[4SRKT]

Originally Posted by 142094

There may be the case for people moving to public transport in the next few ways not due to the attractiveness of trains/buses etc but due to the price of running a car going even higher. I don't see petrol prices going below the £1 mark ever again and if plans for charging people to park at work are implemented we might see higher demand for public transport.

For journeys to work maybe, in London (where driving's totally unattractive) or PTE areas (where public transport isn't [yet] scandalously expensive). For the sort of journey I'm talking about it'll never happen en masse. It's not just economics, it's cultural. The TOCs and BR before them have simply accepted the dominance of the car for at least a generation and now it'll be difficult to fight back even if parity of pricing existed because people are just so conditioned to use the car for everything.

People also tend to cost their car journeys only on the marginal cost of the fuel consumed, and not on the wear and tear. This may be wrong, but it'll be hard to crack. Company car drivers (and we are legion) can think in this way quite legitimately.

[MikeWh]

Well I must admit to being puzzled as to why they will sell advance tickets from Prestatyn but not from Flint. If they did both then the fare from Flint might be slightly cheaper. You could then buy the advance from there and if by some chance you ended up at Prestatyn you could buy a single to Flint and board the same train. It would probably cost more than the advance from Prestatyn, but would give you the flexibility you desire.

Your location suggests that you come from Shipley so how are you getting to North Wales and/or how would the car you use to get home get back to North Wales if you see where I'm coming from. Is it totally unreasonable to say to your friend (assuming it's their car you'd be travelling in that evening) that you need to get to Prestatyn? I've no idea how close the two stations are, though if the train journey takes 13 minutes it's maybe ten miles.

While he's maybe not saying it in the most diplomatic fashion, RJ is right in that the price of a cheap ticket is no flexibility in travel plans. If you really want to use the train then perhaps you need to firm up plans on the day to allow maybe half an hour extra to drive to Prestatyn. Surely ten miles in your friend's car would not cost that much.

As I said at the beginning, the real question is why can't you buy advance tickets from Flint?

[4SRKT]

Originally Posted by yorksrob

The stipulation that passengers are not allowed to join or leave a journey at a later or earlier stop on a journey for which the passenger has already paid is clearly nonsense and the railway does itself no favours in persisting with it. Ultimately it is without common sense because buying a ticket and not taking up part of the journey is no different from buying a ticket and not taking up any part of the journey. The railway has still got it's money for that journey.

Exactly. If I buy a Mars Bar on special offer at Asda, I don't expect the manager to breathe down my neck making sure I eat every mouthful. If I try and eat a mouthful of another one I haven't paid for, that'd be theft, but once I've bought a Mars Bar at whatever price the retailer has agreed to sell it to me, I can eat as much or as little of it as I please.

Originally Posted by MikeWh

Surely ten miles in your friend's car would not cost that much.

Actually you're probably right about this, and it's probably the answer. Doh! I'm obviously not conditioned enough to thinking car all the time! My initial alternative would have been to go both ways in the car, still coming in cheaper than £16 advance both ways, but like I said I prefer to travel by train if the price is right. An advance one way and an anytime single the other would just be too difficult to justify in the face of no more than £25 fuel from Shipley to this dude's house near Prestatyn and back.

[87 027]

Agree with the above. Personally I find it a bit depressing not to look at the "bigger picture" when common sense suggests the OP wants to do something which is clearly not unreasonable and has no material impact on revenue to the TOC.

[Deerfold]

Obviously what we need is some sort of anti-ticket we can buy so that we don't have to travel the full distance on our ticket.

Incidentally, I'm afaid I break this rule on about 20% of all advance purchase trips I do because I live between two stations. If I get the bus I go to one. If I get a lift from my wife to the other. I always buy my tickets to the furthest and Northern don't seem at all bothered. I would only do this on the +connections part of the journey though.

[4SRKT]

Originally Posted by Deerfold

Obviously what we need is some sort of anti-ticket we can buy so that we don't have to travel the full distance on our ticket.

Incidentally, I'm afaid I break this rule on about 20% of all advance purchase trips I do because I live between two stations. If I get the bus I go to one. If I get a lift from my wife to the other. I always buy my tickets to the furthest and Northern don't seem at all bothered. I would only do this on the +connections part of the journey though.

Tut tut. Very naughty. Expect a visit from RJ very soon explaining that it doesn't matter if rules are ridiculous, you must obey them without question, and even pointing out how ridiculous they are is not allowed. If you do not obey, the TOCs have ways of making you walk.

[Deerfold]

Originally Posted by 4SRKT

Tut tut. Very naughty. Expect a visit from RJ very soon explaining that it doesn't matter if rules are ridiculous, you must obey them without question, and even pointing out how ridiculous they are is not allowed. If you do not obey, the TOCs have ways of making you walk.

I've been told by a Northen guard (who I shall not identify) that so long asI don't travel further than allowed they're not overly bothered. Besids it's quite possible for me to catch a train going to the wrong destination from my furthest station so it'd be only natural for me to jump off at the next one to get the right one.

[RJ]

Originally Posted by 4SRKT

Tut tut. Very naughty. Expect a visit from RJ very soon explaining that it doesn't matter if rules are ridiculous, you must obey them without question, and even pointing out how ridiculous they are is not allowed. If you do not obey, the TOCs have ways of making you walk.

Here we have another one who reveals a pitifully juvenille attitude upon being told like it is. The rules are the rules. You're confusing the discretion of some railway staff with the idea that you may be immune against being requested to purchase the correct ticket by a member of staff doing things by the book. Your, mine or anybody's ideals of what the rules *should* be are completely irrelevant. If you wanted a discussion on whether the rules are silly or not you should have said so. You were made aware of how rigid the terms of the Advance are and chose to be childish about it. Too bad if it's not what you wanted to hear.

[Username]

Given the number of conditions on the advance ticket, at which point do you draw the line?

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket from A to Z and that you've in fact boarded at B, but that's okay"

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket for the 14.30 service and yet you're travelling on the 12.30 service . . . but that's okay"

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket for travelling on the 14.30 service but dated for travel tomorrow . . . . but that's okay"

So when does it become "not okay"?

In each of the above cases it can be argued "what's the harm?". You've still paid for one journey, you're only making one journey. You're not asking for anything extra. It's not like the company is losing anything right?

Bottom line, if the company wanted to give the passenger the flexibility of picking up the service at an intermediate station then they wouldn't prohibit it in the first place. If no-one respects that particular restriction then why should any restriction on any ticket be any different?

Just as aside, where the Mars bar comparison falls flat on it's face is when you realise that there are no conditions attached to it's purchase. None. Not a one, unlike any rail ticket which will have conditions up the wazoo.

If you want to make a food related analogy at least pick something like the Apache Spurs' 64oz steak challenge. If you complete the challenge you eat free, but leave a bite and you'll pay the £59.99.

[TEW]

Originally Posted by Username

You've still paid for one journey, you're only making one journey. You're not asking for anything extra. It's not like the company is losing anything right?

By that logic the cheapest ticket I could buy would be valid from Penzance-Wick.

[87 027]

RJ and Username are, of course, technically correct. But another way of looking at it is to make a distinction between behaviour which abuses the system by attempting to circumvent restrictions which are in place for a good reason, as opposed to behaviour which really makes no difference because the rules lack any coherent underlying logic, or are just so complicated that they are full of unintended anomalies

I think most people would accept that advance tickets are rationed in number and sold on the basis that you sacrifice flexibility for the cheaper price, and so attempting to use them on a different service would be regarded as abusive. I think most people would also accept that pricing is not just based on distance but is used to manage demand on particular flows or at particular times, so intending to join or alight short to circumvent this when the ticket validity clearly does not allow it is also abusive.

But the original question remains - why is the cheaper fare available from one station but not the other a short distance away? I would be interested to know whether this a deliberate decision of the TOC, based on a sound business rationale, or is it just a quirk?

[yorksrob]

Originally Posted by Username

Given the number of conditions on the advance ticket, at which point do you draw the line?

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket from A to Z and that you've in fact boarded at B, but that's okay"

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket for the 14.30 service and yet you're travelling on the 12.30 service . . . but that's okay"

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket for travelling on the 14.30 service but dated for travel tomorrow . . . . but that's okay"

So when does it become "not okay"?

In each of the above cases it can be argued "what's the harm?". You've still paid for one journey, you're only making one journey. You're not asking for anything extra. It's not like the company is losing anything right?

Bottom line, if the company wanted to give the passenger the flexibility of picking up the service at an intermediate station then they wouldn't prohibit it in the first place. If no-one respects that particular restriction then why should any restriction on any ticket be any different?

