"Break of Journey"

Its a good question Mike, and the key is in 2)

RJ said:

railway should be accountable?

Click to expand...

Accountable for what? In this very specific case, the "railway" is being released from its obligations, with full payment, thanks to the failure of the contract to require a ticket holder to travel.

No, I do not consider it would be morally defensible to charge more for NOT "doubling back"

MikeWh said:

1) Use ticket for full journey - no extra charge
2) Don't use ticket at all - no extra charge
3) Use ticket for part of journey - potentially horrendous extra charge

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can disagree with the statement that buying a ticket gives you the right to travel according to the terms you agreed to when you bought the ticket. In the case of an advance ticket the terms permit a journey from A to B at a particular date and time, and nothing else. You can choose whether to exercise this right (option 1) or not (option 2), but the conditions of an advance ticket do not give you the right to make any journey other than the one you have booked (such as the journey in option 3). I don't see anything illogical in that. If you want a ticket that permits you to make a journey from A to B-or-anywhere-between-A-and-B then there are plenty of other ticket types to choose from.

Whether the advance ticket terms are reasonable or not is an entirely separate issue...

button_boxer said:

Whether the advance ticket terms are reasonable or not is an entirely separate issue...

Click to expand...

Indeed. I don't dispute what the rules are. I've accepted them on a number of occasions. What I find interesting is that those members of this forum who presumably work for the railways (perhaps their identities are known by their superiors?) find it incredibly difficult to actually say whether they think the terms are fair/reasonable or not. Perhaps you'd like to give your view?

Suppose there is a fourth station D in between A and B, so the sequence of stations is A-D-B-C and the train calls at each of these in sequence.

You have an Advance ticket for A-C and an Anytime ticket for D-B.

When the Advance train arrives at D, you hop off and catch a local train D-B.

Advance ticket regulation: "You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station"

You obviously haven't started your journey at D.
You haven't broken and resumed your journey at D either, if you believe that break of journey involves leaving the station. (Which seems to be a general consensus, on this forum at least. It is also defined as such in the NrCoC.)

The only way this is invalid is if you are deemed to have ended your journey at D. There are TWO reasons why this cannot be the case:

1. NrCoC condition 19.
"You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire
journey": the two tickets cover your journey A-B in the sense that at no point are you on a train or on a station without a valid ticket.

"the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one
ticket to another": station D is the point where you switch from relying on ticket A-C to relying on ticket D-B, and the train does indeed call at D.

Hence, with two tickets, you are making one journey A-B, so D is not the end of your journey.

2. Your journey can end only when you leave railway property.
I can't find a formal statement of this anywhere, but I don't see how you can have ended your journey if you are still inside the station and you intend to catch another train!

Conclusion: you haven't started, broken or ended your journey at the intermediate station D so you have complied with the Advance ticket regulations. This is a valid way to travel using those two tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The final blow is that nowhere did I say or assume that the local train D-B is different from the Advance train A-C. In fact, you could hop off and straight back on again in the minute's stop at D, or just stay on the train.

AeroSpace said:

Suppose there is a fourth station D in between A and B, so the sequence of stations is A-D-B-C and the train calls at each of these in sequence.

You have an Advance ticket for A-C and an Anytime ticket for D-B.

When the Advance train arrives at D, you hop off and catch a local train D-B.

Advance ticket regulation: "You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station"

You obviously haven't started your journey at D.
You haven't broken and resumed your journey at D either, if you believe that break of journey involves leaving the station. (Which seems to be a general consensus, on this forum at least. It is also defined as such in the NrCoC.)

The only way this is invalid is if you are deemed to have ended your journey at D. There are TWO reasons why this cannot be the case:

1. NrCoC condition 19.
"You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire
journey": the two tickets cover your journey A-B in the sense that at no point are you on a train or on a station without a valid ticket.

"the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one
ticket to another": station D is the point where you switch from relying on ticket A-C to relying on ticket D-B, and the train does indeed call at D.

Hence, with two tickets, you are making one journey A-B, so D is not the end of your journey.

2. Your journey can end only when you leave railway property.
I can't find a formal statement of this anywhere, but I don't see how you can have ended your journey if you are still inside the station and you intend to catch another train!

Conclusion: you haven't started, broken or ended your journey at the intermediate station D so you have complied with the Advance ticket regulations. This is a valid way to travel using those two tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The final blow is that nowhere did I say or assume that the local train D-B is different from the Advance train A-C. In fact, you could hop off and straight back on again in the minute's stop at D, or just stay on the train.

