ticket validity help - Bath-London-Chertsey-Bath

[whole diary]

[Tim]

And if it shows on the Journey planner & not in the routing guide?

My interpretation of that situation would be that technically, strictly the route was not valid.  BUT anyone travelling on that route on the basis of and the honest belief that the journey planner said it was OK (and with evidence of that, ie a journey planner print out or a receipt or seat reservation) would have an absolute watertight defence against any claim of fare evasion.  Ie, you'd be travelling on an invalid ticket, but it would absolutely not be your fault and you could not be held liable in any way.  Any judge would laugh you out of court if you tried to prosecute for such a technical infringement, the result being that such a route might not technically be valid, but de facto is valid on the basis that it would never be found invalid. 

[ChrisB]

But my whole point is that the rules /routing guide / journey planner can (now? - what was it before?) be read as to only apply to "any permitted" - as written, there's an argument that says that "not via Reading" means just that - and it does not mean "as shown in the routing guide, excluding routes via Reading".

13.3 above says

If no specific route or Train Company is shown, then (subject to any time restrictions for the type of fare you have purchased) it will be valid on:....

Where does that say 'any permitted'? It doesn't. it says

If no specific route or Train Company is shown

I would argue that 'Not Reading' means you have to exclude any route in the journey planner or Routing Guide that passes through Reading. It's as simple as that. Other routes being shown that adhere to Not passing through/calling at Reading are good to go

[ChrisB]

And if it shows on the Journey planner & not in the routing guide?

My interpretation of that situation would be that technically, strictly the route was not valid.  BUT anyone travelling on that route on the basis of and the honest belief that the journey planner said it was OK (and with evidence of that, ie a journey planner print out or a receipt or seat reservation) would have an absolute watertight defence against any claim of fare evasion.  Ie, you'd be travelling on an invalid ticket, but it would absolutely not be your fault and you could not be held liable in any way.  Any judge would laugh you out of court if you tried to prosecute for such a technical infringement, the result being that such a route might not technically be valid, but de facto is valid on the basis that it would never be found invalid. 

Yup, I'd agree, especially now the way NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) s written

[grahame]

I would argue that 'Not Reading' means you have to exclude any route in the journey planner or Routing Guide that passes through Reading. It's as simple as that. Other routes being shown that adhere to Not passing through/calling at Reading are good to go.

I would agree that's the intent.  Similarly a Bath Spa to London "via Warminster and Salisbury" - a specific route - is surely intended to then go via Basingstoke.  Just not sure that's actually what the rules now say if you read them pedantically.  And I am NOT about to try anything outside the intent out, nor suggest to others that they do.

[ChrisB]

I would agree that's the intent.  Similarly a Bath Spa to London "via Warminster and Salisbury" - a specific route - is surely intended to then go via Basingstoke.

OK from there - are there any other routings that the Routing Guide/Journey Planner gives *not* then going via BSK^▸ (Brake Standard Corridor (carriage))? If not, you have you're answer - If there are, then they're also valid to all tense & purpose.