Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Two is the oddest prime of all, because it's the only one that's even!


aus+uk / uk.railway / Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

SubjectAuthor
* Ticket question - reasonable routeScott
`* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
 `* Ticket question - reasonable routeScott
  +* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
  |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeScott
  | `- Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
  `* Ticket question - reasonable routeAnna Noyd-Dryver
   `* Ticket question - reasonable routeScott
    `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
     `* Ticket question - reasonable routeScott
      `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
       `* Ticket question - reasonable routeScott
        `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         +* Ticket question - reasonable routeTheo
         |+- Ticket question - reasonable routeGraeme Wall
         |+- Ticket question - reasonable routeNY
         |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         | +* Ticket question - reasonable routeTheo
         | |+* Ticket question - reasonable routeCertes
         | ||`- Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         | |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         | | `* Ticket question - reasonable routeTheo
         | |  `- Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         | `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoger Lynn
         |  `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         |   `* Ticket question - reasonable routeTweed
         |    `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         |     +* Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |     |+- Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         |     |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoger Lynn
         |     | `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |     |  `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoger Lynn
         |     |   +- Ticket question - reasonable routeAnna Noyd-Dryver
         |     |   `- Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         |     +* Ticket question - reasonable routeTweed
         |     |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         |     | `- Ticket question - reasonable routeGraeme Wall
         |     `* Ticket question - reasonable routeAnna Noyd-Dryver
         |      `* Ticket question - reasonable routeColinR
         |       +- Ticket question - reasonable routeChristopher A. Lee
         |       +* Ticket question - reasonable routeJames Heaton
         |       |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |       | `* Ticket question - reasonable routeCertes
         |       |  +* Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |       |  |+* Ticket question - reasonable routeTheo
         |       |  ||+- Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |       |  ||`* Ticket question - reasonable routeMike Humphrey
         |       |  || +* Ticket question - reasonable routeCertes
         |       |  || |+- Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |       |  || |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeTheo
         |       |  || | `- Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |       |  || `- Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |       |  |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeAnna Noyd-Dryver
         |       |  | `* Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |       |  |  `- Ticket question - reasonable routeAnna Noyd-Dryver
         |       |  `* Ticket question - reasonable routeMike Humphrey
         |       |   `- Ticket question - reasonable routeRecliner
         |       `* Ticket question - reasonable routeAnna Noyd-Dryver
         |        `- Ticket question - reasonable routeSam Wilson
         +* Ticket question - reasonable routeNY
         |`* Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         | +* Ticket question - reasonable routeCertes
         | |`- Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry
         | `- Ticket question - reasonable routeCertes
         `* Ticket question - reasonable routeScott
          `- Ticket question - reasonable routeRoland Perry

Pages:123
Ticket question - reasonable route

<6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29016&group=uk.railway#29016

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 18:03:51 +0100
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net UsUpCOk2/zxc4P+oo2JShwelN0Wlent+Ur+T2OfZ3ZIVWxmBOp
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ifDi3kVbMqH2pgDyu/e2M2TjcfQ=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Tue, 3 May 2022 17:03 UTC

I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
reasonable route.

However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29026&group=uk.railway#29026

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net DhvSolckYulfKBIfqxVE6wW+8OT/uJKymGTc9/xb4IAUA7rIWm
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2lXyK+t/JT7bwXVVMzneK20ZjK0=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<52l5fZdV$jhVf1U93hT62mJV+y>)
 by: Roland Perry - Tue, 3 May 2022 18:14 UTC

In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>reasonable route.
>
>However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?

The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29027&group=uk.railway#29027

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 19:22:25 +0100
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net /bi8m8IfI95toY8i3dmZAQCYftq2cLWAqD5nzb37K9eax18jZy
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8PisnUXH2FTkY39v8fL/OFSa0Cg=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Tue, 3 May 2022 18:22 UTC

On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>reasonable route.
>>
>>However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>
>The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?

But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
imported later?

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<Rtwxd67hWXciFATI@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29028&group=uk.railway#29028

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 19:34:09 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <Rtwxd67hWXciFATI@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net 9TqvkuUyWekAwcHqQhOrBw9IOnThxDpBcsM219n+/q6Pyd608O
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hlNXlj8xsVXLclqihWKa8lUx1qE=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5xj5fFN1$jhQR1U9PhW62mVNOF>)
 by: Roland Perry - Tue, 3 May 2022 18:34 UTC

In message <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>, at 19:22:25 on
Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>reasonable route.
>>>
>>>However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>
>>The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>>delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>
>But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>imported later?

Because the Railways have special bylaws approved by Acts of Parliament.

But those rules are well publicised for train tickets long before the
passenger buys them. So it's not even "later".
--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<p5137h9ukjvsk1ukqhuokjgg1ssukumscl@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29030&group=uk.railway#29030

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 20:41:57 +0100
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <p5137h9ukjvsk1ukqhuokjgg1ssukumscl@4ax.com>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <Rtwxd67hWXciFATI@perry.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net LsvQT6aWk1Ib01RslO/qEQmmcAxQ+zRiEArMydK1KFUtymLIYV
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2nL+ikd0Lbd92xTIhTwIeVeBQTM=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Tue, 3 May 2022 19:41 UTC

On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:34:09 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>, at 19:22:25 on
>Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>>Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>reasonable route.
>>>>
>>>>However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>>unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>>you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>>the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>>Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>
>>>The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>>>delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>
>>But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>imported later?
>
>Because the Railways have special bylaws approved by Acts of Parliament.
>
>But those rules are well publicised for train tickets long before the
>passenger buys them. So it's not even "later".

Like the Royal Mail, I suppose? Also, does the ticket machine warn
that the ticket is sold subject to conditions of carriage?

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29040&group=uk.railway#29040

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ann...@noyd-dryver.com (Anna Noyd-Dryver)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk>
<3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="756beb749a2a2eaa1de3aa5d2ebaa48f";
logging-data="23472"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Yk/XqRphJJHwNAsTZCi5Gbt19O4nbZTA="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tHAYBF4d8EVBV49dRKw+//Ew3Ro=
sha1:48csJ+rzdat20xvDE8gqTc5XSe0=
 by: Anna Noyd-Dryver - Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22 UTC

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>> Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>> reasonable route.
>>>
>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>> you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>> the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>> Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>
>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>> delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>
> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
> imported later?
>

The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when booking) not
later (after you enter the station)? The parking equivalent would probably
be booking airport parking ahead of time and being given a list of
conditions specific to the tariff you've paid, which then aren't repeated
on a sign at the entrance barrier.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<KaKHwA+JThciFASF@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29042&group=uk.railway#29042

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 06:53:13 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <KaKHwA+JThciFASF@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<Rtwxd67hWXciFATI@perry.uk> <p5137h9ukjvsk1ukqhuokjgg1ssukumscl@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net oCtOACRI/g9tNBo+b4/HiwJH3TlOZ+PFdqfHy5kN0IDz2Br58G
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u8CNv4chaPheGwxfPF5knK0mDZo=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<1Sv5fJ+9$jhzd2U99tV62WZ$Yj>)
 by: Roland Perry - Wed, 4 May 2022 05:53 UTC

In message <p5137h9ukjvsk1ukqhuokjgg1ssukumscl@4ax.com>, at 20:41:57 on
Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:34:09 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>, at 19:22:25 on
>>Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>>>Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>>'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>>reasonable route.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>>>unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>>>you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>>>the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>>>Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>>
>>>>The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>>>>delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>>
>>>But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>>the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>>when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>>imported later?
>>
>>Because the Railways have special bylaws approved by Acts of Parliament.
>>
>>But those rules are well publicised for train tickets long before the
>>passenger buys them. So it's not even "later".
>
>Like the Royal Mail, I suppose? Also, does the ticket machine warn
>that the ticket is sold subject to conditions of carriage?

Ticket machines as found in place like station forecourts have a
intermediate screen which mentions time restrictions (but not
routes[1]), unfortunately not always accurately[2]. There's also quite
likely a phrase such as "Valid as advertised", which means you have to
look in the various publications [like the Routing Guide].

None of this has been overturned in court, despite billions of tickets
having been sold over the years.

[1] Although some tickets have separate very distinct routing
restrictions such as "via Horsham" or "Not London", but that
doesn't describe in full detail what variations in route are
possible as long as that one headline is complied with.

[2] eg I've seen them falsely claim a ticket isn't valid in the
evening peak.
--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29054&group=uk.railway#29054

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 09:34:40 +0100
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ipkGFywGa7OtMvmh1b3iWAYpitEp2y5tVjVMf+YvTHPtLXaelZ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UOX65NO6otKe+khocS3sDJ+biEs=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Wed, 4 May 2022 08:34 UTC

On Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>> Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>> reasonable route.
>>>>
>>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>> you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>> the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>> Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>
>>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>>> delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>
>> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>> imported later?
>>
>The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when booking) not
>later (after you enter the station)? The parking equivalent would probably
>be booking airport parking ahead of time and being given a list of
>conditions specific to the tariff you've paid, which then aren't repeated
>on a sign at the entrance barrier.
>
This seems to be the case, but I still wonder in the example I gave
(Smartcard) in what way they can be said to have been added. If there
is a dispute, how does the prosecutor prove that the passenger was
told about the route limitation if the passenger is caught following a
different route?

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29070&group=uk.railway#29070

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 11:08:26 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net rKO/Qvm3veqf2v01DposLAaSM6lEQdYfrmQCSahMsjD97DoOCo
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3hkLforXCamZQylTkc+dy+k/oVg=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5xj5fFN1$jhQR1U9PhW62mVNOF>)
 by: Roland Perry - Wed, 4 May 2022 10:08 UTC

In message <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>, at 09:34:40 on
Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>On Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
><anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>> reasonable route.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>>> you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>>> the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>>> Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>>
>>>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>>>> delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>>
>>> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>> imported later?
>>>
>>The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when booking) not
>>later (after you enter the station)? The parking equivalent would probably
>>be booking airport parking ahead of time and being given a list of
>>conditions specific to the tariff you've paid, which then aren't repeated
>>on a sign at the entrance barrier.
>>
>This seems to be the case, but I still wonder in the example I gave
>(Smartcard) in what way they can be said to have been added. If there
>is a dispute, how does the prosecutor prove that the passenger was
>told about the route limitation if the passenger is caught following a
>different route?

If they were caught, they'd normally either have to pay a "Penalty Fare"
or the fare for the actual journey being undertaken. Although there's an
option to be immediately prosecuted, that would be rare. If you were
travelling on a Smart ticket I'd expect the replacement to be a paper
ticket, but I'm not clear how they'd cancel the smart ticket (ie the
equivalent of punching a hole to cancel a paper ticket) especially if it
was the outbound half of a return.

As for whether it was 'right and proper' for them to be surcharged like
that, the Conditions of Travel are quite clear that people need to have
a valid ticket. And it's up to the passenger to use the various
information published (including when they bought the ticket) or make
enquiries with the railways, to ensure they are.

--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29080&group=uk.railway#29080

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 12:15:54 +0100
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com> <fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ylWIQeJHnz+aJcDM5GYSWwIaxPqfnvcb/k/j70mQ8u9S7u+Zgw
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2W4vUHcyHpVbhSMzbUGvBiLHytA=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Wed, 4 May 2022 11:15 UTC

On Wed, 4 May 2022 11:08:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>, at 09:34:40 on
>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>><anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>>> reasonable route.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>>>> you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>>>> the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>>>> Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>>>
>>>>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>>>>> delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>>>
>>>> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>>> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>>> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>>> imported later?
>>>>
>>>The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when booking) not
>>>later (after you enter the station)? The parking equivalent would probably
>>>be booking airport parking ahead of time and being given a list of
>>>conditions specific to the tariff you've paid, which then aren't repeated
>>>on a sign at the entrance barrier.
>>>
>>This seems to be the case, but I still wonder in the example I gave
>>(Smartcard) in what way they can be said to have been added. If there
>>is a dispute, how does the prosecutor prove that the passenger was
>>told about the route limitation if the passenger is caught following a
>>different route?
>
>If they were caught, they'd normally either have to pay a "Penalty Fare"
>or the fare for the actual journey being undertaken. Although there's an
>option to be immediately prosecuted, that would be rare. If you were
>travelling on a Smart ticket I'd expect the replacement to be a paper
>ticket, but I'm not clear how they'd cancel the smart ticket (ie the
>equivalent of punching a hole to cancel a paper ticket) especially if it
>was the outbound half of a return.
>
>As for whether it was 'right and proper' for them to be surcharged like
>that, the Conditions of Travel are quite clear that people need to have
>a valid ticket. And it's up to the passenger to use the various
>information published (including when they bought the ticket) or make
>enquiries with the railways, to ensure they are.

I take your point, and no doubt this must be correct. However, I
still think there might be difficulty in persuading a magistrate if
the accused's position was that he was unaware of the rule and was
acting in good faith travelling from A to B in possession of a ticket
from A to B.

