On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:51:01 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

I'll leave it to someone else to try doing a break of journey in
Reading with that ticket!

Sounds like a challenge. Any Barriers at Reading?

Yes. Thousands of 'em.

CORE [1] also thinks this (Paddington to Reading via Slough, Reading to
Clapham Junction via Staines) is the shortest route, and puts it at 75:27
miles.

Presumably only if you tell it not to count walks or cross-London
transfers as part of the shortest route.

Besides, even then, it's not the shortest route from London Terminals
to Clapham Junction (which is what's actually printed on the ticket).

asdf wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:51:01 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:


I'll leave it to someone else to try doing a break of journey in
Reading with that ticket!

Sounds like a challenge. Any Barriers at Reading?

Yes. Thousands of 'em.

CORE [1] also thinks this (Paddington to Reading via Slough, Reading to
Clapham Junction via Staines) is the shortest route, and puts it at 75:27
miles.


Presumably only if you tell it not to count walks or cross-London
transfers as part of the shortest route.

Besides, even then, it's not the shortest route from London Terminals
to Clapham Junction (which is what's actually printed on the ticket).


Wasn't the strange thing about the ticket in question that the screen
displayed "London Paddington" to "Clapham Junction" to the price of
£2.10 but when he got the printed ticket in his hand it was "London
Terminals" to "Clapham Junction"?

I was thinking about this:


--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web: http://here.is/olof

On 10 Jul, 14:33, Graham Murray wrote:
stan5001 writes:
The screen specifically states "London Paddington to Clapham
Junction", route "any permitted", for the avoidance of any doubt. No
maltese cross though.

The only way of doing that by NR with no tube, no doubling back and no
inter-station walk is via GWML to Reading and then SWT to Clapham Jn.

That's not the only way! What about changing at Exeter St. Davids?

(or Bristol TM, or Bristol TM and Weymouth, or even Reading and
Basingstoke...??)

Steve Adams

On 10 Jul, 20:45, asdf wrote:
Presumably only if you tell it not to count walks or cross-London
transfers as part of the shortest route.

Has it been established whether you should or not? I emailed my Acton
Main Line to Clapham Junction scenario to NRE, and they said getting
the tube is shortest, but there's no instructions in the routeing
guide on which services should be considered when calculating the
shortest route.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:18:39 -0700, Mr Thant wrote:

Presumably only if you tell it not to count walks or cross-London
transfers as part of the shortest route.

Has it been established whether you should or not?

No, hence the options on CORE.

I emailed my Acton
Main Line to Clapham Junction scenario to NRE, and they said getting
the tube is shortest, but there's no instructions in the routeing
guide on which services should be considered when calculating the
shortest route.

The instructions in the RG do tell you to use the distances in the
National Rail Timetable. There are 3 possible interpretations:

-Only National Rail services should be considered.
-Cross-London transfers should be included, but only the distance on
National Rail counts (i.e. the Tube part of the journey is considered
to have a distance of 0).
-Cross-London transfers should be included, and you should use an
external source to find the length of the Tube part.

CORE gives you a choice between the first two of these.

On Jul 11, 2:12 pm, asdf wrote:
-Cross-London transfers should be included, but only the distance on
National Rail counts (i.e. the Tube part of the journey is considered
to have a distance of 0).

National Rail Enquiries have replied again, endorsing the option
above.

I also asked about another route where an obvious line was missing
from one of the Routeing Guide's maps:

"Not every line in the country is shown in the Routeing Guide, as
there are to many and it would make it confusing to use. So
accordingly only the normal main line routes are shown, and local
easement given to Train Operating Companies routes and services are
not always shown." (sic)

It just gets worse.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:06:30 -0700, Mr Thant wrote:

I also asked about another route where an obvious line was missing
from one of the Routeing Guide's maps:

Which line and map?

On Jul 11, 4:53 pm, asdf wrote:
Which line and map?

Manchester to Wigan via Atherton (ie not via Bolton) on map NW, which
is the only map valid Manchester to Preston. It's actually shorter
than via Bolton and Wigan, which is on the map, but since it's not the
shortest route overall to Preston, I don't believe it's allowed.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

On 10 Jul, 23:28, Steve wrote:

That's not the only way! What about changing at Exeter St. Davids?

(or Bristol TM, or Bristol TM and Weymouth, or even Reading and
Basingstoke...??)

There's a rule which says that you cannot pass any station (where the
train stops) which buying a ticket to would cost more than buying a
ticket to the destination station. The doubling back is a deviation of
this rule. It stops people buying a ticket from Birmingham to London
via Edinburgh, even if the same track isn't covered twice.

STD Single, PAD CLJ = £5.10
STD Single, PAD RDG = £15.60

Therefore going via Reading is not an option, NRE says you're expected
to use the tube.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:30:55 -0700, JL wrote:

There's a rule which says that you cannot pass any station (where the
train stops) which buying a ticket to would cost more than buying a
ticket to the destination station.

No, there is not.

The doubling back is a deviation of
this rule.

Doubling-back is nothing to do with the above.

The rules are a lot more complicated than you are trying to make out.
Have a read of the online Routeing Guide and it will make sense.
There is a fares rule, and there is a doubling-back rule, but neither
are as you state.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.