A little routeing puzzle for you. Today I got the train from Wimbledon
to Staines. I looked it up on the planner yesterday and it gave me a
route via Clapham Junction for £3.50 (with YPR). When I got to Wimbledon
I was given (by the machine) a ticket marked NOT LONDON, for the same
price, £3.50. I had doubts but decided to go via Clapham anyway, as the
price was the same and the planner didn't mind. At Clapham I found an
SWT official and asked him about the ticket, thinking that I might not
be allowed this route, but he said it was fine.

Now, because of the Richmond loop there are indeed two routes to
Staines, one clockwise and one counter-clockwise (actually three if you
count via Weybridge, but I think it's forbidden). One would have thought
that 'not London' would force one to go clockwise round the loop. So who
was right? Logic or the official? And if the official was right, what
can be the purpose of disallowing London?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Alex.

"Alex Watson" wrote in message
...
A little routeing puzzle for you. Today I got the train from Wimbledon
to Staines. I looked it up on the planner yesterday and it gave me a
route via Clapham Junction for £3.50 (with YPR). When I got to Wimbledon
I was given (by the machine) a ticket marked NOT LONDON, for the same
price, £3.50. I had doubts but decided to go via Clapham anyway, as the
price was the same and the planner didn't mind. At Clapham I found an
SWT official and asked him about the ticket, thinking that I might not
be allowed this route, but he said it was fine.

Now, because of the Richmond loop there are indeed two routes to
Staines, one clockwise and one counter-clockwise (actually three if you
count via Weybridge, but I think it's forbidden). One would have thought
that 'not London' would force one to go clockwise round the loop. So who
was right? Logic or the official? And if the official was right, what
can be the purpose of disallowing London?


AIUI "London" is the London terminals rather than the conurbation,
especially as your journey started within it.

Brimstone wrote:
Now, because of the Richmond loop there are indeed two routes to
Staines, one clockwise and one counter-clockwise (actually three if you
count via Weybridge, but I think it's forbidden). One would have thought
that 'not London' would force one to go clockwise round the loop. So who
was right? Logic or the official? And if the official was right, what
can be the purpose of disallowing London?

AIUI "London" is the London terminals rather than the conurbation,
especially as your journey started within it.

That's what I'd think usually, but in this specific case I can't see any
reason to forbid London terminals, especially as Waterloo is the only
London terminal with services to Staines. If London always means
terminals, though, maybe this is just an anomaly...

Alex.

"Alex Watson" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:
Now, because of the Richmond loop there are indeed two routes to
Staines, one clockwise and one counter-clockwise (actually three if you
count via Weybridge, but I think it's forbidden). One would have thought
that 'not London' would force one to go clockwise round the loop. So who
was right? Logic or the official? And if the official was right, what
can be the purpose of disallowing London?

AIUI "London" is the London terminals rather than the conurbation,
especially as your journey started within it.

That's what I'd think usually, but in this specific case I can't see any
reason to forbid London terminals,

The reason is to stop you double backing between Waterloo
and CJ. If you want to do this the fare is higher (by the cost
of a return W-CJ for each direction of travel)

especially as Waterloo is the only
London terminal with services to Staines.

Why is this relevent? They stop at CJ and even if they didn't
you still wouldn't be able to change at Waterloo without paying
the higher fare.

If London always means terminals,

It does.

though, maybe this is just an anomaly...

What's an anomaly? Where sensible for the rest of the route,
changing at CJ is a valid route for all 'not london' tickets.

tim

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:23:49 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
wrote:

If London always means terminals,

It does.

Not relevant to this case, but one thing I've never been clear on is
whether Kensington Olympia counts as a London terminal for the
purposes of "NOT LONDON" ticketing, rather than just all the stations
that have "London" in their name. I suspect it may do, but I'm not
sure.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:23:49 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
wrote:

Now, because of the Richmond loop there are indeed two routes to
Staines, one clockwise and one counter-clockwise (actually three if you
count via Weybridge, but I think it's forbidden). One would have thought
that 'not London' would force one to go clockwise round the loop. So who
was right? Logic or the official? And if the official was right, what
can be the purpose of disallowing London?

AIUI "London" is the London terminals rather than the conurbation,
especially as your journey started within it.

That's what I'd think usually, but in this specific case I can't see any
reason to forbid London terminals,

The reason is to stop you double backing between Waterloo
and CJ. If you want to do this the fare is higher (by the cost
of a return W-CJ for each direction of travel)

Also because you could take Thameslink from Wimbledon to Blackfriars,
then transfer to Waterloo (another way of getting a free trip to
London included in the price).

especially as Waterloo is the only
London terminal with services to Staines.

Why is this relevent? They stop at CJ and even if they didn't
you still wouldn't be able to change at Waterloo without paying
the higher fare.

IIRC there is actually a specific easement in the Routeing Guide
allowing doubling-back between CJ and Waterloo.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:23:49 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
wrote:

If London always means terminals,

It does.

Not relevant to this case, but one thing I've never been clear on is
whether Kensington Olympia counts as a London terminal for the
purposes of "NOT LONDON" ticketing, rather than just all the stations
that have "London" in their name. I suspect it may do, but I'm not
sure.

I travelled Oxford to Clapham Junction "not London" on a virgin to Olympia
and then a silverlink. I checked with the conductor on the virgin soon
after boarding at Oxford (so that I could get off at Reading and get on SWT
if necessary), and she assured me it was valid. This was about five years
ago.

Michael

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:
AIUI "London" is the London terminals rather than the conurbation,
especially as your journey started within it.

That's what I'd think usually, but in this specific case I can't see any
reason to forbid London terminals,

The reason is to stop you double backing between Waterloo
and CJ. If you want to do this the fare is higher (by the cost
of a return W-CJ for each direction of travel)

I see. Isn't doubling back forbidden by the routeing guide anyway?

especially as Waterloo is the only
London terminal with services to Staines.

Why is this relevent? They stop at CJ and even if they didn't
you still wouldn't be able to change at Waterloo without paying
the higher fare.

Now that you explain it obviously it's not relevant, but my original
thoughts were that 'not london' might be to stop you transferring
through London to another operator, leaving from another terminal. (And
as asdf points out it does prevent this in the case of a Thameslink into
London.)

Alex.

"Alex Watson" wrote in message
...
tim (moved to sweden) wrote:
AIUI "London" is the London terminals rather than the conurbation,
especially as your journey started within it.

That's what I'd think usually, but in this specific case I can't see any
reason to forbid London terminals,

The reason is to stop you double backing between Waterloo
and CJ. If you want to do this the fare is higher (by the cost
of a return W-CJ for each direction of travel)

I see. Isn't doubling back forbidden by the routeing guide anyway?

In general yes, but for journeys on the 'southern' via CJ there
has been a 'via' london fare for as long as I can remember.

For some journeys it makse sense to pay the extra.

tim

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

In general yes, but for journeys on the 'southern' via CJ there
has been a 'via' london fare for as long as I can remember.

For some journeys it makse sense to pay the extra.

....for example, if you are going to Portsmouth/Southampton/pretty much
any long-distance SWT destinations, where the fastest trains annoyingly
don't stop at CJ.