Rail ticket 'revolution' could cut journey prices by up to a third

[amcluesent]

It would surely be to everyone's advantage to have all the routing info, easements, etc. were 100% computer checkable. That would allow introduction of mag-swipe tickets to cover journeys of considerable complexity/duration and the RPI can then 'swipe' to check validity.

 

[TUC]

I'm suspecious of any response to an issue like this that is based on 'it shouldn't be allowed because some people will get it wrong'. Yes a minority will and some won't be interested in taking advantage of it but why should that be used as a reason to stop people who can and will make use of it,including those who will with the right publicity and explanation? The same objections were raised to people being able to choose what hospital to be referred to and what phone company to use. Its based on a mixture of paternalism and service providers attempting to impede normal market pressures and so needs to be resisted.

 

[sheff1]

"While the fares data will be too complicated for individuals to process"

Rather patronising.

It would surely be to everyone's advantage to have all the routing info, easements, etc. were 100% computer checkable. That would allow introduction of mag-swipe tickets to cover journeys of considerable complexity/duration and the RPI can then 'swipe' to check validity.

It would be even better if the fares structure in GB was simplified. Other countries manage it.

'Computer checks' are only as good as the people doing the programming. Ticket gates which are programmed to reject perfectly valid tickets (to use just one example) show that there is a long way to go yet !

 

[island]

It would be even better if the fares structure in GB was simplified. Other countries manage it.

Do you have a proposal for how that could be done fairly?

 

[Simon11]

More fares simplified would result in higher fares, great news for the customer.....

What most people don't seem to understand is that this system would be huge (with huge processing required) and very expensive to design, create and run a system that would offer the cheapest ticket for every flow in the country taking into account the routing guide, walk up fares, all forms of splitting, special offers/promotions, advance fares etc. If the website is giving any incorrect information.....

 

[sheff1]

Do you have a proposal for how that could be done fairly?

Yes, and I have mentioned it on here more than once. The response has always been for certain posters to ask 'standard' questions which vary on each asking .

 

[ANorthernGuard]

This will be fun for guards like myself, we are not walking encyclopedias after all

 

[Paul Kelly]

Yes, most people seem to think it would be easy to write some computer program that can combine fares and restrictions, timetable, routeing guide and easements data to automatically show the cheapest fares for a journey - until they start seriously planning it and writing it!

The data actually is already there, if you know where to look. I spent a year and a half of my free time in 2010-11 reverse engineering the file format used by the Avantix Traveller CD-ROM and writing librailfare, which anyone can use to access all the fares data, if they know how to program in C and buy their own copy of the Avantix CD. The full timetable data feed that booking engines use is freely downloadable from http://data.atoc.org/. And ATOC will also give you a free sample CD-ROM containing fares and routeing guide data (including all restrictions and easements in computer-readable format) if you are serious enough to go and ask them for it.

The problem is that the data is of such extraordinary complexity that nobody has yet managed to use it to make any cheap fare finder tool of mainstream usefulness. I hear that ATOC thought it would be a "quick win" to engage a mapping company to analyse the routeing guide data and come up with a set of maps showing all permitted routes between each pair of stations - but even something like that, which on the surface doesn't seem that complicated, seems to be getting bogged down in data complexity; they have been at it for at least a year now and it isn't looking very "quick" any more...

 

[Roverman]

At the moment (in my opinion) TOCs tolerate people splitting tickets and taking advantage of less expensive permitted routes as it is more the exception rather than the norm. If every Tom, Dick and Harriet started doing it I would not be surprised if they lobbied for rules to be changed. I also agree with the person who said that harsh penalties for minor infringements (whether deliberate or not) would be more frequent too, I would also not be surprised if the availability of cheap Advance and Super OffPeak types of tickets dropped off a cliff.

 

[yorkie]

It would surely be to everyone's advantage to have all the routing info, easements, etc. were 100% computer checkable.

In theory, they already are! Just put the origin, destination, and via points into National Rail and see if it says it's all valid on one ticket, or if it requires more than one ticket. However, it's not always accurate.

In any case I've known passengers be harassed, accused, and insulted by rail staff when sat in the exact same seats that a computer booked them into, and/or when shown the full itinerary appearing on an ATOC-approved website.