Click to expand...

Do we have to do all this supposing :-x? It brings up confusion and seems to be a little bit of an attempt to stir up arguments as much as anything else; even if curiosity is the aim, it has that effect anyway.

But anyway, if I understand this rather twisted example it's certainly not valid if you change trains, as your A-C advance is only valid on one train, so when getting on at B to go to C you'd be on the wrong train*. And if you were on the same train you'd have no reason to buy an anytime ticket between D-B because you're already on the bloody train that passes through them going A-C!

*Unless, if we're really being pedantic, the D-B train you change on to is faster than the D-B train that you get off, but as you're ulitmately going to C anyway it wouldn't benefit you even if it was

cuccir said:

But anyway, if I understand this rather twisted example it's certainly not valid if you change trains, as your A-C advance is only valid on one train, so when getting on at B to go to C you'd be on the wrong train*. And if you were on the same train you'd have no reason to buy an anytime ticket between D-B because you're already on the bloody train that passes through them going A-C!

Click to expand...

I don't think we're thinking the same thing.

In my example, you get on at A and get off at B. You never travel B-C. C has no relevance, except that it is the nominal destination of the Advance ticket.

The point I was trying to make is that there is a valid way, within the rules, to stop short if you have an Advance ticket, by paying a small 'supplement', namely the Anytime D-B.

This isn't some esoteric contrived example for the sake of confusion and argument. It is a general strategy that could save a lot of people a lot of money.

I agree that A-D-B-C is a confusing set-up, but I thought it would be far less confusing than if I had changed the roles of A, B and C.

MikeWh said:

Indeed. I don't dispute what the rules are. I've accepted them on a number of occasions. What I find interesting is that those members of this forum who presumably work for the railways (perhaps their identities are known by their superiors?) find it incredibly difficult to actually say whether they think the terms are fair/reasonable or not. Perhaps you'd like to give your view?

Click to expand...

The way I see it, if you want flexibility you buy a flexible ticket. If you want a cheap ticket you have to accept that it will be more restrictive. I don't personally think that the conditions themselves are unreasonable, but rather that the way they are implemented by the TOCs makes it rather awkward. If the quotas were more elastic it would be fairer.

Thinking out loud, how about this for an idea. Suppose I wanted to buy a ticket from Sheffield to Leicester and when I tried to book it that particular quota was exhausted but there were still Sheffield to London tickets available. What if it then allowed me to book the ticket from Sheffield to Leicester but pay the Sheffield to London price (and take my seat from that quota instead)? That way the TOC still makes the same revenue they would from the longer distance ticket. I can see that this falls down with certain flows, for example the relatively cheap tickets that XC offer between Scotland and Birmingham (but nowhere else) to compete with Virgin, but in general it could be workable...

P.S. I don't work for the railway, I'm just an interested commuter.

Aerospace has the answer.

Consider a train that calls London Paddington, Reading, Newbury, Taunton.

Advance Paddington - Newbury <not available>
Anytime Paddington - Newbury £22.50

Cheapest way (knowing you're going to travel on that train) to Newbury is £22.50? no..

Advance Paddington - Taunton £11.50
Anytime Reading - Newbury £6.80

Travel on the advance ticket to Reading. Stay on the train, but 'finish your journey'. Start a "new" journey on the anytime ticket to Newbury.

You haven't broken the journey as you haven't left the station at Reading. But you've finished the journey, and started a new one to Newbury. What rule has been broken?

penaltyfiles / Aerospace - I can't argue against that to be honest.

cuccir - One of the points of this forum is to debate, and Aerospace has a valid point. There is nothing wrong with an 'argument' (note definition 1 clearly does not apply in this case!)

The only thing I dislike about the example is the use of A, B, C, D which makes it difficult to follow (although if it is made clear that A, B, C and D are places in sequential order on the same route then it can be followed more easily, but in some cases where people use A, B, C, D the order of letters seems confused, and then I get confused).

yorkie said:

penaltyfiles / Aerospace - I can't argue against that to be honest.

cuccir - One of the points of this forum is to debate, and Aerospace has a valid point. There is nothing wrong with an 'argument' (note definition 1 clearly does not apply in this case!)

