your second interpretation is correct and the Routeing Guide
does not have any power to ban you from using through trains or the
shortest route.

And the table of easements says:

"Easements are relaxations of Routeing Guide rules to allow
journeys that strict adherence to the rules would forbid."

So even if we allow the possibility of dis-easements (which some might
claim are unconstitutional), that would then read as:

"Dis-Easements are tightenings of Routeing Guide rules to
disallow journeys that strict adherence to the rules would
allow."

And as the "direct train" rule is *not* a "Routing Guide Rule" (and it
trumps the Routing Guide), we are home and dry. I think!

ps. And where does this leave the dis-easements which purport to limit
travel the 'wrong way' round a loop? Well, they must have an invisible
"unless on a direct train" after them. And if all[1] the trains are
direct, then it's a null dis-easement. I'm sure there must be other
easements and/or dis-easements in the table which could be shown to have
no possible application in the current timetable.

[1] A dangerous word in the world of long term timetabling.
--
Roland Perry

"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Smyth wrote:
So I think your second interpretation is correct and the Routeing
Guide
does not have any power to ban you from using through trains or the
shortest route.

This FoI request seems to suggest otherwise:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...l_rail_routein

The pertinent extracts:

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. [...] 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.

That just shows that ScotRail want to ban it. It doesn't mean it has any
legal force. The Conditions of Carriage state the direct trains are
permitted. It doesn't say you have to look in the Routeing Guide first
to check for any relevant (dis)easements.

Peter Smyth

In message , at 04:18:20
on Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Roy Badami remarked:
So I think your second interpretation is correct and the Routeing Guide
does not have any power to ban you from using through trains or the
shortest route.

This FoI request seems to suggest otherwise:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...l_rail_routein

The pertinent extracts:

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. [...] 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.

They are confused. (It won't be the first or last time). Because the
Routing Guide doesn't allow Direct Trains, the NCoC does.

In short - the NCoC defines "permitted routes", of which those appearing
in the routing guide are only one of three different classes (the other
two being Direct trains and Shortest route).

The NCoC goes on to say:

(d) The use of some tickets may be restricted to trains which take:
(i) routes passing through, or avoiding, particular
locations; or
(ii) the most direct route.

These restrictions will be shown on the ticket.

So, it's entirely possible for TPTB to create tickets for the Fife
Circle which can only be used in one direction, but they would have to
be marked *on the ticket* as (eg) "Not Kirkcaldy".

There's nothing inherently wrong with inventing this restriction, but
they are simply using the wrong instrument to implement it.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:50:25 on Sun, 27 Feb
2011, Peter Smyth remarked:
The Conditions of Carriage state the direct trains are permitted. It
doesn't say you have to look in the Routeing Guide first to check for
any relevant (dis)easements.

It's worse than that - the NCoC say that the place to look for such
restrictions is *on the ticket".
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Peter Smyth wrote:


"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Smyth wrote:
So I think your second interpretation is correct and the Routeing
Guide
does not have any power to ban you from using through trains or the
shortest route.

This FoI request seems to suggest otherwise:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...l_rail_routein

The pertinent extracts:

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. [...] 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.

That just shows that ScotRail want to ban it.

Well, it doesn't *just* say that ScotRail wants to ban it. It also
ays that Transport Scotland, ATOC, Passenger Focus and the Secretary
of State for Transport are happy with that (mis)interpretation of the
rules.

It doesn't mean it has any legal force. The Conditions of Carriage
state the direct trains are permitted. It doesn't say you have to
look in the Routeing Guide first to check for any relevant
(dis)easements.

That's a very good point re the CoC, but I'm not sure I'd want to have
to argue the case with a gipper or on a penalty fares appeal.

-roy