Great Western Coffee Shop

That fiendishly complex set of documents, the National Routeing Guide, has been updated. There are some quite substantial changes apparently....

Which is fupping annoying as I was just beginning to get a handle on it.  :o :P

Ho, hum. For those that take an interest in this sort of thing, the updated pages can be found here:

http://www.atoc.org/about-atoc/rail-settlement-plan/routeing-guide

Just don't go asking me for a tutorial!

Thanks for the link. A fine example of how not to do things. I particularly like the 1143-page .PDF file (the 'yellow pages') which contains the routings themselves.

I've been using this set of documents for nigh on two years now and I still have to read through the instructions every time I use them.

Still, if it wasn't for them I wouldn't have found out how to get to Hereford from Bristol for ^7 (railcard) day return!  ;)

Isn't it about time ATOC designed something that when you type in origin then destination, lists all valid routes in map form.

At least they haven't changed the list of easements :D

Ah yes, 22 pages of PDF, with no index whatsoever.

Nobody at ATOC has actually read this document.

At one stage, I was going to include the explanation of what each easement means, but I think it's more amusing if you look yourselves!

Easement 24. Your starter for 0 : is there any other way of achieving this?

Easement 36. Presumably except on Saturdays in one direction?

Easement 41. Wessex? Wales & Borders? Who are they?

I do hope that we get round to testing easement 62 soon.

Easement 81 is very kind, given what the train does. From personal observation, there's no much to do at Georgemas Junction while the train goes to Thurso and back. Not that there's much to do at Wick once you get there.

97 : for "may" read "have to"

106 : What does this mean?

10008 : How?

10013 : Can now be safely deleted from the list!

The 30xxx group of easements (who "numbered" this lot?) have some very peculiar routes. How else could you make the journeys in 30003, 30005, 30020, 30022, 30031, 30046, 30056?

What's the difference between 30057 and 30058?

30064 can also be safely deleted.

30072 is rather wild!

Easement 30075. Your starter for 400 : what does this mean, and to what journeys does it apply?

30097 : ah yes, but what does it apply to?

At this point I gave up!

Easement #26:


But of course!

Seriously, does anyone at ATOC towers actually think about how utterly stupid rubrics like that are going to appear to people who look at the Routeing Guide after they make it publicly available? Do they just assume that no-one can be bothered to read it? Or is there someone in the office with a wicked sense of humour who writes garbage like that just to see if they can get away with it? It's almost as if Kafka has been resurrected and got himself a gig working for ATOC!  ::)

What's even more troubling is that I found that little gem within about 5 seconds of skimming the document. Given how close to the top of the list it is, I shudder to think how many more horrors like that one lurk within.

82 Journeys via Swindon and Didcot or via Swindon to Didcot and routed Not London may double back between Reading and Didcot. This easements applies in both directions.

THAT is an interesting one.   There are often higher fares on journeys like Oxford to Bath via Reading than via Didcot.  Am I reading that you are allowed to buy an Oxford to Bath via Didcot ticket, and use it via Reading anyway?

30020 Journeys from Moreton in Marsh, Kingham, Shipton, Ascott under Wychwood, Charlbury, Finstock, Combe and Hanborough to Reading and beyond may travel via Oxford. This easement applies in both direction.

And how would you do that journey WITHOUT travelling via Oxford?   Change at Shrub Hill, Cheltenham and Swindon , perhaps?

300364 Customers travelling from Evesham and Pershore via Swindon may not travel via Worcester Shrub Hill. This easement applies in both directions.

That looks like a hardening, not an easing to me!

Ooh - a local one for me ...

30114 Journeys from Melksham via Bedwyn may travel via Westbury. This easement applies in both directions.

... but what does it mean?

No - the cheaper tickets are specifically routed "not Reading", which is explicitly printed on them. What I don't understand is why there is an easement covering the more expensive tickets - they're routed "not London" and that's also printed on the ticket. Travelling via Reading, fairly obviously, doesn't contravene the route "not London"! I suppose it's because one of the fundamental tenets of the Routeing Guide is that in general you shouldn't double back through the same station, and taking the route via Reading means you double back through Cholsey/Pangbourne/Goring& Streatley/Tilehurst.

It's a pet peeve of mine that FGW has always been hugely inconsistent with allowing you to use diverted London - Bristol services from Oxford or Didcot via Reading and the B&H when there's engineering work on the main line. Sometimes it's fine, but more often they expect you to fork out for the "not London"
ticket or spend an eternity messing about changing from train to bus to train again.


I assume so. Why you would is another matter. May be that the algorithm in the routeing guide somehow makes the direct route "not permitted" so they have to add an easement, although that's only a guess...


Yep, there are several "hardenings" in there that are most certainly not easements!