The only thing I dislike about the example is the use of A, B, C, D which makes it difficult to follow (although if it is made clear that A, B, C and D are places in sequential order on the same route then it can be followed more easily, but in some cases where people use A, B, C, D the order of letters seems confused, and then I get confused).

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I just sometimes think that the hypotheticals can be more trouble than they're worth- agree it would be much more straight forward if weo talked about, say, Glasgow, carlisle, Preston and euston instead of a, b, d, c, or anything else!

Possibly similar situation? Thnaks to a bbit of carlessness when booking, for travel from Stirling to Cambridge I was going via London- on the way up, it had actually worked out about as fast and oddly cheaper than going via Pterbrough. Seperate ticket for the Cambridge-London return. Anyway, I had a Advance on the way south with a reservation from Edinburgh to London.

I got off the train at Stevenage. It was fairly late evening, not sure if the barriers were in operation.

I then boarded a slow train to Cambridge.

Now, had an RPI (no guards on London-Cambridge services) come along at a later point in the journey, they'd have had no-way of knowing that I'd stopped short. Even if the RPI had boarded at Stevenage, and seen me get off the southbound train, they wouldn't have had any right to see my East Coast ticket surely- they would have been enforcing revenue for the FCC train only. I had an Off Peak Return for Cambridge-London- it is my understanding that starting short is perfectly legitimate on such a ticket, yes?

So, although I know I broke the conditions of my ticket in order to save a good forty five minutes off my journey, was there any realistic way of me being caught? The only point at which I was actually invalid was the moment I was stepping off the EC train.

AeroSpace said:

Suppose there is a fourth station D in between A and B, so the sequence of stations is A-D-B-C and the train calls at each of these in sequence.

You have an Advance ticket for A-C and an Anytime ticket for D-B.

When the Advance train arrives at D, you hop off and catch a local train D-B.

Advance ticket regulation: "You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station"

You obviously haven't started your journey at D.
You haven't broken and resumed your journey at D either, if you believe that break of journey involves leaving the station. (Which seems to be a general consensus, on this forum at least. It is also defined as such in the NrCoC.)

The only way this is invalid is if you are deemed to have ended your journey at D. There are TWO reasons why this cannot be the case:

1. NrCoC condition 19.
"You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire
journey": the two tickets cover your journey A-B in the sense that at no point are you on a train or on a station without a valid ticket.

"the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one
ticket to another": station D is the point where you switch from relying on ticket A-C to relying on ticket D-B, and the train does indeed call at D.

Hence, with two tickets, you are making one journey A-B, so D is not the end of your journey.

2. Your journey can end only when you leave railway property.
I can't find a formal statement of this anywhere, but I don't see how you can have ended your journey if you are still inside the station and you intend to catch another train!

Conclusion: you haven't started, broken or ended your journey at the intermediate station D so you have complied with the Advance ticket regulations. This is a valid way to travel using those two tickets.

Click to expand...

I can't argue that you will get caught doing it, I think that would be hard to prove, I won't argue that it is or is not morally right, I think that is dependant on your morals, but I must take issue to a few of your points.

I don't think you can use Condition 19 to justify it in any way.

If you are going from A-B and you buy your advance fare to a point beyond B (point C) and hold an anytime ticket from intermediate point D to B then you do not hold a combination of tickets that covers your entire journey.

You are only allowed to end your advance ticket at C, regardless of any other ticket you hold. Your other ticket does not cover you between A and D or B and C. Your entire journey is not covered, only parts of it.

Ignoring all that for a moment, the fact is that even if I consider leaving railway property to be the end of my journey, you did so before you reached C. No matter how you try to dress it up, the conditions of the ticket have not been met.

It seems to me that people seek to justify breaking conditions that don't suit their intentions.

Simply put...

Is it allowed? No.
Will it be noticed? Maybe.
Will you be punished for it? If you have a valid ticket to show when you need it, it's not likely.
Are the conditions of the advance ticket fair? You agree to the conditions of the ticket, you were given the option of choosing a flexible ticket, how is it not fair?
Is it fair that cheap tickets don't exist for the journey I intend to make? Maybe, maybe not, but even if it isn't, are we justified in trying to avoid paying the 'correct fare'* for our journey?

[*by correct fare I mean, the fare for a valid ticket, or combination of valid tickets, to my intended destination]

hairyhandedfool said:

Are the conditions of the advance ticket fair? You agree to the conditions of the ticket, you were given the option of choosing a flexible ticket, how is it not fair?

Click to expand...