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29088&group=uk.railway#29088

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.datentrampelpfad.de!akk.uni-karlsruhe.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 13:41:04 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net cscgkLUpePadJZFdVq+BbQpaX3xuJFUhc/5UIN46VHE0J+8R5r
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2tn4zrOasD99mm8YvHaus681A5Y=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Fr5fVvx$jhmR1U9MhQ62mFuOw>)
 by: Roland Perry - Wed, 4 May 2022 12:41 UTC

In message <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>, at 12:15:54 on
Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>On Wed, 4 May 2022 11:08:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>, at 09:34:40 on
>>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>><anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>>>> reasonable route.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>>>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>>>>> you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>>>>> the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>>>>> Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>>>>>> delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>>>>
>>>>> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>>>> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>>>> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>>>> imported later?
>>>>>
>>>>The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when booking) not
>>>>later (after you enter the station)? The parking equivalent would probably
>>>>be booking airport parking ahead of time and being given a list of
>>>>conditions specific to the tariff you've paid, which then aren't repeated
>>>>on a sign at the entrance barrier.
>>>>
>>>This seems to be the case, but I still wonder in the example I gave
>>>(Smartcard) in what way they can be said to have been added. If there
>>>is a dispute, how does the prosecutor prove that the passenger was
>>>told about the route limitation if the passenger is caught following a
>>>different route?
>>
>>If they were caught, they'd normally either have to pay a "Penalty Fare"
>>or the fare for the actual journey being undertaken. Although there's an
>>option to be immediately prosecuted, that would be rare. If you were
>>travelling on a Smart ticket I'd expect the replacement to be a paper
>>ticket, but I'm not clear how they'd cancel the smart ticket (ie the
>>equivalent of punching a hole to cancel a paper ticket) especially if it
>>was the outbound half of a return.
>>
>>As for whether it was 'right and proper' for them to be surcharged like
>>that, the Conditions of Travel are quite clear that people need to have
>>a valid ticket. And it's up to the passenger to use the various
>>information published (including when they bought the ticket) or make
>>enquiries with the railways, to ensure they are.
>
>I take your point, and no doubt this must be correct. However, I
>still think there might be difficulty in persuading a magistrate if
>the accused's position was that he was unaware of the rule and was
>acting in good faith travelling from A to B in possession of a ticket
>from A to B.

As I said earlier, it's unlikely to ever come before a magistrate (other
than as a separate offence of failing to pay a penalty fare). And of
course if it was a direct train from A to B it would very likely always
be valid.

The problems arise when people want to take "scenic routes". For example
I once had a ticket from Southampton to Cambridge that was only valid
via London (many tickets as it happens are only valid via "Not London").

But it turned out that even if I'd wanted to, I could not have got a
train from Southampton via Reading to Birmingham, then another from
Birmingham to Cambridge via Ely. Even though that would have avoided an
extra change from Waterloo to Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29092&group=uk.railway#29092

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 16:20:20 +0100
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com> <fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com> <1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net VvkgC1cSvO5L32/B2XnXcQkEm3vdkOkOH8FeLp7bfR+dYrel1K
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qyqCnN8T+4X4CZ/K0UBawQSoy/I=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Wed, 4 May 2022 15:20 UTC

On Wed, 4 May 2022 13:41:04 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>, at 12:15:54 on
>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 11:08:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>, at 09:34:40 on
>>>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>><anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>>>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>>>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>>>>> reasonable route.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>>>>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>>>>>> you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>>>>>> the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>>>>>> Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the ticket is
>>>>>>> delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>>>>> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>>>>> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>>>>> imported later?
>>>>>>
>>>>>The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when booking) not
>>>>>later (after you enter the station)? The parking equivalent would probably
>>>>>be booking airport parking ahead of time and being given a list of
>>>>>conditions specific to the tariff you've paid, which then aren't repeated
>>>>>on a sign at the entrance barrier.
>>>>>
>>>>This seems to be the case, but I still wonder in the example I gave
>>>>(Smartcard) in what way they can be said to have been added. If there
>>>>is a dispute, how does the prosecutor prove that the passenger was
>>>>told about the route limitation if the passenger is caught following a
>>>>different route?
>>>
>>>If they were caught, they'd normally either have to pay a "Penalty Fare"
>>>or the fare for the actual journey being undertaken. Although there's an
>>>option to be immediately prosecuted, that would be rare. If you were
>>>travelling on a Smart ticket I'd expect the replacement to be a paper
>>>ticket, but I'm not clear how they'd cancel the smart ticket (ie the
>>>equivalent of punching a hole to cancel a paper ticket) especially if it
>>>was the outbound half of a return.
>>>
>>>As for whether it was 'right and proper' for them to be surcharged like
>>>that, the Conditions of Travel are quite clear that people need to have
>>>a valid ticket. And it's up to the passenger to use the various
>>>information published (including when they bought the ticket) or make
>>>enquiries with the railways, to ensure they are.
>>
>>I take your point, and no doubt this must be correct. However, I
>>still think there might be difficulty in persuading a magistrate if
>>the accused's position was that he was unaware of the rule and was
>>acting in good faith travelling from A to B in possession of a ticket
>>from A to B.
>
>As I said earlier, it's unlikely to ever come before a magistrate (other
>than as a separate offence of failing to pay a penalty fare). And of
>course if it was a direct train from A to B it would very likely always
>be valid.

Presumably because the rules are so complicated the prosecutor would
not be confident about proving the case.
>
>The problems arise when people want to take "scenic routes". For example
>I once had a ticket from Southampton to Cambridge that was only valid
>via London (many tickets as it happens are only valid via "Not London").

Does 'via London' mean you are required to travel via London (whatever
that means)? I thought you could take any reasonable route which may
or may not include via London depending on the ticket and the wording
was there to clarify.
>
>But it turned out that even if I'd wanted to, I could not have got a
>train from Southampton via Reading to Birmingham, then another from
>Birmingham to Cambridge via Ely. Even though that would have avoided an
>extra change from Waterloo to Kings Cross.

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29096&group=uk.railway#29096

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 19:24:26 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net gBaqXbCNFXkiU/+uBM1JIQsffnpNecXngOAWjj48MdrdOk+vTH
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mlke/Pb+zq+Fv6CxzuqcWIkUF3g=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Gi5fZLx$jxkd1U9sxT62mJKIn>)
 by: Roland Perry - Wed, 4 May 2022 18:24 UTC

In message <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>, at 16:20:20 on
Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>On Wed, 4 May 2022 13:41:04 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>, at 12:15:54 on
>>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 11:08:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>, at 09:34:40 on
>>>>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>><anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>>>>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>>>>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>>>>>> reasonable route.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>>>>>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>>>>>>> you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>>>>>>> the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>>>>>>> Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the
>>>>>>>>ticket is
>>>>>>>> delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>>>>>> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>>>>>> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>>>>>> imported later?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when booking) not
>>>>>>later (after you enter the station)? The parking equivalent would probably
>>>>>>be booking airport parking ahead of time and being given a list of
>>>>>>conditions specific to the tariff you've paid, which then aren't repeated
>>>>>>on a sign at the entrance barrier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>This seems to be the case, but I still wonder in the example I gave
>>>>>(Smartcard) in what way they can be said to have been added. If there
>>>>>is a dispute, how does the prosecutor prove that the passenger was
>>>>>told about the route limitation if the passenger is caught following a
>>>>>different route?
>>>>
>>>>If they were caught, they'd normally either have to pay a "Penalty Fare"
>>>>or the fare for the actual journey being undertaken. Although there's an
>>>>option to be immediately prosecuted, that would be rare. If you were
>>>>travelling on a Smart ticket I'd expect the replacement to be a paper
>>>>ticket, but I'm not clear how they'd cancel the smart ticket (ie the
>>>>equivalent of punching a hole to cancel a paper ticket) especially if it
>>>>was the outbound half of a return.
>>>>
>>>>As for whether it was 'right and proper' for them to be surcharged like
>>>>that, the Conditions of Travel are quite clear that people need to have
>>>>a valid ticket. And it's up to the passenger to use the various
>>>>information published (including when they bought the ticket) or make
>>>>enquiries with the railways, to ensure they are.
>>>
>>>I take your point, and no doubt this must be correct. However, I
>>>still think there might be difficulty in persuading a magistrate if
>>>the accused's position was that he was unaware of the rule and was
>>>acting in good faith travelling from A to B in possession of a ticket
>>>from A to B.
>>
>>As I said earlier, it's unlikely to ever come before a magistrate (other
>>than as a separate offence of failing to pay a penalty fare). And of
>>course if it was a direct train from A to B it would very likely always
>>be valid.
>
>Presumably because the rules are so complicated the prosecutor would
>not be confident about proving the case.

No, the train staff would prefer to get the uplifted fare off the
traveller there and then, rather than send the incident off for
prosecution, which would cost their company an order of magnitude more.

>>The problems arise when people want to take "scenic routes". For example
>>I once had a ticket from Southampton to Cambridge that was only valid
>>via London (many tickets as it happens are only valid via "Not London").
>
>Does 'via London' mean you are required to travel via London (whatever
>that means)?

In that context, the only routes which were valid were via Waterloo and
Kings Cross. I've conflated that into "London". "Via London" is not a
formal category, whereas "NOT via London" is.

>I thought you could take any reasonable route which may or may not
>include via London depending on the ticket and the wording was there to
>clarify.

"Reasonable routes" are a pre-privatisation thing. And was replaced
by an algorithm (known as the Routing Guide) which attempts to
unambiguously codify that reasonability.

If your ticket says "Not via London", it's impossible to travel,
erm, via London, and you have to pick another route (but still an
allowable one).

As an example, Nottingham to Cambridge "Not via London" is about half
the price of going down to St Pancras, and then back north from Kings
Cross. But even though the obvious formerly a direct route is to go
Nottingham-Grantham-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge [which is now requires
one change] I'm confident we'd find you could go
Nottingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge.

What you maybe can't do is
Nottingham-Grantham-Peterborough-Stevenage-Cambridge (in other words
there's an invisible "via Ely")

Actually, there's a slightly cheaper explicitly "via Ely" ticket, so
perhaps the going via Stevenage route is OK.

>>But it turned out that even if I'd wanted to, I could not have got a
>>train from Southampton via Reading to Birmingham, then another from
>>Birmingham to Cambridge via Ely. Even though that would have avoided an
>>extra change from Waterloo to Kings Cross.

--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29098&group=uk.railway#29098

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!nntp.terraraq.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Theo)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: 04 May 2022 20:46:34 +0100 (BST)
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com> <fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com> <1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com> <Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chiark.greenend.org.uk
X-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1651693596 30402 212.13.197.229 (4 May 2022 19:46:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@chiark.greenend.org.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 19:46:36 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (Linux/3.16.0-11-amd64 (x86_64))
Originator: theom@chiark.greenend.org.uk ([212.13.197.229])
 by: Theo - Wed, 4 May 2022 19:46 UTC

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>, at 16:20:20 on
> Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
> >Does 'via London' mean you are required to travel via London (whatever
> >that means)?
>
> In that context, the only routes which were valid were via Waterloo and
> Kings Cross. I've conflated that into "London". "Via London" is not a
> formal category, whereas "NOT via London" is.

A to B 'Route London' means a route from A to a London Terminal, and then a
route from another London Terminal to B. It's like holding an A-London
ticket, a London-B ticket, and a tube single that's only valid between
certain tube stations.

So Southampton to Cambridge route London means it's valid from Southampton
to Waterloo, but also Victoria (there are direct trains) and maybe
Paddington too. (and Vauxhall and possibly Charing Cross, London Bridge and
others if there are valid routes to those)

Meanwhile London to Cambridge is valid from King's Cross, Liverpool St, and
St Pancras (Thameslink).

Confusingly, routes which go through the London area but don't touch a
London Terminal aren't 'London'. So via Clapham Junction, Kensington
Olympia or the North London Line are valid on a 'not London' ticket.

These are separate to whether the routeing guide has a valid route from A to
B that goes via Clapham/etc. For example Southampton to Bedford has a valid
route via London (ie as above, but via St Pancras instead of KGX/LST), but
another route via Bletchley, so you could go Southampton-Clapham
Junction-West London Line-Willesden-WCML-Bletchley-Bedford and that would be
'not London' for ticketing purposes. An Any Permitted ticket would allow
both, a 'Route London' ticket only via Waterloo/etc, and a 'not London' only
via the WLL.

Theo

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<t4uol2$4f0$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29099&group=uk.railway#29099

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rai...@greywall.demon.co.uk (Graeme Wall)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 21:45:22 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <t4uol2$4f0$2@dont-email.me>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
<Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 20:45:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a792d7d355fe5e4dd61a8bbedbfdbe2a";
logging-data="4576"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bm5lTlbq1n7vXz8aFAC/RDpgu4+Gzq9g="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i2s9rNoBRqwWtzRL4r/0Y7LJvE0=
In-Reply-To: <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Graeme Wall - Wed, 4 May 2022 20:45 UTC

On 04/05/2022 20:46, Theo wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>, at 16:20:20 on
>> Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Does 'via London' mean you are required to travel via London (whatever
>>> that means)?
>>
>> In that context, the only routes which were valid were via Waterloo and
>> Kings Cross. I've conflated that into "London". "Via London" is not a
>> formal category, whereas "NOT via London" is.
>
> A to B 'Route London' means a route from A to a London Terminal, and then a
> route from another London Terminal to B. It's like holding an A-London
> ticket, a London-B ticket, and a tube single that's only valid between
> certain tube stations.
>
> So Southampton to Cambridge route London means it's valid from Southampton
> to Waterloo, but also Victoria (there are direct trains) and maybe
> Paddington too. (and Vauxhall and possibly Charing Cross, London Bridge and
> others if there are valid routes to those)
>

Via Paddington should be valid, I've occasionally had reason to use that
route in the past when travelling between Southampton and London, so
would assume it was still valid for a longer journey crossing London.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<t4uqi4$pgt$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29100&group=uk.railway#29100

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@privacy.invalid (NY)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 22:17:49 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 1
Message-ID: <t4uqi4$pgt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com> <fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com> <1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com> <Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 21:17:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e8409638a6cf49d1917ee566117e69ed";
logging-data="26141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19L9Ra/+kSsjouGuYRqqinT9MdPPi4tkjY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sn/WW64f/BegRPDaFaC1MvEKuo0=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
In-Reply-To: <Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
Importance: Normal
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220504-10, 4/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: NY - Wed, 4 May 2022 21:17 UTC

Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk...

> If your ticket says "Not via London", it's impossible to travel,
> erm, via London, and you have to pick another route (but still an
> allowable one).

Does "not via London" mean terminus stations, or does it also include any
interchange station *near* to a terminal (for some definition of "near)?

In other words, could you get a train on the MML, the WCML, the ECML etc
that stopped at a station that interchanged with the North London Line, and
use that to skirt round the centre and continue by another line that
interchanged with the NLL. Likewise for interchange at Clapham Junction.

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<t4uqkj$qcf$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29101&group=uk.railway#29101

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@privacy.invalid (NY)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 22:19:08 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <t4uqkj$qcf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com> <fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com> <1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com> <Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 21:19:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e8409638a6cf49d1917ee566117e69ed";
logging-data="27023"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5hz0fo8B6Jfz3lrPtC8cw50aWwSKmTGU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r0nV27eFhd5BF7LuiExMQFmcVIk=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
In-Reply-To: <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
Importance: Normal
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220504-10, 4/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: NY - Wed, 4 May 2022 21:19 UTC

Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Confusingly, routes which go through the London area but don't touch a
> London Terminal aren't 'London'. So via Clapham Junction, Kensington
> Olympia or the North London Line are valid on a 'not London' ticket.

Ah, that answers the question above that I've just asked.

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<j5v67h5upmf44s19btrg9vvadp8eus0ia9@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29103&group=uk.railway#29103

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 08:31:15 +0100
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <j5v67h5upmf44s19btrg9vvadp8eus0ia9@4ax.com>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com> <fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com> <1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com> <Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net XD/5FaW8TiGChIyF+cuzuQoOQ+Z1c+DJ8xl2kj/MWw2az0YQoJ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qd2+6FvdjRPpvc99AxQNQUpQNG8=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Thu, 5 May 2022 07:31 UTC

On Wed, 4 May 2022 19:24:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>, at 16:20:20 on
>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 13:41:04 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>, at 12:15:54 on
>>>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 11:08:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>, at 09:34:40 on
>>>>>Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>On Wed, 4 May 2022 04:22:12 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>><anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 19:14:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>, at 18:03:51 on
>>>>>>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>>>>>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable route.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and choose an
>>>>>>>>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess or prosecute
>>>>>>>>>> you, how would they prove that the routing condition was imported into
>>>>>>>>>> the contract? My guess is that the answer lies in the Conditions of
>>>>>>>>>> Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which the
>>>>>>>>>ticket is
>>>>>>>>> delivered. When you booked online, did they not send you an itinerary?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>>>>>>> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>>>>>>> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>>>>>>> imported later?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when booking) not
>>>>>>>later (after you enter the station)? The parking equivalent would probably
>>>>>>>be booking airport parking ahead of time and being given a list of
>>>>>>>conditions specific to the tariff you've paid, which then aren't repeated
>>>>>>>on a sign at the entrance barrier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>This seems to be the case, but I still wonder in the example I gave
>>>>>>(Smartcard) in what way they can be said to have been added. If there
>>>>>>is a dispute, how does the prosecutor prove that the passenger was
>>>>>>told about the route limitation if the passenger is caught following a
>>>>>>different route?
>>>>>
>>>>>If they were caught, they'd normally either have to pay a "Penalty Fare"
>>>>>or the fare for the actual journey being undertaken. Although there's an
>>>>>option to be immediately prosecuted, that would be rare. If you were
>>>>>travelling on a Smart ticket I'd expect the replacement to be a paper
>>>>>ticket, but I'm not clear how they'd cancel the smart ticket (ie the
>>>>>equivalent of punching a hole to cancel a paper ticket) especially if it
>>>>>was the outbound half of a return.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for whether it was 'right and proper' for them to be surcharged like
>>>>>that, the Conditions of Travel are quite clear that people need to have
>>>>>a valid ticket. And it's up to the passenger to use the various
>>>>>information published (including when they bought the ticket) or make
>>>>>enquiries with the railways, to ensure they are.
>>>>
>>>>I take your point, and no doubt this must be correct. However, I
>>>>still think there might be difficulty in persuading a magistrate if
>>>>the accused's position was that he was unaware of the rule and was
>>>>acting in good faith travelling from A to B in possession of a ticket
>>>>from A to B.
>>>
>>>As I said earlier, it's unlikely to ever come before a magistrate (other
>>>than as a separate offence of failing to pay a penalty fare). And of
>>>course if it was a direct train from A to B it would very likely always
>>>be valid.
>>
>>Presumably because the rules are so complicated the prosecutor would
>>not be confident about proving the case.
>
>No, the train staff would prefer to get the uplifted fare off the
>traveller there and then, rather than send the incident off for
>prosecution, which would cost their company an order of magnitude more.
>
Of course, but what I am suggesting is that if certain cases were
referred for prosecution, the prosecutor may take the view that there
is no reasonable prospect of conviction whatever the rights and wrongs
of the routeing manual.