I have no idea. There are a few of them that apparently make no sense and are just permitting travel by the obvious route. Maybe that means that you can travel via Westbury if you want rather than going round via Chippenham and Reading, allowing you to make the most of your extensive local train service ;) There's another one I really can't figure out either, #70000:


Going from Keynsham to Wesbury avoiding Bath Spa takes you all the way round via Taunton then back up...what on Earth does that easement mean? The journey planner will often give you journeys from, say, Oxford to Keynsham that take you through to Temple Meads and then double back, so that's evidently permitted by the Routeing Guide... This is making my brain ache.

vacman, Donkey Guard, readytostart, super tm, can any of you help us out with these or are they as much of a mystery to staff as they are to the punters?!

My betting is that the only person who understands some of these is (a) the person who wrote it, but couldn't express it properly and (b) retired a long time ago.

Given the way the documents are formatted, I can't see it would be too difficult for someone to embed them into a program so that the software looks up group stations and permitted routes.  Wouldn't take more than a few hours for someone with a small amount of programming knowledge to do this.

They have, in effect. It's called the National Rail online journey planner... ;)

Would someone please figure out why the NR OJP will provide a through fare from Bradford on Avon to Leeds via Manchester Piccadilly, but insists that more than one ticket is necessary for a journey from Trowbridge to Leeds via Manchester Piccadilly?

In both cases the OJP routes via BRI.

Can't really comment on your search as I do not know what search parameters you were using. I've just searched BOA and TRO to MAN on Monday 6th September and it gives up through fares (Advance, Anytime, Off Peak, First Class) throughout the day.

Searches were:
1) BOA to Leeds via Manchester Picc
2) TRO to Leeds via Manchester Picc

Hmm, an interesting one. Needs a bit more investigating and I haven't downloaded the updated Routeing Guide yet.

East Coast's booking engine allows the route TRO-LDS via MAN but FGW's doesn't as far as I can see.

What I can see from the existing maps is that Map CM is omitted for journeys to Leeds from Westbury Group, but not from stations associated with Bath Spa, such as Bradford-on-Avon. Map CM covers the part of the route from Birmingham to Manchester.

I'll consult others more expert in routeing to find out what's going on.

Well it would appear to be an error in the routeing guide and its implementation by NRE and trainline based booking engines. Or WebTIS is making the error by offering fares on an invalid route. I've emailed ATOC to get their opinion!

If you want to buy the TRO-LDS via MAN ticket then your best bet is to do so through a WebTIS based booking engine, such as East Coast or London Midland. However despite the routeing error you are still probably better off buying split tickets, say an advance to MAN then a walk up fare between MAN and LDS

Thanks for your investigations, BNM. I'll be interested in ATOC's response.

One day I hope to find time to understand the routeing guide myself!

Can anyone advise the following regarding the fare from Manchester Piccadilly to Reading?

The Anytime Return fare via London using Virgin WC and FGW is ^306 whilst it is ^128 if taking a journey direct with XC.  These fares are clear on which services you can use on the journey planner. 

Given that the Manchester to London terminals is ^262 and the London to Reading is ^34.30, it seems an expensive cross London addition at ^4.85 each way, but we can put that to one side at the moment.

My point is this: The XC fare of ^128 specifies "Any permitted route" and reference to the Rail Routing Guide Yellow pages (page 618) clearly states that LONDON is a permitted route.

I have previously been told this route is not valid via London because the Maltese Cross is NOT shown on the ticket.  However, the Instructions for Use of the Routing Guide (Section A, Step 6, Page 4) states:
"In some instances (particularly long distance cross country journeys) the Manual will show an "any permitted" fare but without the via London, Maltese cross symbol. Reference to Section C (the ^yellow pages^) may show via London to be a permitted route for this journey and in such instances travel via London to include cross-London transfer would be permitted."

Thus, it would appear that the ^128 fare should be valid via London and include the cross-London transfer.  But all staff I have come across would fall back on their training to say that the Maltese Cross not being on the ticket would not allow that.  Obviously XC set the fare and get the revenue - a double whammy for Virgin who would not be happy if all their Manchester to London punters stopped paying ^262 and started buying a ticket to Reading for ^128! 

I personally make the journey frequently and usually go via XC directly as the timings are not much different to that via London; however, London affords more flexibility.  On the one occasion I travelled via London, the Virgin Train Manager did not comment at the ticket, suggesting he either did not notice the route/fare, or he was well aware of the situation and chose not to comment, despite my clutching the photocopy of the Routing guide in preparedness.  I decided not to try using the ticket in the machines on the Underground, and used my Oystercard!!!

I have not contacted ATOC in case the easement is introduced as a "hardening" and am happy to keep the flexibility available.  However, at some time I may have a battle on my hands.  Are there any other examples similar to this?

A further saving to be had across the fare types if you purchase Manchester Piccadilly - Oxford. Also route permitted via London. The Anytime Return is ^122.

This wonderful document has again been updated on 5th April 2011.

I wish there would be some email reminder/publication when it changes, as I keep copies stored offline for ease of use.