Some people will not accept it if an ATOC-approved computer system shows a route as being valid, and still make up excuses as to why the ticket can't be valid.

In one case, a guard went from initially saying he'd call BTP, to then saying he'd issue a UFN, and finally letting the passengers off, as he slowly realised he was wrong. But he did not apologise. And that was on a through train - about as simple as you can get!!! There will always be a small minority of troublemaking ticket inspectors, until the TOCs do proper 'mystery shopping' to ensure good customer service, which they won't do.

Conversely I worry that if an app was given to on-board and ticket office staff in lieu of a through grounding in the RG it might become the new "the journey planner says no". After all you gotta have something to do with all these expensive smart phones some of the TOC's seem to give out these days.

Hmm, such a program could be called 'Rail Journey Information Service' and it could be abbreviated 'RJIS' It will be "consistent, accurate, current and reliable". Staff will no longer need to study the PDF documents as RJIS will always get it right. It will effectively mean the Routeing Guide is "automated as part of a new Journey Information System due for implementation next year." The year is 1998 isn't it? D'oh, too late, we're in 2012, and that's all happened, apparently.

It would be even better if the fares structure in GB was simplified. Other countries manage it.

I thought it was simplified in 2008? Oh yeah, they err, 'stretched the truth'. Anyway, yeah sure it can be simplified. I know exactly how they'd do it: abolish Super Off Peak & Off Peak Day fares. Virgin even want the Off Peak fares to be abolished (which they can't do as most of theirs are regulated)

'Computer checks' are only as good as the people doing the programming. Ticket gates which are programmed to reject perfectly valid tickets (to use just one example) show that there is a long way to go yet !

Very true!

Yes, and I have mentioned it on here more than once. The response has always been for certain posters to ask 'standard' questions which vary on each asking .

Is that the mileage based system? If so, my questions have not changed as far as I know

This will be fun for guards like myself, we are not walking encyclopedias after all

One or two come close!

At the moment (in my opinion) TOCs tolerate people splitting tickets and taking advantage of less expensive permitted routes as it is more the exception rather than the norm. If every Tom, Dick and Harriet started doing it I would not be surprised if they lobbied for rules to be changed.

They already have. They tried to get Condition 19 changed so that the train always had to call but this was rejected by the DfT. I understand East Midlands Trains & Virgin Trains management aren't happy about that!

 

[sheff1]

Is that the mileage based system? If so, my questions have not changed as far as I know

Yes it is & yes they did. My latest post (I think) on the subject was here ...
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1064786&postcount=117

I still believe my answers to the original 'standard' questions show how such a system could work .... but I also believe that such a system will never be even considered in this country whilst ATOC continue to lead on such matters.

 

[yorkie]

Yes it is & yes they did. My latest post (I think) on the subject was here ...
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1064786&postcount=117

Well, for the past year I asked for: York - Whitby, Peterborough - Leicester, Leicester - Nottingham and York - London as examples, but I did some digging and in March 2011 I asked for Sherburn - Whitby, Peterborough - Leicester, Leicester - Nottingham and York - Dronfield as examples, but really take your pick, any would do to get an idea of what prices we're talking about

I still believe my answers to the original 'standard' questions show how such a system could work .... but I also believe that such a system will never be even considered in this country whilst ATOC continue to lead on such matters.

I am struggling to find your post on that subject, but I recall some people have suggested specifying a rate for each line, and then charging the mileage at a different rate for different lines. It's not entirely mileage based and is partly market based, and I do not think it would remove all anomalies and could be difficult to calculate for some journeys (e.g. what do you calculate for York-Sheffield?). I cannot remember if you suggested that system or not?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Also...

While the fares data will be too complicated for individuals to process, it will be used by internet developers to create computer and smartphone apps. This will allow passengers to input journey details and automatically find the cheapest fare.

...is laughable. It is impossible to 'find the cheapest fare' automatically.

I'm very interested to understand what possible proof of impossibility could be appiled here. I am aware of none. Could either of you please help me?

Turning to this disagreement:

Another thing which worries me is 'pick-up only' and 'set-down only' stations. They appear as stops in the printed timetables, on NRE and on TOC and third party booking engines, but splits are not valid at those stations. Uninformed people are sure to get caught out by this . . . . .