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<UHiQ3mtp04ciFAhG@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29104&group=uk.railway#29104

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 09:39:05 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <UHiQ3mtp04ciFAhG@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
<Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <t4uqi4$pgt$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: individual.net p2gw+1uZ5rYcgOJ8BmhrJAZufkHlDXXcs56dgxuTlU06TasN/F
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1U890BY988zaAQQwLPmBsNqAMGs=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5xj5fFN1$jhQR1U9PhW62mVNOF>)
 by: Roland Perry - Thu, 5 May 2022 08:39 UTC

In message <t4uqi4$pgt$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:17:49 on Wed, 4 May 2022,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:Ugug+5jaTsciFA
>DL@perry.uk...
>
>> If your ticket says "Not via London", it's impossible to travel,
>> erm, via London, and you have to pick another route (but still an
>>allowable one).
>
>Does "not via London" mean terminus stations, or does it also include
>any interchange station *near* to a terminal (for some definition of
>"near)?

You'd think they could find a way to explain that in this rather too
long web page:

<https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/Travelling-to-
london.aspx>

But it doesn't leap out.

My interpretation would be OK as long as you didn't travel through a
London Terminal; but note there's four stations on that page which while
*not* London Terminals, are "considered to be for ticketing purposes".
How confusing is that for the uninitiated?

What I think they are getting at is they are members of yet another club
called "London Group".

>In other words, could you get a train on the MML, the WCML, the ECML
>etc that stopped at a station that interchanged with the North London
>Line, and use that to skirt round the centre and continue by another
>line that interchanged with the NLL. Likewise for interchange at
>Clapham Junction.

The quickest way to find that out is do a mystery shop at a ticketing
site.
--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<QHnRn$t924ciFAhH@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29105&group=uk.railway#29105

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 09:41:33 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <QHnRn$t924ciFAhH@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
<Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <j5v67h5upmf44s19btrg9vvadp8eus0ia9@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net DguIkAsMJqpvICVwAIFBIwZIv89qu2ZDSeEbQjWIYFoarreFNG
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jErQK/43wH8KBPrySBF074BPdcg=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5xj5fFN1$jhQR1U9PhW62mVNOF>)
 by: Roland Perry - Thu, 5 May 2022 08:41 UTC

In message <j5v67h5upmf44s19btrg9vvadp8eus0ia9@4ax.com>, at 08:31:15 on
Thu, 5 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>>>>>>>> I know with a printed ticket there is either a 'via' or 'not via' or
>>>>>>>>>>> 'any reasonable route'. I think there are complex rules defining a
>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable route.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, what happens if you buy a Smartcard ticket and
>>>>>>>>>>> unreasonable route? If the train company wants to excess
>>>>>>>>>>>or prosecute you, how would they prove that the routing
>>>>>>>>>>>condition was imported into the contract? My guess is that
>>>>>>>>>>>the answer lies in the Conditions of Carriage, but does anyone know in practice?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The allowable routing is disjoint from the medium by which
>>>>>>>>>> ticket is delivered. When you booked online, did they not
>>>>>>>>>>send you an itinerary?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But what about the argument that is often applied at carparks, that
>>>>>>>>> the driver must be made aware of the terms at the point of entry (ie,
>>>>>>>>> when the contract is formed) and additional contract terms cannot be
>>>>>>>>> imported later?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The 'additional terms' are surely being added *earlier* (when
>>>>>>>>booking) not later (after you enter the station)? The parking
>>>>>>>>equivalent would probably be booking airport parking ahead of
>>>>>>>>time and being given a list of conditions specific to the tariff
>>>>>>>>you've paid, which then aren't repeated on a sign at the entrance barrier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This seems to be the case, but I still wonder in the example I gave
>>>>>>>(Smartcard) in what way they can be said to have been added. If there
>>>>>>>is a dispute, how does the prosecutor prove that the passenger was
>>>>>>>told about the route limitation if the passenger is caught following a
>>>>>>>different route?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If they were caught, they'd normally either have to pay a "Penalty Fare"
>>>>>>or the fare for the actual journey being undertaken. Although there's an
>>>>>>option to be immediately prosecuted, that would be rare. If you were
>>>>>>travelling on a Smart ticket I'd expect the replacement to be a paper
>>>>>>ticket, but I'm not clear how they'd cancel the smart ticket (ie the
>>>>>>equivalent of punching a hole to cancel a paper ticket) especially if it
>>>>>>was the outbound half of a return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As for whether it was 'right and proper' for them to be surcharged like
>>>>>>that, the Conditions of Travel are quite clear that people need to have
>>>>>>a valid ticket. And it's up to the passenger to use the various
>>>>>>information published (including when they bought the ticket) or make
>>>>>>enquiries with the railways, to ensure they are.
>>>>>
>>>>>I take your point, and no doubt this must be correct. However, I
>>>>>still think there might be difficulty in persuading a magistrate if
>>>>>the accused's position was that he was unaware of the rule and was
>>>>>acting in good faith travelling from A to B in possession of a ticket
>>>>>from A to B.
>>>>
>>>>As I said earlier, it's unlikely to ever come before a magistrate (other
>>>>than as a separate offence of failing to pay a penalty fare). And of
>>>>course if it was a direct train from A to B it would very likely always
>>>>be valid.
>>>
>>>Presumably because the rules are so complicated the prosecutor would
>>>not be confident about proving the case.
>>
>>No, the train staff would prefer to get the uplifted fare off the
>>traveller there and then, rather than send the incident off for
>>prosecution, which would cost their company an order of magnitude more.
>>
>Of course, but what I am suggesting is that if certain cases were
>referred for prosecution, the prosecutor may take the view that there
>is no reasonable prospect of conviction whatever the rights and wrongs
>of the routeing manual.

Given the billions of trips made with various restrictions, if that had
happened, we would perhaps have heard about it. And they'd have tweaked
the legal framework (maybe an extra word here or there in the Conditions
of Travel) to make sure it didn't happen again.
--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<uxC+6uwqc5ciFA0D@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29107&group=uk.railway#29107

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 10:21:46 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <uxC+6uwqc5ciFA0D@perry.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
<Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net IyZbkxC5dtXbi5KsDgdn4Qxy7xDIj0Yod1CGIvjahCgFj09RCZ
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wfqtVbsOwR5der0myjQATFQZPDo=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<52l5fZdV$jhVf1U93hT62mJV+y>)
 by: Roland Perry - Thu, 5 May 2022 09:21 UTC

In message <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 20:46:34 on Wed,
4 May 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>, at 16:20:20 on
>> Wed, 4 May 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>> >Does 'via London' mean you are required to travel via London (whatever
>> >that means)?
>>
>> In that context, the only routes which were valid were via Waterloo and
>> Kings Cross. I've conflated that into "London". "Via London" is not a
>> formal category, whereas "NOT via London" is.
>
>A to B 'Route London' means a route from A to a London Terminal, and then a
>route from another London Terminal to B. It's like holding an A-London
>ticket, a London-B ticket, and a tube single that's only valid between
>certain tube stations.
>
>So Southampton to Cambridge route London means it's valid from Southampton
>to Waterloo, but also Victoria (there are direct trains) and maybe
>Paddington too. (and Vauxhall and possibly Charing Cross, London Bridge and
>others if there are valid routes to those)
>
>Meanwhile London to Cambridge is valid from King's Cross, Liverpool St, and
>St Pancras (Thameslink).

And that day I picked Waterloo and Kings Cross.

We appear to be in fierce agreement so far.

Although it's always worth checking routes using the Cambridge-Liverpool
St service because the routing guide was changed perhaps five years
(about when they brought in dreadful new UI) to exclude it as part of a
longer journey, for some tickets, rather than being automatic.

>Confusingly, routes which go through the London area but don't touch a
>London Terminal aren't 'London'. So via Clapham Junction, Kensington
>Olympia or the North London Line are valid on a 'not London' ticket.

I think we'd need to spend a while confirming
Nottingham-West_Hampstead-Stratford-Cambridge would be a valid avoiding
route. It seems unlikely given the "Not via London" fare is less than
half the "Any Permitted", and all the jaunt along the NLL does is
abstract a few miles from the total journey distance.

>These are separate to whether the routeing guide has a valid route from A to
>B that goes via Clapham/etc. For example Southampton to Bedford has a valid
>route via London (ie as above, but via St Pancras instead of KGX/LST), but
>another route via Bletchley, so you could go Southampton-Clapham
>Junction-West London Line-Willesden-WCML-Bletchley-Bedford and that would be
>'not London' for ticketing purposes.

In my original example involving Southampton there isn't a "Not via
London" option available, it's simply the case that the more scenic
routes do not include going as far north as Birmingham. I was wanting to
do that to get better, less crowded, trains with on-board catering, but
I'd have needed to get two tickets.

>An Any Permitted ticket would allow both, a 'Route London' ticket only
>via Waterloo/etc, and a 'not London' only via the WLL.

If there are both flavours of ticket on offer.
--
Roland Perry

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<aKk*mHoNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29109&group=uk.railway#29109

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!nntp.terraraq.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Theo)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: 05 May 2022 11:04:32 +0100 (BST)
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <aKk*mHoNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com> <OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com> <t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com> <fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com> <1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com> <Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <uxC+6uwqc5ciFA0D@perry.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chiark.greenend.org.uk
X-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1651745074 5390 212.13.197.229 (5 May 2022 10:04:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@chiark.greenend.org.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 10:04:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (Linux/3.16.0-11-amd64 (x86_64))
Originator: theom@chiark.greenend.org.uk ([212.13.197.229])
 by: Theo - Thu, 5 May 2022 10:04 UTC

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 20:46:34 on Wed,
> 4 May 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Although it's always worth checking routes using the Cambridge-Liverpool
> St service because the routing guide was changed perhaps five years
> (about when they brought in dreadful new UI) to exclude it as part of a
> longer journey, for some tickets, rather than being automatic.

Unless there's a negative easement for that specific route, any ticket
Cambridge to/from <somewhere else> that is routed 'London', or having
'London' as one of the permitted routes in the routeing guide, will by
definition be available from 'London' to/from Cambridge. And LST is
definitely a permitted route for London<->Cambridge, so it becomes a valid
route on the journey <somewhere else>-Cambridge.

Can you point to such an easement?

> >Confusingly, routes which go through the London area but don't touch a
> >London Terminal aren't 'London'. So via Clapham Junction, Kensington
> >Olympia or the North London Line are valid on a 'not London' ticket.
>
> I think we'd need to spend a while confirming
> Nottingham-West_Hampstead-Stratford-Cambridge would be a valid avoiding
> route. It seems unlikely given the "Not via London" fare is less than
> half the "Any Permitted", and all the jaunt along the NLL does is
> abstract a few miles from the total journey distance.

'Valid' in the sense of 'possible if the routeing guide has a route that
allows you to go that way' and your ticket includes that route, rather than
'valid in all circumstances'. Southampton-Cambridge only has a route of
'London' so you can't go via Olympia even if you wanted to, while
Southampton-Bedford does have a 'not London' route via the WLL and WCML.
But what you seemingly couldn't do is WLL-NLL-Thameslink as that's not
covered by the WLL/WCML map, nor by 'London' as it doesn't touch a London
Terminal.

> In my original example involving Southampton there isn't a "Not via
> London" option available, it's simply the case that the more scenic
> routes do not include going as far north as Birmingham. I was wanting to
> do that to get better, less crowded, trains with on-board catering, but
> I'd have needed to get two tickets.

I suppose it's possible XC could sell a Southampton to Cambridge 'route
Birmingham' ticket, which isn't a Permitted Route so you couldn't use an Any
Permitted ticket but you could use this special ticket. I'm not aware of
any circumstances where Any Permitted doesn't cover routes you might be able
to do with route-specific tickets, but maybe such examples do exist.

> >An Any Permitted ticket would allow both, a 'Route London' ticket only
> >via Waterloo/etc, and a 'not London' only via the WLL.
>
> If there are both flavours of ticket on offer.

Indeed. There is no guarantee that any particular flow will have 'route X'
or 'not Y' tickets actually for sale. Many routes just have Any Permitted.