Just because you agree to a condition does not make that condition fair. Please explain (as a human rather than a railway employee) how it is fair to be charged a lot extra for only using a part of a service when you are not charged anything extra for not using it at all? (having paid for the whole service in each case)

Advance fares are cheap because of the restrictions, I know this, I'm sure everyone here is aware of it. I make a concious choice to buy that ticket, I'm not forced into it, there are other options available to me.

Why should I see it as unfair, it is my choice to restrict myself to specific trains to specific places, that's part of the deal.

(I think we might almost have argued round this in a full circle!)

hairyhandedfool said:

Advance fares are cheap because of the restrictions, I know this, I'm sure everyone here is aware of it. I make a concious choice to buy that ticket, I'm not forced into it, there are other options available to me.

Why should I see it as unfair, it is my choice to restrict myself to specific trains to specific places, that's part of the deal.

Click to expand...

Yes, and as, by definition, they are bought in advance, its likely that a passenger's needs can, and do, change. But its not as if we've suddenly decided that we want to travel in the complete opposite direction or travel on another day, and then we cry "unfair" when having to buy a new ticket. This is a much more specific question:

In MikeWh's question, all that's changed is that we simply wish to get off at station before the destination on that Advance, AND THEN, knowing that this would not be valid, we go and buy an Anytime to bring us back from the destination to that prior station to cover us for the full journey.
The question was, armed with both of those tickets, can we now alight at the earlier station or do we have to actually complete the full journey (to point 'C') and then travel back again? If the latter, is it unfair to be expected to pay more if we alight at the earlier station (while holding valid tickets for the journey but including the unnecessary "doubling back")?

With respect hhf, I don't think you're answering this very specific question about Advances. (Its not about stopping short or other attempt to use them outside their validity).

(As I outlined previously, I am not persuaded that we DO have to complete the journey to 'C' and back again, because I can't see that there is a Condition that compells a passenger to travel, but that's an answer to a different part of the question)

hairyhandedfool said:

I don't think you can use Condition 19 to justify it in any way.

If you are going from A-B and you buy your advance fare to a point beyond B (point C) and hold an anytime ticket from intermediate point D to B then you do not hold a combination of tickets that covers your entire journey.

Click to expand...

I agree. I realised this was problematic yesterday and was waiting for someone to point this out (and had a feeling it might be you!)

I'm going to defend the journey A-B in another way.

As the train pulls out of D, you destroy the ticket A-C. Does the ticket still exist? If yes, in what form? If no, then there are no regulations to break!

And if the journey plans change they can change the ticket (subject to admin fee as explained in the conditions that you agree to when you bought it).

If it's not about stopping short of breaking conditions, what is it about? As far as I can see, it all boils down to stopping short or breaking the conditions of the ticket and that it is in some way unfair, even though you are aware that it is the case when you buy the ticket.

Maybe you have got a ticket back to your destination, maybe not, it's still stopping short, and it is a condition of the ticket that you do not do it, daft maybe, but not unfair.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

AeroSpace said:

I agree. I realised this was problematic yesterday and was waiting for someone to point this out (and had a feeling it might be you!)

I'm going to defend the journey A-B in another way.

As the train pulls out of D, you destroy the ticket A-C. Does the ticket still exist? If yes, in what form? If no, then there are no regulations to break!

Click to expand...

Isn't that criminal damage?

hairyhandedfool said:

Maybe you have got a ticket back to your destination, maybe not, it's still stopping short, and it is a condition of the ticket that you do not do it, daft maybe, but not unfair.

Click to expand...

Okay, the condition may be daft or unfair, but even THAT isn't quite the answer to this question!
Its in full acceptance of the conditions of the Advance, that we a) buy the additional Anytime ticket to convey us from the destination back to the earlier station, and b) have the conversation at station "B" from my post above:

the point when the train calls at B the first time and the passenger doesn't alight.

Imagine this conversation at that moment:
Passenger to Guard "These are the tickets I have for my journey. They bring me to this station we've just arrived at. Would you like me to disembark now or remain on-board and double back to here?"
Guard to Passenger "You will have to stay on the train until we return here in xxxx minutes"

Click to expand...

Then is it unfair if the guard says, "you must either stay on this until we return here again in xxxx minutes OR I will have to sell you a new ticket for the entire journey"?

i.e. You must Double-Back or else Pay-Up.

You knew that would be the case when you bought the tickets though. You knew it was expected of you, once again it is perhaps daft, but it is not unfair. You still had the choice of tickets.

If you had those tickets and the chap next to you had bought the through fare, would it be unfair on you if you were not allowed off the train but he was? Would it be unfair on him if you were allowed off the train even though it isn't permitted on your ticket?

hairyhandedfool said:

You knew that would be the case when you bought the tickets though. You knew it was expected of you, once again it is perhaps daft, but it is not unfair. You still had the choice of tickets.

If you had those tickets and the chap next to you had bought the through fare, would it be unfair on you if you were not allowed off the train but he was? Would it be unfair on him if you were allowed off the train even though it isn't permitted on your ticket?

Click to expand...

Maybe 'you' did, or maybe you didn't, maybe plans changed. But it doesn't address the points made by Dave and others. It is just another line of argument, that is written in a way that makes assumptions.

As for what is fair, is it fair I got a £10 advance for the 0836 York to London when it costs £111.50 to someone else to get that same train last month? Not really, no. But that's railway ticketing.

penaltyfines said:

Imagine going into a McDonalds, and on the back of the receipt that you throw away instinctively, it says 'See T&Cs'. Mr Puberty on the till doesn't know what Tees and Sees are, suggests you see the website. You eat half your cheeseburger and chuck the rest away. You get a £20 Penalty MealDeal because you didn't complete your burger (to cover refuse charges, of course), but that's ok, it said so in the T&Cs, which you should have read! Sounds ridiculous!

When the concept of travelling less distance, yet paying a fine for doing so, is 'perfectly understandable, you should have read the T&Cs, the above example doesn't sound so ridiculous!

Click to expand...

Oh FFS. That isn't a fair comparison, because the cheesburger is then yours, you do not own 'your seat' or whatever.

you buy a cheesburger. It is your property. You can do anything you want with it providing it is legal

You buy a train ticket. The 'seat/space or whatever' is not your property.

We established before when using analogies that people will disregard them if you talk about buying something. But they have no answer when you use an analogy of providing a service. Therefore I suggest using service analogies instead. The fact remains that the rail industry treats people very badly at times and has utterly absurd rules in some cases.

As for the seat issue, you neither own your seat on the train or in the burger bar. In both cases, a seat is normally provided but there is no guarantee of a seat. So there really isn't much difference there.

Even if the TOCs claim you can't "finish short" in certain circumstances, they are on extremely dodgy ground if someone is feeling unwell, and if they tried to force someone to continue travelling when feeling unwell then they could expect trouble. Therefore there have to be some circumstances when it has to be allowed. How far that extends is open to debate, and what the consequences should be if you are deemed not allowed to do it but do it anyway are also open to debate, and it's a debate that not everyone will agree on.

hairyhandedfool said:

You knew that would be the case when you bought the tickets though. You knew it was expected of you, once again it is perhaps daft, but it is not unfair. You still had the choice of tickets.
. . . ?

Click to expand...

(I apologise now, hhf, that my persistent questioning might appear to be directed at you, or at RJ for that matter. But its not.
I am, however, looking for clarity of both the technicality of how the Regulations and Conditions are read, how the Regulations and Conditions are applied, and also clarity of the ethical application of those Regs and Conds. and how they are applied)

This is NOT a question about stopping short when travelling on an Advance ticket. This very specific question just happens to involve stopping short, but that is not the point of the question.

I don't think you need me to re-iterate the question, but just in case . . . . .
..The journey is from A via B to C. It can be done by travelling A > B or by travelling A > B > C then back again C > B.
..The passenger has an Advance A to C (on a train which stops at B), plus an Anytime from C back to B (doubling back).
..The one train travels from A via B to C and (after a pause) it (or a readily available other train) travels from C back to B
..The passenger wants to travel A to B

The question of the validity AND the ethics of alighting at 'B' is the crucial matter.
The passenger has exactly 2 opportunities to alight at 'B'. The first time, and the second time (after doubling back via 'C').
And the TOC's also have exactly 2 opportunities to consider the passenger alighting at 'B'. The first time, and the second time (after doubling back via 'C').