Just as aside, where the Mars bar comparison falls flat on it's face is when you realise that there are no conditions attached to it's purchase. None. Not a one, unlike any rail ticket which will have conditions up the wazoo.

If you want to make a food related analogy at least pick something like the Apache Spurs' 64oz steak challenge. If you complete the challenge you eat free, but leave a bite and you'll pay the £59.99.

No, but the point is, on all the other examples you state, the passenger has attempted to travel on a train and occupied a seat for which he has not paid or booked. In the case of buying a ticket from a to c, if the passenger detrains at point b, he has still purchased and booked a place on the train between a and b by way of having the ticket between a and c. The train company hasn't lost out - it has still sold the place between a and c as it would have done if the passenger had detrained at c. Infact it gains because it has a seat between b and c which can accomodate another paying passenger who may not have been able to sit down.

This is entirely different from buying a ticket from a to b then detraining at c because the passenger has not booked a place on the train between b and c.

I really don't see why people can't grasp the distinction.

I realise the rules are are the rules but they are completely nonsensical and as interested parties it is right for us to point out when the railway is making a laughing stock of itself.

[87 027]

@TEW

What about Thurso?!

[4SRKT]

Originally Posted by yorksrob

I really don't see why people can't grasp the distinction.

I realise the rules are are the rules but they are completely nonsensical and as interested parties it is right for us to point out when the railway is making a laughing stock of itself.

Well, the fact is that some people just accept rules because they have no imagination or personality of their own and just accept what is told from above. Nobody on here has advocated breaking these absurd rules, but many have pointed out why they are absurd. It must be very reassuring for someone of no intellect to be given rules to work by in a confusing world.

People who don't challenge absurd rules (as distinct from people who actively break them) are profoundly dangerous individuals. They are typically busybodies who enjoy lording it over others, particularly if those others are intellectually more gifted than them. Irrational 'rules' give power to the stupid, or to unimaginative clods, and allows them to feel important in world that would otherwise be unsympathetic to their failure to see and apply common sense. A failure to differentiate between 'rules' and 'sense' is what gives rise to things such as the Third Reich, and those who advocate such things need to be avoided, or given jobs as clampers maybe.

[Username]

Originally Posted by yorksrob

No, but the point is, on all the other examples you state, the passenger has attempted to travel on a train and occupied a seat for which he has not paid or booked. In the case of buying a ticket from a to c, if the passenger detrains at point b, he has still purchased and booked a place on the train between a and b by way of having the ticket between a and c. The train company hasn't lost out - it has still sold the place between a and c as it would have done if the passenger had detrained at c. Infact it gains because it has a seat between b and c which can accomodate another paying passenger who may not have been able to sit down.

This is entirely different from buying a ticket from a to b then detraining at c because the passenger has not booked a place on the train between b and c.

I really don't see why people can't grasp the distinction.

I realise the rules are are the rules but they are completely nonsensical and as interested parties it is right for us to point out when the railway is making a laughing stock of itself.

Good points, well made. However, the question I asked was simply one of where does one draw the line between which conditions to follow and which to ignore?
The popular consensus seems to be to ignore the pesky ones we don't like.

To some, the restriction on boarding or alighting at intermediate stations is nonsensical.

To others, the restriction of only travelling on the booked train may seem equally nonsensical. As far as they see it, they have paid to get from point a to point b, so what does it matter which service they are on when both services are going there anyway? They genuinely don't see where the company is losing out so why should the company care? After all, it just means that the seat they would have occupied on their correct service will be vacant and some other passenger can use it instead of perhaps having to stand.

In practice, well let's face it, so long as you're on the service you're booked on then joining at a station later down the line than you should have is not a major issue as far as most guards are concerned.

But it's not the best idea to confuse a little discretion on behalf of the guards with an automatic right to have a condition waived just because you don't like, agree or understand it. And note that I'm not saying that you personally do, but it's evident that there are some who are prone to this expectation.

It never ceases to amuse me how some people, whilst they are aware of the conditions, just seem to feel that they shouldn't apply to them. And that if they are ever disabused of this notion then it's somehow the other persons shortcomings.

Originally Posted by TEW

By that logic the cheapest ticket I could buy would be valid from Penzance-Wick.

Sorry, as we were discussing joining at an intermediate station then I considered it understood the journey to be undertaken to be limited within the boundaries of the origin and destination on the ticket. My bad for not making that clear.

Originally Posted by 87 027

@TEWWhat about Thurso?!

Er . . . it's a hole?