Re: Valid Routing Query
- From: embers25 <embers2525@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Leaving aside the fact that Woking - Slough via the route you chose is
not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination (and it's
*reasonableness* that staff on the ground will work on, as they have no
Routeing Guide access beyond what's programmed into Avantix Mobile), one
of the problems with the eNRG is that the labels showing links between
maps disappeared a number of revisions ago, thereby making the whole
thing a fruitless exercise, as the mere appearance of a Routeing Point
on two maps doesn't necessarily mean that you can use it as a changeover
point!
Agreed it's not reasonable but reasonableness isn't a criteria for
permitted routes. I quote page F8 of ATOC's national routing guide in
detail (http://www.atoc.org/rsp/Routeing_Guide/nrg_detail.pdf) "Many
journeys cannot be traced on a single map and need linking with other
maps to allow a complete tracing. Sheffield to Inverness has a route CE
+ER which means use map CE and then map ER. You may only trace
journeys across maps at the points where
they touch. CE and ER touch at Nottingham, Grimsby, Doncaster,
Wakefield, Leeds, York, Hull, Goole and Selby so one of those
locations must be in the journey."
Surely this confirms my argument that Exeter is valid as a changeover
point. Also surely by your theory their own example on page F14 from
Par to Pontypridd shouldn't be valid via Westbury and Gloucester as
thats not reasonable yet it is valid by their own admission.
My ticket is routing point to routing point and so the fares rule is
irrelevant so where is the rule are you basing your view on that
certain changing points are not valid. Also how is a member of the
public supposed to know which ones ATOC will allow. I entered into a
contract with ATOC and SWT and so can you show me explicitly which
printed rule I violated as rules of contract must be displayed and I
followed all. this is also not fruitless as there are numerous cases
like this country wide as the routing guide is hopelessly flawed based
on its current instructions. I admit again my route is unreasonable
but that does not make it invalid. Clearly if travelling from London
to Huddersfield from page F17 "PN+EE+WA allows via Cambridge, Ely,
Peterborough, Lincoln and Leeds. The full range of permitted routes
includes travel via York." Clearly based on your argument this should
also not be valid as this route is clearly unreasonable and yet it is
valid as it is mapped.
As for the original example, WebTIS suggests Woking - Guildford -
Reading - Slough, and there's also a route Windsor ticket for which the
suggested route is Woking - Weybridge - Staines - Windsor & Eton
Riverside - Windsor & Eton Central - Slough.
Both routes above are not mapped on WR+WX (the only maps available)
and therefore not valid based on WR+WX as ATOC have confirmed.
Neither is Woking-Virginia Water (sunday direct service)-Reading-
Slough. The Guildford option is also not the shortest route as that
is via Farnboro M and Farnboro N. I know it seems weird that you
would expect someone to cross Farnboro but they do in many cases. For
example Petersfield to Fleet is only valid Petersfield-
Guildford_Farnboro N and M-Fleet not via Woking based on the maps.
Saying all this Barry I have been on this group long enough to know
that if anyone is an expert on tickets you are. Therefore obviously
if you question validity I am listening. Using just the information
available online on the ATOC website which is all a traveller could be
expected to use (as it says in ncoc) could you please show me where it
specifcally bans my route as surey their own examples only enhance my
argument.
Thanks
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Valid Routing Query
- From: embers25
- Re: Valid Routing Query
- From: Roland Perry
- Re: Valid Routing Query
- References:
- Valid Routing Query
- From: embers25
- Re: Valid Routing Query
- From: Mark Morton
- Re: Valid Routing Query
- From: embers25
- Re: Valid Routing Query
- From: Paul Harley
- Re: Valid Routing Query
- From: embers25
- Re: Valid Routing Query
- From: Barry Salter
- Valid Routing Query
- Prev by Date: Re: Bridport
- Next by Date: Re: Bridport
- Previous by thread: Re: Valid Routing Query
- Next by thread: Re: Valid Routing Query
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading