Complex Penalty Fare

[RJ]

Its not so minor when you consider not all passengers will be as knowledgable as you RJ and probably not have the knowledge or inclination to fight bogus PFs

Yes, but as I have no evidence proving that it has happened to anyone other than me, I'm not going to push the matter. I suspect anyone who makes a fuss about it, they'll simply advise that there is an appeals process for anyone who feels that a notice was wrongly issued. I'm still getting these stupid notices almost 12 months on from complaining about the first superfluous one I had, that should tell you something about their attitude towards ensuring that their revenue protection staff are doing their job properly. Their current mentality appears to be reactive rather than proactive. Even then, their reactive actions are heavily impeded by the often necessary process of having to educate their back office staff on what's what with tickets.

I've found a legal loophole that further renders the Penalty Fare as wrongly issued, which ITAL appear to have overlooked when designing and distributing their Penalty Fare pads. I haven't said much about this for the time being as I have more than enough to go on as it is, but this is just plain sloppy. Surely the industry can do better than this.

 

[Robsignals]

Isn't it more likely that ATOC will remove the roundabout route validities and generally reduce flexibility so that revenue staff become right without any additional training? That may not bother some but will by very bad for those who are using these tickets as originally intended.

 

[34D]

If ATOC are reading this, will they please offer RJ a job.

 

[furryfeet]

If ATOC are reading this, will they please offer RJ a job.

Go one better and get Daft to ofer him a job, with the brief of
a) making sure that the TOC's are training their staff in the use of excess / penalty fares
b) ( wish list ) getting rules which are grey areas like "opportunity to buy before boarding" re-written so that they are clearly defined and also are defined in the passenger's favour.

It cannot be good for the public and ultimately the railway industry as a whole to have passengers bullied and coerced into paying more than they should. From the posts on these forums, there are those who indeed deliberately break the rules, but there are also those who quite innocently fall foul of railway staff being unable or unwilling to apply the rules correctly and lawfully.

 

[Wolfie]

Isn't it more likely that ATOC will remove the roundabout route validities and generally reduce flexibility so that revenue staff become right without any additional training? That may not bother some but will by very bad for those who are using these tickets as originally intended.

This could equally be translated as "We, the members of ATOC, can't be bothered to train our staff properly, so they keep making mistakes. To ensure that they do not do so we could improve staff training but we can't be bothered to do so. Instead we are going to remove certain ticket rights thus making it more expensive for passengers." An absolute PR disaster which DafT would be barmy to allow (not least because it would strongly suggest that they should be removing the right to issue PFs from one or more TOCs) .....and I would think a goldmine for FOI questions to expose such shenanigans.....

 

[bb21]

Go one better and get Daft to ofer him a job, with the brief of
a) making sure that the TOC's are training their staff in the use of excess / penalty fares
b) ( wish list ) getting rules which are grey areas like "opportunity to buy before boarding" re-written so that they are clearly defined and also are defined in the passenger's favour.

You can rest assured that if ATOC employs him, it will not be for that. There are other very useful knowledge of his which ATOC can make "good" use of.

 

[Flamingo]

Well, if he is going to appear on my train as a Mystery Shopper he can **** right off

 

[richw]

Well, if he is going to appear on my train as a Mystery Shopper he can **** right off

Although it would be a rubbish mystery shop as you'd uncover him straight away with his ticketing combinations

 

[Flamingo]

"You are RJ and I claim my £5!"

 

[Robsignals]

This could equally be translated as "We, the members of ATOC, can't be bothered to train our staff properly, so they keep making mistakes. To ensure that they do not do so we could improve staff training but we can't be bothered to do so. Instead we are going to remove certain ticket rights thus making it more expensive for passengers." An absolute PR disaster which DafT would be barmy to allow (not least because it would strongly suggest that they should be removing the right to issue PFs from one or more TOCs) .....and I would think a goldmine for FOI questions to expose such shenanigans.....

Nah, the PR spin would be "Fares Fair: extremely confusing and conflicting historic routings and validities are being streamlined into a simple and straightforward system that everyone can understand eliminating passenger fears of being charged additional fares." The current rules are highly complex and revenue staff probably only rarely encounter obscure routings, possibly only one person exploits them to the maximum, it's not realistic to expect them to be trained to that level. If RJ's exploits got media attention I fear the public would be highly critical, mainly of ATOC for not closing the loopholes.

 

[RJ]

Well, if he is going to appear on my train as a Mystery Shopper he can **** right off

You're safe for now - I have no need to travel on the GW.

I happened upon this video of a ticket inspection on a train. The hapless passenger shall remain nameless and faceless, but I am interested in seeing whether anyone things either the passenger or guard was being unreasonable...personally I think neither.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddkFVaABZ14

The guard seems more knowledgable than most I have happened upon, knowing about excesses and perhaps even more unusually, is actually listening and trying to understand the situation. Eventually "lets the passenger off" and the passenger says thanks. Everyone is happy!

 

[AndyLandy]

I have to confess, I do think the whole "If one ticket is a season ticket, you are no longer obliged to call at the split point" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard! Can anyone shed any light on how such a bizarre rule might have emerged? I assume there's some rational explanation as to why this was deemed sensible?

 

[LexyBoy]

I have to confess, I do think the whole "If one ticket is a season ticket, you are no longer obliged to call at the split point" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard! Can anyone shed any light on how such a bizarre rule might have emerged? I assume there's some rational explanation as to why this was deemed sensible?

If one holds a "normal" ticket and wishes to travel further than the destination, one can obtain an excess which renders the ticket valid to that destination, with no need for the train to call at the original destination (it effectively becomes a ticket to the new destination).

This is not possible for Season tickets, so as an alternative the requirement for the train to call at the changeover point is waived. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The use of 19(c) to string together a series of tickets is probably an unintended consequence of the way the Condition is written. I am a little concerned that using it in this way is likely to lead to its eventual removal, to the detriment of the majority of Season ticket holders (though to be fair I imagine most aren't aware of this convenient rule).

 

[tannedfrog]

The guard seems more knowledgable than most I have happened upon, knowing about excesses and perhaps even more unusually, is actually listening and trying to understand the situation. Eventually "lets the passenger off" and the passenger says thanks. Everyone is happy!

The guard does not seem to have any knowledge of 19c and implies the passenger is at a fault and is only being let off because he has a season ticket.

If I was that passenger I would (unwisely) have been tempted to defend myself further by demonstrating that the combination was definitely OK - I would not like the suggestion that I was a fare-evader being let off this time.

Based on the guard's accent I guess this was EMT.

 

[All Line Rover]

I happened upon this video of a ticket inspection on a train. The hapless passenger shall remain nameless and faceless, but I am interested in seeing whether anyone things either the passenger or guard was being unreasonable...personally I think neither.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddkFVaABZ14

The guard seems more knowledgable than most I have happened upon, knowing about excesses and perhaps even more unusually, is actually listening and trying to understand the situation. Eventually "lets the passenger off" and the passenger says thanks. Everyone is happy!

I agree with you RJ, that guard and hapless passenger are both being very reasonable. Trying to correct the guard after being 'let off' never helps much, so like you I don't attempt it.

Would increased awareness of 19c help? That depends on how much it would push the TOCs to ask for its removal!

 

[island]

I expect there is a good chance of 19c being rewritten so that you have to change from season to non-season at every split point. The most common such split (season held A-B, return B-C, train need not call at B) will stay exactly the same, while the daft splits (very short season A-B plus singles from B-C, C-D, and D-Z) will stop.

 

[Deerfold]

I have to confess, I do think the whole "If one ticket is a season ticket, you are no longer obliged to call at the split point" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard! Can anyone shed any light on how such a bizarre rule might have emerged? I assume there's some rational explanation as to why this was deemed sensible?

It used to get additional business from me - I used to hold a Hitchin to London season. I worked in London Victoria. A couple of times a month I'd go from London to Cambridge on the express (50 mins). Without 19(c) I've had been on the slower service taking an additional 40 minutes - as I was starting at Victoria that would have meant I could have got the coach to Cambridge in the same time, at a cheaper price, with a guaranteed seat.

 

[LexyBoy]

It used to get additional business from me - I used to hold a Hitchin to London season. I worked in London Victoria. A couple of times a month I'd go from London to Cambridge on the express (50 mins). Without 19(c) I've had been on the slower service taking an additional 40 minutes - as I was starting at Victoria that would have meant I could have got the coach to Cambridge in the same time, at a cheaper price, with a guaranteed seat.

And me - without using 19(c) I'd use the bus between Reading and Oxford much more often than I do now for similar reasons.

 

[Tibbs]

I have to confess, I do think the whole "If one ticket is a season ticket, you are no longer obliged to call at the split point" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard! Can anyone shed any light on how such a bizarre rule might have emerged? I assume there's some rational explanation as to why this was deemed sensible?

I would it would be to prevent people with a travelcard from having to take a train that stops at the terminus of their railcard.

I hold a 1-W travelcard, and if I want to visit my friend in Birminghamright from work near Euston, and 19c didn't work I'd either have to just travel on the slow LM train to Birmingham (the one that stops in Watfrod, of which there aren't many) or, if I get the Virgin Fast train (or indeed the LM train that is first stop Leighton Buzzard), pay to cover the route I've already paid for on the travelcard.

Strikes me as particularly rational, though it is curiously pro-passenger.

 

[AndyLandy]

I expect there is a good chance of 19c being rewritten so that you have to change from season to non-season at every split point. The most common such split (season held A-B, return B-C, train need not call at B) will stay exactly the same, while the daft splits (very short season A-B plus singles from B-C, C-D, and D-Z) will stop.

That certainly sounds reasonable. It's interesting to hear the original reason for it (to make up for the lack of an overdistance excess) I guess it's this ability to 'stack' multiple tickets on top that causes the peculiar edge cases.

I would it would be to prevent people with a travelcard from having to take a train that stops at the terminus of their railcard.

I hold a 1-W travelcard, and if I want to visit my friend in Birminghamright from work near Euston, and 19c didn't work I'd either have to just travel on the slow LM train to Birmingham (the one that stops in Watfrod, of which there aren't many) or, if I get the Virgin Fast train (or indeed the LM train that is first stop Leighton Buzzard), pay to cover the route I've already paid for on the travelcard.

Isn't that what boundary zone tickets are for? I have to confess I know very little about those, but I was under the impression it's possible to get a ticket from locations out of London to a zone boundary, so you can switch to travelcard at that zone boundary.

 

[Tibbs]

That certainly sounds reasonable. It's interesting to hear the original reason for it (to make up for the lack of an overdistance excess) I guess it's this ability to 'stack' multiple tickets on top that causes the peculiar edge cases.



Isn't that what boundary zone tickets are for? I have to confess I know very little about those, but I was under the impression it's possible to get a ticket from locations out of London to a zone boundary, so you can switch to travelcard at that zone boundary.

Yes, but 19c also covers season tickets point to point as well. If I had a Tring - Euston season ticket I'd be in the same position as the Watford example.

In fact it would be worse, as I'd have to get 2 trains as AFAIK the Brum services don't stop at Tring, so I'd have to go to somewhere like Milton Keynes on the slow train and then catch another from there to avoid paying twice to cover the piece of track to Tring.

I can see the change to 19C mentioned above, but one would imagine it would have to cover singles joining at both ends as well, for example if you had a (...I'm reaching here) Willesden Junction - Watford season ticket and wanted to go from Shepherds Bush to Milton Keynes on the Southern Service. I'm sure someone else could come up with a better example - something on the WCML perhaps that you could use as a filling in a 2 single sandwich to get from London to Manchester?

 

[AndyLandy]

Yes, but 19c also covers season tickets point to point as well. If I had a Tring - Euston season ticket I'd be in the same position as the Watford example.

In fact it would be worse, as I'd have to get 2 trains as AFAIK the Brum services don't stop at Tring, so I'd have to go to somewhere like Milton Keynes on the slow train and then catch another from there to avoid paying twice to cover the piece of track to Tring.

I can see the change to 19C mentioned above, but one would imagine it would have to cover singles joining at both ends as well, for example if you had a (...I'm reaching here) Willesden Junction - Watford season ticket and wanted to go from Shepherds Bush to Milton Keynes on the Southern Service. I'm sure someone else could come up with a better example - something on the WCML perhaps that you could use as a filling in a 2 single sandwich to get from London to Manchester?

I imagine something obscure like a Tring to Stone season ticket (if such a thing exists) would fulfil that requirement. Next question, if you had a Tring-Stone season ticket and sandwiched it with a Euston-Tring and a Stone-Manchester ticket, can you ride any Euston-Manchester service, or can you only ride the ones that run via Stoke-on-Trent?

 

[island]

Your tickets must together cover the full journey.

 

[Tibbs]

Your tickets must together cover the full journey.

But I guess if all 3 tickets were marked as 'any permitted' do they, in effect, become one 'super ticket' and allow you to travel on any permitted route from origin to destination?

I guess the question may be whether even if the train doesn't have to stop in the station where your tickets join, does the train have to pass through (or at least alongside for stations with a fast by-pass track) the stations for which you have a ticket.

 

[AndyLandy]

Your tickets must together cover the full journey.

Well, the above set of tickets do cover the full journey between Euston and Manchester, via Stoke-on-Trent. But only two of the three EUS-MAN services each hour go that way. The xx40 off EUS goes via Crewe. If you had a plain-jane EUS-MAN ticket, you could use any of the EUS-MAN trains, but what if you've cobbled together your journey using a season ticket that strictly speaking only covers one of the routes?

I guess the question may be whether even if the train doesn't have to stop in the station where your tickets join, does the train have to pass through (or at least alongside for stations with a fast by-pass track) the stations for which you have a ticket.

Yep, in essence, that's exactly what I'm asking.

 

[LexyBoy]

But I guess if all 3 tickets were marked as 'any permitted' do they, in effect, become one 'super ticket' and allow you to travel on any permitted route from origin to destination?

No, the individual tickets must be valid for all stretches of the journey. Although I have read that in the olden days "extension" tickets with Seasons were treated in this way, so that for example a London-Oxford Season plus Oxford-Birmingham day ticket would have been valid up the WCML.

I guess the question may be whether even if the train doesn't have to stop in the station where your tickets join, does the train have to pass through (or at least alongside for stations with a fast by-pass track) the stations for which you have a ticket.

Yes - the best/simplest explanation I've seen is that you must not deviate from the Permitted Routes for each ticket as defined by the Routeing Guide. So for example Reading-Oxford with a 19(c) split at Didcot is OK even on non-stop trains which bypass the station on an avoiding line, as the RG maps show the line going through Didcot, so you're using a Permitted Route from Reading-Didcot and from Didcot-Oxford. OTOH, Tring-Manchester with a split at Stone would be valid only if following permitted routes from Tring to Stone and from Stone to Tring. If there is no Permitted Route between Stone and Manchester via Stafford & Crewe then you must travel via Stoke.

 

[AndyLandy]

OTOH, Tring-Manchester with a split at Stone would be valid only if following permitted routes from Tring to Stone and from Stone to Tring. If there is no Permitted Route between Stone and Manchester via Stafford & Crewe then you must travel via Stoke.

Presumably you could use an overlapping ticket though? So instead of buying Stone-Manchester, you bought a Stafford-Manchester ticket? Your Tring-Stone season is valid via Stafford and you switch to the Stafford ticket en-route, even if the train doesn't call at Stafford.

 

[LexyBoy]

Presumably you could use an overlapping ticket though? So instead of buying Stone-Manchester, you bought a Stafford-Manchester ticket? Your Tring-Stone season is valid via Stafford and you switch to the Stafford ticket en-route, even if the train doesn't call at Stafford.

Yes, that would be fine - you can any ticket(s) as long as they cover the route taken; there's no requirement to use the whole distance covered by the ticket (leaving BoJ restrictions aside, though it's debatable whether BoJ restrictions can apply in this case).

 

[WillPS]

The guard does not seem to have any knowledge of 19c and implies the passenger is at a fault and is only being let off because he has a season ticket.

If I was that passenger I would (unwisely) have been tempted to defend myself further by demonstrating that the combination was definitely OK - I would not like the suggestion that I was a fare-evader being let off this time.

Based on the guard's accent I guess this was EMT.

Definitely EMT. You can tell by the distinctive Meridian seat (with antimacassar in Standard but not First).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Definitely EMT. You can tell by the distinctive Meridian seat (with antimacassar in Standard but not First).

Not forgetting the discussion involves a ticket to West Hampstead and there is the constant rumble of an underfloor engine....