I fully accept that stopping short (without holding the Anytime C to B) is not within the terms of the Advance. But the very interesting implication of the passenger having bought the Anytime which would bring them back to "B" is that
a) there is no benefit to the railways of actually conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
b) there is no financial difference to the railways or passenger of conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
c) there is a potential increase of liability and costs to the railways of conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
d) there is a practical inconvenience to some passengers of the unneccessary "doubling back" and a benefit (perhaps to those with time to kill?) of the unneccessary "doubling back",
e) the cost to the passenger of the combination of 2 tickets may be neutral, but equally it could be much more expensive than for the simple A to B journey (We musn't assume this question has anything to do with prices).
The 2 comnbined tickets authorise the journey.

The only debate applies this very specific question:
Does the passenger alight when the train stops at the station the first time, OR, does the passenger stay on the train (incurring time, expense and liabilities for all parties) until the train returns to the same station again) the second time?

I think, if you grasp the question properly, you'll see that it is not simply a question of applying the T&Cs of an Advance ticket.
And its not just 'stopping short'.
And its not just a calculation of ticket prices (its quite possible to phrase the question with examples which would not oblige the passenger to pay more to alight at "B" without travelling on to "C" and back.
And its not just another attempt to find a 'loophole'.

Its an attempt to understand how the Regulations and Conditions are to be read and applied.

yorkie said:

Even if the TOCs claim you can't "finish short" in certain circumstances, they are on extremely dodgy ground if someone is feeling unwell, and if they tried to force someone to continue travelling when feeling unwell then they could expect trouble. Therefore there have to be some circumstances when it has to be allowed. How far that extends is open to debate, and what the consequences should be if you are deemed not allowed to do it but do it anyway are also open to debate, and it's a debate that not everyone will agree on.

Click to expand...

The boy got off on platform one
His tongue was swollen and black
He gave a cough
His head fell off
And rolled along the track

Of course in that instance he was let off with the penalty fare but cited for trespass

The problem may be that the circumstances when it has to be allowed could end up as reading "he was carted off on a stretcher and he went by too fast for us to pick his pocket . . . ".

Certainly in cases of severe medical distress the company would be committing PR suicide by penalising anyone for alighting too soon. But that said, short of leaving the service to gain swift medical attention or to return home on the next available service, if they can walk, talk and reach into their pocket then the company isn't going to necessarily turn a blind eye simply because they've got a 'bit of a cough'.

As you quite rightly say, how far the latitude extends is open to debate and to be honest it's going to fall on the judgement of the staff present to decide what constitutes reasonable cause. Fingers crossed for reasonable staff eh?

One would hope that passenger safety and welfare would take precedence over revenue but the company meantime will be watchful for those who cry wolf. For example it might seem strange if the same passenger suffered the same malady at the same station on a regular basis.

it's a debate that not everyone will agree on

Click to expand...

Yep, but then of course if everyone did agree then there wouldn't be a debate, there'd be a consensus (c'mon, you know I had to )

yorkie said:

Even if the TOCs claim you can't "finish short" in certain circumstances

Click to expand...

they're not saying you can't finish short, they're saying you need to purchase the appropriate ticket to do so.

yorkie said:

they are on extremely dodgy ground if someone is feeling unwell, and if they tried to force someone to continue travelling when feeling unwell then they could expect trouble.

Click to expand...

they'd probably say, short stop, pay the appropriate fare, and claim the difference from your travel insurance ....

let's take another example, since we love them ..

you go to mcdonalds, and they offer you a 2-1 meal deal, which you accept, since you want the double fries .... is mcdonalds going to not let you leave the restaurant until either you finish the 2nd burger + coke, or you pay for 1 meal + a 2nd fries.....

b0b said:

they'd probably say, short stop, pay the appropriate fare, and claim the difference from your travel insurance

Click to expand...

Because people buy travel insurance every time they use the railway...

Edit: For that matter not all websites even offer travel insurance, I just checked EC's and as far as I can tell no option to insure the journey. I think it's a bit much to expect someone to (having not been offered it) then go and find somewhere (a third party) that will insure their journey.

ainsworth74 said:

Because people buy travel insurance every time they use the railway...

Click to expand...

I understand that - I'm mocking the railway somewhat by saying that's probably what they'd tell you - but in all seriousness I believe you can buy annual policies fairly cheaply...

yorkie said:

Even if the TOCs claim you can't "finish short" in certain circumstances, they are on extremely dodgy ground if someone is feeling unwell, and if they tried to force someone to continue travelling when feeling unwell then they could expect trouble.

Click to expand...

I am not entirely sure that one can draw any useful conclusion by reasoning on the basis of the illness of a passenger.

Let us say, for instance, that you are on a London-Manchester train whose first stop is Crewe and that you have a heart attack needing immediate treatment somewhere near Miton Keynes. Even though that train does not normally stop at MK, the TOC could be in trouble for refusing to stop to let a passenger needing urgent medical treatment off. You would not draw from that the inference that someone can always ask a train to stop at a station it is not scheduled to stop simply because one wants to get off for one's own reasons.

Similarly, you cannot draw any inference as to the legitimacy or otherwise of finishing short simply by using the example of a passenger who is unwell.

Medical issues are a wholly different matter from which you cannot infer anything about what happens or should happen in 'normal' situations.

DaveNewcastle said:

....I fully accept that stopping short (without holding the Anytime C to B) is not within the terms of the Advance. But the very interesting implication of the passenger having bought the Anytime which would bring them back to "B" is that
a) there is no benefit to the railways of actually conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
b) there is no financial difference to the railways or passenger of conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
c) there is a potential increase of liability and costs to the railways of conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
d) there is a practical inconvenience to some passengers of the unneccessary "doubling back" and a benefit (perhaps to those with time to kill?) of the unneccessary "doubling back",
e) the cost to the passenger of the combination of 2 tickets may be neutral, but equally it could be much more expensive than for the simple A to B journey (We musn't assume this question has anything to do with prices).
The 2 comnbined tickets authorise the journey....

Click to expand...

a) There is reason, letting them off sets a dangerous precedent, in effect, it tells people they can buy cheaper tickets for their journey and not obey the conditions fully. In actual fact making them travel further puts people off buying the cheaper option because of the inconvenience of travelling further than they require. TOCs are not here to provide a service, they are there to make money, the service is a means of getting it, if you believe otherwise you are only fooling yourself.

b) On the face of it there isn't, but if you think about it, they don't want you to buy the advance fare really, they want you to pay the more expensive walk up fare, many people would not want to double back, even if it was cheaper and would pay the more expensive fare to avoid it, lets not forget that a significant proportion of passengers would like to use direct services only, and only for the shortest time possible.

c) I'm not sure I'm qualified to respond to that point, but as they train is potentially full anyway, I suspect any extra liability and cost is insignificant.

d) That is only of benefit to the passenger who knows what is expected of them. If they want the flexibility to get off early they know what they can do.

e) The pasenger pays the fare they are happiest with bearing in mind the conditions that it is issued with, they can hardly expect leniency when they have not given anything in return. The two combined tickets authorise the journey they agreed to make, that is not neccesarily the same as the journey they intend to make.

DaveNewcastle said:

....The only debate applies this very specific question:
Does the passenger alight when the train stops at the station the first time, OR, does the passenger stay on the train (incurring time, expense and liabilities for all parties) until the train returns to the same station again) the second time?....

Click to expand...

What extra time and expense (which exception of a miniscul amount of fuel used carrying the extra weight) is incurred by the TOC? The train would continue to it's destination and any connections would still run, the costs involved for the TOCs are, in all probability, virtually unaltered by the passengers early departure. Infact I'd wager the precendent it sets is far worse for the TOC, than making you travel on to point C.

You could even argue the sandwich bar at station C loses a potential customer if the TOC allows the passenger off at his destination first time round and they were due to change trains at C. That is hardly the point mind you, but I doubt they would see it that way.

The passenger agreed to double back, 'stopping short' only really benefits the passenger, it's not unreasonable for the TOC to want the passenger to continue to use the services they agreed to use, even if it seems daft to everyone else.

DaveNewcastle said:

....Its an attempt to understand how the Regulations and Conditions are to be read and applied.

Click to expand...

I think that is rather easy to understand frankly. I honestly don't think any of this is about what is best for all parties, but actually what is best for the passenger, how it can be justified, and, well, who cares about the unfair, overly harsh, faceless company that's clearly 'ripping them off'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

yorkie said:

....As for what is fair, is it fair I got a £10 advance for the 0836 York to London when it costs £111.50 to someone else to get that same train last month? Not really, no. But that's railway ticketing.

Click to expand...

I don't honestly think that can be concluded as unfair as there is a lack of evidence to suggest either way.

hairyhandedfool said:

it's not unreasonable for the TOC to want the passenger to continue to use the services they agreed to use, even if it seems daft to everyone else.

Click to expand...

Then why does the TOC not come after people who do not use the ticket at all? After all, not only has the station buffet at origin and destination lost a potential customer but the on-board trolley has as well!