This is incorrect. As long as you don't actually board a set down only train, you are perfectly at liberty to use a Manchester-Watford and a Watford-Euston ticket on a train which is set down only at Watford.

Could either of you (or anyone else) provide a binding authority which applies to all passenger travel to which this circumstance applies (and not just fragments of documentation which support each point of view), please?

'Computer checks' are only as good as the people doing the programming. Ticket gates which are programmed to reject perfectly valid tickets (to use just one example) show that there is a long way to go yet !

Are'nt we missing the crucial point that barrier gates are not intended to posess human properties - they just raise pre-determied categories of ticket which merit further examination and which could never be detected by our automated systems? (e.g. a Railcard discounted ticket, an ad-hoc Pass, Train and service Staff, a cycle-rack user, platform retail staff, person accompanying passenger, Standard Class pax travelling First-Class, local tickets for either end of a long journey (aka do-nuting), etc.)

 

[sheff1]

Well, for the past year I asked for: York - Whitby, Peterborough - Leicester, Leicester - Nottingham and York - London as examples, but I did some digging and in March 2011 I asked for Sherburn - Whitby, Peterborough - Leicester, Leicester - Nottingham and York - Dronfield as examples, but really take your pick, any would do to get an idea of what prices we're talking about

I am struggling to find your post on that subject, but I recall some people have suggested specifying a rate for each line, and then charging the mileage at a different rate for different lines. It's not entirely mileage based and is partly market based, and I do not think it would remove all anomalies and could be difficult to calculate for some journeys (e.g. what do you calculate for York-Sheffield?). I cannot remember if you suggested that system or not?

Well one I replied on was Grantham to Nottingham/Leicester as referenced here http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=702798&postcount=15. I assume the request/reply is now too old to be visible.

To recap, the walk up price is based on single fares corresponding to the mileage for the trains you wish to take. The actual mileage based fares would be set at the time of introduction and would need to be calculated using a basket of existing fares nationwide at the time. But at current prices for York - Sheffield (yet another query ) we might say a single would be £9.50 via Doncaster & £10.50 via Leeds. Due to fare tapers, as distances increase the mileage band for the same price widens. So, for example, a London - Edinburgh single would be the same price via either ECML or WCML.

Changing your mind on routeing is also very straightforward. To use an actual example from Switerland - last year I bought, from the TVM at Luzern, a ticket from Luzern to Wil routed via Zurich. However, on reaching the platform, the train via Rapperswil had a very inviting looking restaurant car so I went down to the ticket office, asked for a change of route, paid the couple of francs differnce in fare, received an additional ticket and was back on the platform in less than 5 minutes.

Are'nt we missing the crucial point that barrier gates are not intended to posess human properties

No, that is exactly my point. The '100% computer checkable' idea should not be seen as the panacea.

 

[yorkie]

Well one I replied on was Grantham to Nottingham/Leicester as referenced here http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=702798&postcount=15. I assume the request/reply is now too old to be visible.

The whole thread should be visible so I don't know why it's not there. Perhaps it was posted in an earlier thread. Sorry, I don't recall it.

To recap, the walk up price is based on single fares corresponding to the mileage for the trains you wish to take. The actual mileage based fares would be set at the time of introduction and would need to be calculated using a basket of existing fares nationwide at the time. But at current prices for York - Sheffield (yet another query ) we might say a single would be £9.50 via Doncaster & £10.50 via Leeds. Due to fare tapers, as distances increase the mileage band for the same price widens. So, for example, a London - Edinburgh single would be the same price via either ECML or WCML.

I had hoped to avoid this - we're now getting into a specialist area of pricing by distance - it seems you are suggesting a rate of 18.6p/mile (for the shortest regular route, with a lower increase for a longer route making that only 16.4p/mile*), in which case my post here applies, with very minor reductions in fare. Not quite sure how certain TOCs such as EC would cope with the demand, but some branch lines would be well and truly doomed.

(* That will cause anomalies if that is the way it has been calculated, unless the suggestion is that the rate per mile for any journey decreases with distance in which case that would cause some huge reductions for longer distance journeys such as York-London which may be as cheap as £50 for a walk-up any time return?)

 

[All Line Rover]

I'm very interested to understand what possible proof of impossibility could be appiled here. I am aware of none. Could either of you please help me?

I am surprised by this response. My reply here is pointless as I'm sure you are already aware of everything I am about to mention, but for the benefit of others...

• Many Routeing Guide easements are subjective and open to interpretation, sometimes leading to different Permitted Routes
• There are many different ways to calculate the 'shortest distance' - these often conflict and, short of attempting to measure the tracks using satellite imagery, it can be difficult to decide which one is correct
• There are many unanswered questions regarding interpretation of the Routeing Guide, such as 'Is a ticket with no cross-London marker valid via London when the maps meet at two separate London terminals?"

I could go on. In summary, whilst it is obviously possible to find cheaper routes, there is no way of finding the cheapest route, whether using automated or manual means.

Could either of you (or anyone else) provide a binding authority which applies to all passenger travel to which this circumstance applies (and not just fragments of documentation which support each point of view), please?

There is no binding authority, as you well know. One's viewpoint depends on one's interpretation of the rules. In the case of these dubious matters, I consider it best to err on the side of caution when 'promoting' them to the public.

 

[barrykas]

Well, for the past year I asked for: York - Whitby, Peterborough - Leicester, Leicester - Nottingham and York - London as examples, but I did some digging and in March 2011 I asked for Sherburn - Whitby, Peterborough - Leicester, Leicester - Nottingham and York - Dronfield as examples, but really take your pick, any would do to get an idea of what prices we're talking about

Utilising the HMRC mileage allowance of 25p a mile for over 10000 miles a year we get the following Returns for each example (rounded up to the next 5p where appropriate):

• York - Whitby : 171.5 miles - £42.90 (NFM14: £13.30 Off-Peak Day Return routed not via Darlington)
• Peterborough - Leicester : 105 miles - £26.25 (NFM14: £20.30 Off-Peak Return, £37.50 Anytime Return)
• Leicester - Nottingham : 54.5 miles - £13.65 (NFM14: £10.20 Off-Peak Day Return, £11.60 Anytime Day Return, £16.20 Off-Peak Return, £23.00 Anytime Return)
• Peterborough - Nottingham : 104 miles (via Grantham) - £26.00; 139.5 miles (via Melton Mowbray) - £34.90 (NFM14: £21.90 Off-Peak Day Return, £24.80 Off-Peak Return, £32.50 Anytime Return)
• York - London : 377 miles - £94.25 (NFM14: £98.00 Super Off-Peak Return, £154.00 Off-Peak Return, £249.00 Anytime Return)
• Sherburn-in-Elmet - Whitby : 197 miles - £49.25 (NFM14: £29.00 Off-Peak Day Return, £33.60 Off-Peak Return, £42.30 Anytime Return)
• York - Dronfield : 142.5 miles (via Leeds) - £35.65 or 117 miles (via Doncaster) - £29.25 (NFM14: £19.00 Off-Peak Day Return, £19.80 Anytime Day Return, £23.00 Anytime Return)

As we can see, some of the above are in the vicinity of current fares and some are way out, though that's partly down to the current system.

And now a few more examples using the same rate:

• Edmonton Green - Liverpool Street: 17 miles - £4.25 (NFM14: £8.10 Anytime Day Return)
• Palmers Green - Moorgate : 15.5 miles - £3.90 (NFM14: £8.10 Anytime Day Return)
• Palmers Green - Kings Cross : 13.5 miles - £3.40 (NFM14: £8.10 Anytime Day Return)
• Kings Cross - Cambridge : 116 miles - £29.00 (NFM14: £23.00 Off-Peak Day Return, £33.10 Anytime Day Return, £33.50 Off-Peak Return, £44.00 Anytime Return)
• Liverpool Street - Cambridge : 111.5 miles (via Tottenham Hale) - £27.90 (NFM14: £19.80 Off-Peak Day Return, £27.20 Anytime Day Return, £30.20 Off-Peak Return)

Cheers,

Barry

 

[yorkie]

I am surprised by this response. My reply here is pointless as I'm sure you are already aware of everything I am about to mention, but for the benefit of others...

I got the impression Dave was specifically asking you (and 34D) about the issue specifically relating to set down only calls. My view is that I am not convinced that there is a definite yes/no answer to this specific question, but if either of you can demonstrate otherwise, I think quite a few people would like to know!

In the absence of 100% definitive answer I would advise caution and advise against it, though I'd still support anyone in that position who was charged extra.

 

[barrykas]

I got the impression Dave was specifically asking you (and 34D) about the issue specifically relating to set down only calls. My view is that I am not convinced that there is a definite yes/no answer to this specific question, but if either of you can demonstrate otherwise, I think quite a few people would like to know!

My opinion is that you can't use a pick up/set down only call for a split under Condtion 19(b) as for a pick up only call, a ticket to that station wouldn't be valid on that train, and for a set down only call, a ticket from that station wouldn't be valid on that train.

YMMV, of course...

 

[All Line Rover]

I got the impression Dave was specifically asking you (and 34D) about the issue specifically relating to set down only calls.

I think you're reading the wrong half of my (and Dave's) posts.

Turning to this disagreement:

 

[sheff1]

I had hoped to avoid this - we're now getting into a specialist area of pricing by distance - it seems you are suggesting a rate of 18.6p/mile (for the shortest regular route, with a lower increase for a longer route making that only 16.4p/mile*), in which case my post here applies, with very minor reductions in fare. Not quite sure how certain TOCs such as EC would cope with the demand, but some branch lines would be well and truly doomed.

(* That will cause anomalies if that is the way it has been calculated, unless the suggestion is that the rate per mile for any journey decreases with distance in which case that would cause some huge reductions for longer distance journeys such as York-London which may be as cheap as £50 for a walk-up any time return?)

I hope to avoid it too, but as you seemed keen on specific prices I used a finger in the air example. As I said, the actual mileage rate would be calculated on the prevailing fares at the time for a nationwide basket of journies.

Fares per mile already, in effect, decrease the longer the journey.

London to Inverness is £344 return (so £172 notional single)
London to Edinburgh is £304 returm (£152 notional single)
but Edinburgh to Inverness is not £40 return.

A similar decrease would also apply under 'mileage based pricing' which is not the same thing as a standard rate per mile travelled.

You could address capacity problems by having peak and off peak mileage rates, but my reference countries (Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland) prefer to provide extra physical capacity on the trains themselves. In the latter two cases 10/12 car doubledeck trains are regular sights - I realise doubledeck is not a realistic option in the UK.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I got the impression Dave was specifically asking you (and 34D) about the issue specifically relating to set down only calls.

I asked 3 questions in the one post. Here, for clarity is my second question again:

Turning to this disagreement:

Another thing which worries me is 'pick-up only' and 'set-down only' stations. They appear as stops in the printed timetables, on NRE and on TOC and third party booking engines, but splits are not valid at those stations. Uninformed people are sure to get caught out by this . . . . .

This is incorrect. As long as you don't actually board a set down only train, you are perfectly at liberty to use a Manchester-Watford and a Watford-Euston ticket on a train which is set down only at Watford.

Could either of you (or anyone else) provide a binding authority which applies to all passenger travel to which this circumstance applies (and not just fragments of documentation which support each point of view), please?

My question here was prompted by the apparent confidence in the claim by All Line Rover that such splits "are not valid", and equal confidence by 34D that "this is incorrect".

ALR then replied:

There is no binding authority, as you well know. One's viewpoint depends on one's interpretation of the rules. In the case of these dubious matters, I consider it best to err on the side of caution when 'promoting' them to the public.

I agree that this is the only prudent context in which to present such options.

My view is that I am not convinced that there is a definite yes/no answer to this specific question, but if either of you can demonstrate otherwise, I think quite a few people would like to know!

In the absence of 100% definitive answer I would advise caution and advise against it, though I'd still support anyone in that position who was charged extra.

That's my understanding, which does not permit a confident assertion that such splits "are not valid" and nor to refute it.


BTW. Thanks ALR for answering my first question about the impossibility of an automated system being unable to calculate the cheapest ticket; I understand that your explaination is that you'd meant to refer to the procedure (whether automated or manual) which makes it impossible to find the cheapest price which is unambiguously valid, and were not intending to claim that it is a limitation of any and all automation that could not possibly find the cheapest price.
Your original post did not make that point, replying to: [The Independent] "This will allow passengers to input journey details and automatically find the cheapest fare."
by saying: [A L R] "...is laughable. It is impossible to 'find the cheapest fare' automatically."

I'm not persuaded that ambiguities in a procedure which generates several solutions will necessarily render those solutions unuseable.

 

[Oscar]

Well one I replied on was Grantham to Nottingham/Leicester as referenced here http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=702798&postcount=15. I assume the request/reply is now too old to be visible.

To recap, the walk up price is based on single fares corresponding to the mileage for the trains you wish to take. The actual mileage based fares would be set at the time of introduction and would need to be calculated using a basket of existing fares nationwide at the time. But at current prices for York - Sheffield (yet another query ) we might say a single would be £9.50 via Doncaster & £10.50 via Leeds. Due to fare tapers, as distances increase the mileage band for the same price widens. So, for example, a London - Edinburgh single would be the same price via either ECML or WCML.

Changing your mind on routeing is also very straightforward. To use an actual example from Switerland - last year I bought, from the TVM at Luzern, a ticket from Luzern to Wil routed via Zurich. However, on reaching the platform, the train via Rapperswil had a very inviting looking restaurant car so I went down to the ticket office, asked for a change of route, paid the couple of francs differnce in fare, received an additional ticket and was back on the platform in less than 5 minutes.

Swiss fare setting is a mixture of mileage and market based pricing. The basis of the fare is the distance but the fares are adapted so that passengers are for example not penalised for using branch lines which take an indirect route or a slower classic line instead of a new route. Routeing seemed to be left often where possible but is defined for each ticket. Bern - Zürich for example is "via Olten" and a Bern - Brig ticket is routed "Lötschberg" and tickets are marked as via X or Y if the same price applies.

 

[island]

I think this thread may need splitting into two or three?

 

[All Line Rover]

BTW. Thanks ALR for answering my first question about the impossibility of an automated system being unable to calculate the cheapest ticket; I understand that your explaination is that you'd meant to refer to the procedure (whether automated or manual) which makes it impossible to find the cheapest price which is unambiguously valid, and were not intending to claim that it is a limitation of any and all automation that could not possibly find the cheapest price.

Having looked back I appreciate that post was rather ambiguous and could be construed in such a way. That was not my intention.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think this thread may need splitting into two or three?

Mileage-based pricing has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Dubious matters such as splitting at pick-up/set-down only stations are a little off topic but do have some merit in this thread in that automated systems might promote these 'money saving techniques' without explaining their full ramifications.

 

[RJ]

I am surprised by this response. My reply here is pointless as I'm sure you are already aware of everything I am about to mention, but for the benefit of others...

• Many Routeing Guide easements are subjective and open to interpretation, sometimes leading to different Permitted Routes
• There are many different ways to calculate the 'shortest distance' - these often conflict and, short of attempting to measure the tracks using satellite imagery, it can be difficult to decide which one is correct
• There are many unanswered questions regarding interpretation of the Routeing Guide, such as 'Is a ticket with no cross-London marker valid via London when the maps meet at two separate London terminals?"

Re: the third one, I asked ATOC earlier this year and they categorically said no.

Re: the second one, that is a matter best left alone in my opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Britain is on the verge of a “rail fares revolution” that could enable passengers to save millions of pounds on published ticket prices for the first time.

Will passengers soon be carrying a sheaf of split-tickets to test the RPI's knowledge of permitted routes? "The iPhone app says I can do this!" :roll:

Not this again! This is not a revolution. We have a ticketing system that too many railway staff employed in retail (at all grades!) and revenue protection (likewise) can ill get their heads around, nor can a certain body who handles appeals for fare disputes culminating in the issue of Penalty Fares/Unpaid Fare Notices. Evidently, the media are not aware of this situation, which is why they champion any element of creative ticketing as a good way to save money.

People who are enthused enough to encourage split ticketing/show off their ability to find splits don't seem to understand what the reality is. This is evident in the almost universal lack of any disclaimers that use of splits carries a heightened likelihood of conflict with retail staff who might refuse to sell splits, or revenue protection staff who might refuse to accept them, nor warn of what may happen if someone deviates from their original journey plan and does something which invalidates the use of the split.

Personally, I don't see what the obsession is with forcing the concept of creativity on people. It all seems very short sighted to me. I and others have demonstrated that TOCs/ATOC can be very petty when it comes to closing loopholes that undermine the price/restrictions associated with the through ticket. What do people think will happen if thousands start using split ticketing? Anyone who thinks they can base a business on the use of loopholes which can be closed needs to undertake a brief reality check!

I don't think it will happen. Anyone who understands the needs of customers will be able to grasp the concept that they want the cheapest and simplest ticket for their journey. Anyone minded be creative would be doing their homework without the aid of computer programs.

Finally, I'd quite like see a computer program that could tell me what the cheapest way for me to get a non stop train from St Pancras to Leicester is, taking into account the fact that I hold a Zones 2-4 Travelcard. At varying times of day. Taking into account not just Condition 19b, but every single relevant clause in the Conditions of Carriage and the National Routeing Guide, even the ambiguous bits that ATOC even need to assemble a panel to decide on, plus errors, oddities and omissions in restriction code text, which in itself can be ambiguous and varies depending on where you look. Until I see something like this, I won't be convinced that any application that claims to offer the cheapest set of tickets is credible for that purpose.

Like I said, this is not a revolution. There are already some very good sites out there that can find some decent splits if we're just talking about Condition 19b and passengers who already have a good idea of their journey plans. Splitix and TCBC spring to mind.

What do I know anyway? Not like I have ever worked with selling tickets to customers of the railways, tried to be creative with tickets myself or had experience with on both sides of the fence of revenue protection.

 

[kieron]

My opinion is that you can't use a pick up/set down only call for a split under Condtion 19(b) as for a pick up only call, a ticket to that station wouldn't be valid on that train, and for a set down only call, a ticket from that station wouldn't be valid on that train.

YMMV, of course...

What you said would follow if 19(b) did not exist and people were relying on on-board staff turning a blind eye to someone who fails to leave the train between one journey and another. It does, though.

I'd argue that:
1. A train which calls at Watford to pick up passengers calls at Watford.
2. You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one ticket to another.
3. You may use two tickets for one journey where they cover the entire journey, you change from one ticket to the other in Watford, and the train calls at Watford to pick up passengers.

I am aware that some TOCs employ staff who are not willing and able to abide by the NRCoC, but this does not affect ticket validity. I believe that's what is being discussed here.

 

[talltim]

Hmm, such a program could be called 'Rail Journey Information Service' and it could be abbreviated 'RJIS' It will be "consistent, accurate, current and reliable". Staff will no longer need to study the PDF documents as RJIS will always get it right. It will effectively mean the Routeing Guide is "automated as part of a new Journey Information System due for implementation next year." The year is 1998 isn't it? D'oh, too late, we're in 2012, and that's all happened, apparently.

is that 'RJ is right'?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would have thought any mileage based pricing scheme would also have to include speed/journey time in its calculation, and possibly also frequency of service.

 

[Robsignals]

I'd argue that:
1. A train which calls at Watford to pick up passengers calls at Watford.
2. You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one ticket to another.
3. You may use two tickets for one journey where they cover the entire journey, you change from one ticket to the other in Watford, and the train calls at Watford to pick up passengers.

Fine after Watford but you shouldn't be on the train from Euston, don't know what an RPI would do if they found you before Watford - demand you buy a full price single from Euston to the first open stop perhaps.

 

[jon0844]

I wouldn't like to go messing around with tickets on set down/pick up only services.

They are set for specific reasons, one of which is to manage passenger usage for the benefit of other users. If you know that loads of people are going to fill up your long distance train and get off at the first stop, you want to stop that happening so there's room for the people going 'all the way'. So you make the first stop pick up only. Job done.

For set down only, I think the most common use is to allow trains to arrive early at the destination if they're way ahead of time (as many unhindered Intercity trains will be). Therefore, calling early isn't a problem if it's not advertised as a service.

Now, on the assumption that this is the only reason set down only is used, I guess there's less of an issue if someone DID board. It wouldn't unnecessarily delay the service, and if the person did miss it (or couldn't board because it was too crowded) then they couldn't complain. But revenue officers would almost certainly disagree.