Theo

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<t50ed9$ku4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29111&group=uk.railway#29111

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: non...@nowhere.net (Certes)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 13:02:49 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <t50ed9$ku4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
<Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <cKk*gylNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
<uxC+6uwqc5ciFA0D@perry.uk> <aKk*mHoNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 12:02:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d72fa8f16cf4462ddcd0fe90271f666a";
logging-data="21444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+cuBEWTYuhpgxuYevvaRSs"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qWp/DHn0RwSsKZ6iFKgps5X8I8k=
In-Reply-To: <aKk*mHoNy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Certes - Thu, 5 May 2022 12:02 UTC

On 05/05/2022 11:04, Theo wrote:
> I suppose it's possible XC could sell a Southampton to Cambridge 'route
> Birmingham' ticket, which isn't a Permitted Route so you couldn't use an Any
> Permitted ticket but you could use this special ticket. I'm not aware of
> any circumstances where Any Permitted doesn't cover routes you might be able
> to do with route-specific tickets, but maybe such examples do exist.

HS1 is the obvious case, and Heathrow Express has been excluded too, but
I'd also be interested to hear of any cases on NR rails.

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<t50f0t$qdl$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29112&group=uk.railway#29112

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: non...@nowhere.net (Certes)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 13:13:16 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <t50f0t$qdl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
<Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <t4uqi4$pgt$1@dont-email.me>
<UHiQ3mtp04ciFAhG@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 12:13:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d72fa8f16cf4462ddcd0fe90271f666a";
logging-data="27061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18z38tadWiZ+2k/BQH8t/AM"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:c31Bugl2cyTUqOGFJhnIO4c0LBM=
In-Reply-To: <UHiQ3mtp04ciFAhG@perry.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Certes - Thu, 5 May 2022 12:13 UTC

On 05/05/2022 09:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t4uqi4$pgt$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:17:49 on Wed, 4 May 2022,
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>> Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:Ugug+5jaTsciFA
>> DL@perry.uk...
>>
>>> If your ticket says "Not via London", it's impossible to travel,
>>> erm, via London, and you have to pick another route (but still an
>>> allowable one).
>>
>> Does "not via London" mean terminus stations, or does it also include
>> any interchange station *near* to a terminal (for some definition of
>> "near)?
>
> You'd think they could find a way to explain that in this rather too
> long web page:
>
> <https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/Travelling-to-
> london.aspx>
>
> But it doesn't leap out.
>
> My interpretation would be OK as long as you didn't travel through a
> London Terminal; but note there's four stations on that page which while
> *not* London Terminals, are "considered to be for ticketing purposes".
> How confusing is that for the uninitiated?
>
> What I think they are getting at is they are members of yet another club
> called "London Group".
>
>> In other words, could you get a train on the MML, the WCML, the ECML
>> etc that stopped at a station that interchanged with the North London
>> Line, and use that to skirt round the centre and continue by another
>> line that interchanged with the NLL. Likewise for interchange at
>> Clapham Junction.
>
> The quickest way to find that out is do a mystery shop at a ticketing
> site.

London Terminals is a specific list and doesn't correspond exactly to
London termini (i.e. places where trains reverse). As the Travelling to
London page points out, four London Terminals are through stations.
London Bridge and Blackfriars also have plenty of through trains, as
did Kings Cross at one point. Paddington and Liverpool Street should
also become through "Terminals" soon.

The problem with routes like Midlands to Cambridge via the NLL
isn't the proximity to London. It's either the absence of the local
London lines from relevant Routing Guide maps, or the fact that the
fare to an intermediate station would exceed the fare being paid.

Re: Ticket question - reasonable route

<t50f3i$qdl$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29113&group=uk.railway#29113

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: non...@nowhere.net (Certes)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Ticket question - reasonable route
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 13:14:42 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <t50f3i$qdl$2@dont-email.me>
References: <6qn27h1mq4ft55n6urgr60qct6alcctat4@4ax.com>
<OtK29M7JEXciFARB@perry.uk> <3js27h9qmc3anvlh0e8eloo829bt1qkksl@4ax.com>
<t4sv1k$mtg$1@dont-email.me> <cfe47hp8dauv4pr9ojuspnafit85reafqp@4ax.com>
<fjeS+RKaClciFAzT@perry.uk> <jvn47hpg2pi1gap90412rlrp7p6o39j0ad@4ax.com>
<1HwYX2RgRnciFA1i@perry.uk> <22657hhh3infqlq3e4irq2n5neghsoakmo@4ax.com>
<Ugug+5jaTsciFADL@perry.uk> <t4uqi4$pgt$1@dont-email.me>
<UHiQ3mtp04ciFAhG@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 12:14:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d72fa8f16cf4462ddcd0fe90271f666a";
logging-data="27061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WV9iNLtm6ToqPvckF/xwZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xXpOQMLc19lCwn9qlc1wckOgBuo=
In-Reply-To: <UHiQ3mtp04ciFAhG@perry.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Certes - Thu, 5 May 2022 12:14 UTC

On 05/05/2022 09:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t4uqi4$pgt$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:17:49 on Wed, 4 May 2022,
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>> Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:Ugug+5jaTsciFA
>> DL@perry.uk...
>>
>>> If your ticket says "Not via London", it's impossible to travel,
>>> erm, via London, and you have to pick another route (but still an
>>> allowable one).
>>
>> Does "not via London" mean terminus stations, or does it also include
>> any interchange station *near* to a terminal (for some definition of
>> "near)?
>
> You'd think they could find a way to explain that in this rather too
> long web page:
>
> <https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/Travelling-to-
> london.aspx>
>
> But it doesn't leap out.
>
> My interpretation would be OK as long as you didn't travel through a
> London Terminal; but note there's four stations on that page which while
> *not* London Terminals, are "considered to be for ticketing purposes".
> How confusing is that for the uninitiated?
>
> What I think they are getting at is they are members of yet another club
> called "London Group".
>
>> In other words, could you get a train on the MML, the WCML, the ECML
>> etc that stopped at a station that interchanged with the North London
>> Line, and use that to skirt round the centre and continue by another
>> line that interchanged with the NLL. Likewise for interchange at
>> Clapham Junction.
>
> The quickest way to find that out is do a mystery shop at a ticketing
> site.
>
London Terminals is a specific list and doesn't correspond exactly to
London termini (i.e. places where trains reverse). As the Travelling to
London page points out, four London Terminals are through stations.
London Bridge and Blackfriars also have plenty of through trains, as
did Kings Cross at one point. Paddington and Liverpool Street should
also become through "Terminals" soon.

The problem with routes like Midlands to Cambridge via the NLL
isn't the proximity to London. It's either the absence of the local
London lines from relevant Routing Guide maps, or the fact that the
fare to an intermediate station would exceed the fare being paid.

(My apologies if this post appears twice: it seemed to disappear.)

Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor