Was this trying to 'start late' on an Advance ticket?

[bb21]

Which to anyone rational person is of course completely ridiculous, given that exactly the same train is involved therefore it isn't the case that trains from Newton Abbot are empty and trains from EXD are full so demand management pricing is used to even the loadings.

Why is it ridiculous? The rail fare for a journey is not made up of component parts between each station call so why should a ticket for a specific journey be priced higher or lower than another specific journey. The passenger did not pay to be conveyed on that train plus others. He paid to be conveyed between one station and another, using a specific service. There are many reasons why the price for a journey going further afield is lower than one to a nearer location.

The problem as I see is that for whatever reason, some people either don't know that they cannot start/stop short on Advance tickets, or that they do but choose to try it on anyway. There should be more of an effort to make sure that people are aware of their obligations, such as highlighting this clause in red when purchasing online and being notified when purchasing in person in the case of the former.

FGW must think that undermining its own staff, who did nothing wrong as it appears, in public is a great way to boost morale.

 

[yorkie]

Gateline staff at FGW stations have been give SPECIFIC instructions to do exactly what was done in this instance,....

By who? As I'd like to ask them why they ignore memos from ATOC.

Do the TOCs not realise that such instructions to staff will not only put staff in difficult positions with unnecessary conflicts, but also generate negative publicity?

The rail industry managed to get away with charging people for a full fare ticket when they got the wrong train on an Advance, so they were told to stop doing that and now charge the appropriate fare.

If the rail industry isn't going to apply common sense in this situation too, then someone is going to have to force them to.

If memos from ATOC are being ignored by TOC management, then that needs dealing with and escalating.

FGW must think that undermining its own staff, who did nothing wrong as it appears, in public is a great way to boost morale.

It sounds like a failing of FGW management, for instructing their staff incorrectly and in a way that is not consistent with the industry standards.

 

[Goatboy]

Why is it ridiculous? The rail fare for a journey is not made up of component parts between each station call so why should a ticket for a specific journey be priced higher or lower than another specific journey. The passenger did not pay to be conveyed on that train plus others. He paid to be conveyed between one station and another, using a specific service. There are many reasons why the price for a journey going further afield is lower than one to a nearer location.

The specific service involved is the same one - he just joined one station further down the schedule. I know this is against the rules - I'd not do it myself - but if we strip away our railway interest for a minute and look at from the genreal publics point of view, it is nonsensical and yet another string in the bow of those who chose to argue the railways fare system is bewildering.

There is no logical or rational reason (Other than 'because they can' which I suspect is the reason but shouldn't be) why it should be cheaper to travel on that train from Newton Abbot than from Exeter. It's not even as if it's like, say, Reading whereby you'd perhaps want to discourage people from using that particular train and instead use one of a myriad of others. 99% of trains from Exeter to London Paddington have also passed through Newton Abbot. There are no alternatives. Its the same train. The two journeys (Exeter to Padd and Newton Abbot to Paddington) are of similar time length. One city isn't ful of London commuters whilst the other is devoid, for example.

We know why it happens - it's because the Advances are quota controlled on a station basis - but you can't expect everyone else to know thats why or even agree thats logical and sane.

Ignoring all the rules and procedures for a second - as nobody disputes its against the rules - can you give me one really good reason why somebody with a Newton Abbot to Paddington Advance should not be able to board that same train 20 minutes later in Exeter should they find themselves there instead and why it is rational to expect them to purchase a new ticket?

 

[ryan125hst]

While on the subject of advanced tickets, here's a question that came to mind yesterday evening:

I was watching a video of the Highland Chieftain and wondered whether or not you would be able to catch the Caledonian Sleeper after arriving at Inverness, if you were wanting to travel on both of these services (as a rail enthusiast or a visitor to the UK).

As it happens, the Highland Chieftain arrives at Inverness at 20:06, and the Caledonian Sleeper sets off for London at 20:44. This is plenty of time to make the connection, but I was wondering what would happen if the Highland Chieftain was delayed? If you knew you wouldn't make the connection, would you be permitted to leave the train at Aviemore and join the sleeper from there if you were on advanced tickets for both services? I know this would involve stopping and starting short, but would staff allow it in the correct curcumstances? If not, your only option would be to pray that a nearby hotel has a vacancy!

 

[bb21]

Ignoring all the rules and procedures for a second - as nobody disputes its against the rules - can you give me one really good reason why somebody with a Newton Abbot to Paddington Advance should not be able to board that same train 20 minutes later in Exeter should they find themselves there instead and why it is rational to expect them to purchase a new ticket?

Maybe the fare from Newton Abbot is lowered to encourage usage from that area, for example.

This is how yield-management works. When a contract is formed between two parties, you cannot use "common sense" to interpret the agreement. Is it really that difficult to make sure that the journey starts at the origin stated on the ticket, or pay an excess for the flexibility?

Maybe Advance fares should allow flexibility in starting/finishing short, but who is going to foot the bill for the shortfall in revenue?

 

[sheff1]

Well I am being very careful what i say on the subject on here but lets just say there is far more to it than the Beeb has reported.

I appreciate the need for you to be careful. However, if FGW did indeed apologise and are going to refund him, then they seem to be accepting that the way the incident was dealt with was inappropriate, so I am wondering what the 'far more' might be.

 

[Greenback]

Maybe the fare from Newton Abbot is lowered to encourage usage from that area, for example.

This is how yield-management works. When a contract is formed between two parties, you cannot use "common sense" to interpret the agreement. Is it really that difficult to make sure that the journey starts at the origin stated on the ticket, or pay an excess for the flexibility?

Maybe Advance fares should allow flexibility in starting/finishing short, but who is going to foot the bill for the shortfall in revenue?

Market pricing also has a bit to do with it, something that has been adopted from airline practice. Naturally, TOC's don't like to get caught out when trying to prevent passengers from taking advantage of cheap Advance fares and then starting short, but equally they don't seem keen on the negative headlines when this highlighted in the media.

As noted, it is the front line staff that can't do right either way.

 

[sheff1]

The passenger did not pay to be conveyed on that train plus others. He paid to be conveyed between one station and another, using a specific service.

This is, of course, true but it is quite understandable that the passenger would translate that into a belief that he has paid to occupy a specific seat on a specific service between the hours of xx/xx (the departure time from Newton Abbot) and xx/xx (the arrival time at Paddington). If he then chose not to use that seat for the whole period then to him, and many outsiders, that would seem perfectly reasonable.

 

[jb]

Advances as they are currently configured suit me fine. By all means have a ticket type that is less restrictive than this and allows stopping and starting short, but price it appropriately and don't expect those of us who use Advances correctly to subsidise those who don't. I actually care not a jot about the "common-sense" "feelings" of those who want something more than they have paid for.

 

[sheff1]

I actually care not a jot about the "common-sense" "feelings" of those who want something more than they have paid for.

Ah, but in this case he wanted less

 

[Goatboy]

Maybe the fare from Newton Abbot is lowered to encourage usage from that area, for example.

It's not. Infact the Advance tiers from Newton Abbot are ever so slightly more expensive than the equivilent tier from Exeter (Though the difference is pennies) as you'd expect for a destination thats ever so slightly further.

This is how yield-management works. When a contract is formed between two parties, you cannot use "common sense" to interpret the agreement.

It is very unlikely there was a higher price for the Exeter ticket when he bought his original ticket anyway. Infact its more likely the ticket from Exeter was, at that point, CHEAPER.

Is it really that difficult to make sure that the journey starts at the origin stated on the ticket, or pay an excess for the flexibility?

When the excess is many times the cost of the ticket, that seems unreasonable. Especially when the 'flexiblity' is to simply board the same train you originally booked on. He was hardly trying to get onto an alternative, perhaps busier train, was he? The cheapest way for him to 'officially' solve the problem would have been to purchase a single from Exeter St Davids to Newton Abbot, travel all the way back to Newton Abbot, get on his train 20 minutes earlier, then travel back through Exeter. All to satisfy a largely beaurocratic rule and avoid having to pay a significant amount more for a ticket.

It's just daft and everyone who isn't getting hung up on the detail knows it. This sort of thing isn't a big problem on the railway and shouldn't be made as such. If he was off route, or on a different train, I'd totally agree that the rules should penalise him.

An advance commits you to a certain train. Frankly as long as you've met that, I can't see the value in being harsher than that. It makes sense to commit people to certain trains. It makes no real sense to force somebody who finds themselves in Exeter to go all the way back to Newton Abbot to catch a train thats coming through Exeter anyway.

Maybe Advance fares should allow flexibility in starting/finishing short, but who is going to foot the bill for the shortfall in revenue?

I suspect the shortfall would be completely negligable, given how small the number of people who currently wish they could stop short but know they can't must be tiny, most people dont even know you can't anyway.

It isn't even clear you can't - you need to delve into the T&C's to find it. Fascinating for us lot, something 99% of the public will never do.

Effectively my point is that what he did would be deemed by any reasonable person to be 'not a big deal' and not worth the hassle and fuss it's since caused.

 

[bb21]

It's not. Infact the Advance tiers from Newton Abbot are ever so slightly more expensive than the equivilent tier from Exeter (Though the difference is pennies) as you'd expect for a destination thats ever so slightly further.

The quotas are not necessarily from a common pool, to give one counter-argument.

I gave you a possible reason to the question you asked. It might be the real reason and it might not. I don't know the answer and neither do you unless you know something that others don't.

It is very unlikely there was a higher price for the Exeter ticket when he bought his original ticket anyway. Infact its more likely the ticket from Exeter was, at that point, CHEAPER.

What does "very unlikely" equal in percentage terms?

When the excess is many times the cost of the ticket, that seems unreasonable. Especially when the 'flexiblity' is to simply board the same train you originally booked on.

The excess is to a normal walk-on fare. Other people requiring flexibility pay it, why not this person?

The flexibility is to start from a different station. You might think that there is no difference, but that does not mean it is correct.

He was hardly trying to get onto an alternative, perhaps busier train, was he?

Relevance being?

The cheapest way for him to 'officially' solve the problem would have been to purchase a single from Exeter St Davids to Newton Abbot, travel all the way back to Newton Abbot, get on his train 20 minutes earlier, then travel back through Exeter. All to satisfy a largely beaurocratic rule and avoid having to pay a significant amount more for a ticket.

It is bureaucratic because some people don't like it?

It might be added hassle, but that is the sacrifice when he paid for something at knock-down prices.

It's just daft and everyone who isn't getting hung up on the detail knows it. This sort of thing isn't a big problem on the railway and shouldn't be made as such. If he was off route, or on a different train, I'd totally agree that the rules should penalise him.

You pay a low price while you sacrifice flexibility. You pay more (excess to walk-on fares) for flexibility (joining at a different station than the one stated on the ticket) and it is no more than what other people get charged if they require flexibility. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm just repeating myself here and I don't think we are going to agree on this.

An advance commits you to a certain train. Frankly as long as you've met that, I can't see the value in being harsher than that. It makes sense to commit people to certain trains. It makes no real sense to force somebody who finds themselves in Exeter to go all the way back to Newton Abbot to catch a train thats coming through Exeter anyway.

It commits you to a specific itinerary. There are allowances made for travel on unreservable connecting services.

I suspect the shortfall would be completely negligable, given how small the number of people who currently wish they could stop short but know they can't must be tiny, most people dont even know you can't anyway.

... and out of "most", how many do actually know and just try it on?

It isn't even clear you can't - you need to delve into the T&C's to find it. Fascinating for us lot, something 99% of the public will never do.

... and they will find out the cost when they break these terms. Why is it OK to not read the T&Cs when agreeing to a contract?

Effectively my point is that what he did would be deemed by any reasonable person to be 'not a big deal' and not worth the hassle and fuss it's since caused.

What is the point of T&Cs if they can be broken without penalty because some people deem it to not be a big deal?

I am aware that I might come across very cynic in my views in this thread. You agree to some obligations when purchasing a ticket therefore stick with it. It is not as if this particular obligation is something hugely complicated. If you cannot stick to those terms, you pay what everyone else does when they require flexibility. What is so difficult about doing this?

The system might not be perfect, and desperately needs an overhaul for many reasons, however I do not think the terms of Advance fares are on that list.

 

[DelayRepay]

The system might not be perfect, and desperately needs an overhaul for many reasons, however I do not think the terms of Advance fares are on that list.

I think you're in the minority here. Other comments suggest that even ATOC disagree with you. Presumably First also disagree with you given that they refunded this chap, and have more or less publically said that starting late is ok.

I don't normally like making analogies but I'll make an exception here. You book bed and breakfast in a hotel, but in the morning you get up late and miss breakfast. Would you expect to be charged more because you didn't use all the services you'd paid for?

 

[Goatboy]

The excess is to a normal walk-on fare. Other people requiring flexibility pay it, why not this person?

Because most people would consider flexibility to mean the ability to catch any train they wished, or travel via a different route, or perhaps return on a day of their choice. Getting on exactly the same train 20 minutes later isn't exactly in the same league of these and doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd reasonably expect to pay a premium of 4 times the face value of your ticket for.

Relevance being?

I'm suprised you need to ask that - its probably the most important relevant factor.

As you know, Advance tickets are often priced to control loadings on particular trains. Try to purchase an Advance on a train out of Paddington at 5pm on a weekday and, well, good luck getting a low tier price. Try to buy one leaving at 10pm and you'll likely get a bargain rate. As is right and proper, because the 5pm train is very busy and the 10pm train is very empty.

Therefore if somebody was to purchase the very cheap ticket aimed to incresaing patronage of the empty train and instead decide they wished to travel on the busier and thus more expensive train, it is absolutely appropriate they should expect to pay perhap a significant excess for this flexibility. After all, moving trains will have a negative impact on the already busy train they wish to move to. A reasonable person would *expect* to pay a charge for this.

This is not the case in the example in this thread. The train in question is the same train from both stations. It doesn't change loading profile instantly in the space of 20 minutes. If it did, you'd not be buying cheap Advances on it from Newton Abbot either. All he did was take a little less than he'd paid for.

Lets examine the before and after consequences of his action on this train. Had he made his way back to Newton Abbot and boarded the train there, the consequence is that say Seat 23B on Coach B would have been unavailable to anyone else from Newton Abbot to Paddington. Had he boarded instead at Exeter the consequence is that Seat 23B would have been unavailable to anyone else from Newton Abbot to Paddington.

So, no net change at all, quite unlike the example where a passenger wishes to entirely change to a different train.

It might be added hassle, but that is the sacrifice when he paid for something at knock-down prices.

You pay a low price while you sacrifice flexibility. You pay more (excess to walk-on fares) for flexibility (joining at a different station than the one stated on the ticket) and it is no more than what other people get charged if they require flexibility. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The issue here I think is that we don't agree on what constitutes flexiblity. Changing trains is flexibility. Getting on the same train but 20 minutes is hardly flexible, is it? It's the same train. Sure technically there is 'flexibility' about where he got on but he's on the same train - he's still on that specific train.

ALL the advertising around Advance Fares make it quite clear you are tied to that specific train. He's still catching that specific train. His actions harm and inconvenience nobody.

... and they will find out the cost when they break these terms. Why is it OK to not read the T&Cs when agreeing to a contract?

Have you SEEN the NRCOC lately? We've all read it because we find that sort of thing interesting but come on! It's like asking if anyone has read the EULA of the iPad they bought for Christmas. Yes its very easy to sit on the internet and say 'Well you should have read that....' but people don't. Crucial and important information should be clearly and easily available not burried in a myriad of text most people won't have the inclination to read when purchasing something as trivial as a railway ticket. He's not signing a contract for a hire purchase on a new motorbike, or the deeds to a house, or a many thousand pound holiday. It's a 20 quid (or whatever) train ticket.

What is the point of T&Cs if they can be broken without penalty because some people deem it to not be a big deal?

I've already accepted that rules are rules. Is it not therefore obvious that I'm now arguing that perhaps some of the rules are unneccesary and simply create friction for no real benefit?

The system might not be perfect, and desperately needs an overhaul for many reasons, however I do not think the terms of Advance fares are on that list.

Generally, I agree. Advance ticket T&C's are mostly fine. You want to make sure Person A is on Train B. Thats the point. Not Train C, or Train Y. Train B. But frankly whether they get on at the next stop because a meeting over-ran or something at work is of no real consequence to anyone so I can see no reason to disallow it.

 

[bb21]

I think you're in the minority here.

I am fine to be in the minority. I don't expect people to agree with me all the time. (What's the point in that?)

Other comments suggest that even ATOC disagree with you. Presumably First also disagree with you given that they refunded this chap, and have more or less publically said that starting late is ok.

PR is a powerful thing. Sometimes too powerful.

I don't normally like making analogies but I'll make an exception here. You book bed and breakfast in a hotel, but in the morning you get up late and miss breakfast. Would you expect to be charged more because you didn't use all the services you'd paid for?

That is not part of the T&Cs when you make a booking though, so I don't believe the analogy is valid.

I don't necessarily think that it would be a bad thing if the terms of Advance fares are amended slightly to allow some flexibility such as those under debate, however it will almost undoubtedly come at a cost.

Life isn't fair or equal with some people having an edge over the others in all sorts of areas. Railway ticketing is no different. What is reasonable is a highly subjective matter as every different individual will have their own slant/priorities/excuses, and a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Some people appear to want to have their cake and eat it, such as this guy who started short on an Advance ticket, and that also applies to some train companies, too. This attitude stinks and that will more or less explain why I am quite cynical in this thread.

 

[Goatboy]

That is not part of the T&Cs when you make a booking though, so I don't believe the analogy is valid.

Nobody is saying that starting short is allowed in the T&C's. We all know what the T&C's say and we all agree they forbid it. What we are saying is that this particular restriction is draconian and should not be in the T&C's.

Just as it's not in the T&C's that you must have the breakfast at the B&B.

I don't necessarily think that it would be a bad thing if the terms of Advance fares are amended slightly to allow some flexibility such as those under debate, however it will almost undoubtedly come at a cost.

Why should it come at a cost? Travelling further should come at a cost. Travelling on a different train should come at a cost. Travelling on a different day should come at a cost. Travelling on the specified train from a station one stop closer to your destination differs from all of these. It's not something he'd have had to pay more for at the time of booking.

What is reasonable is a highly subjective matter as every different individual will have their own slant/priorities/excuses, and a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

There will be concencous on what is considered 'reasonable' which is why the term is often used in law.

Some people appear to want to have their cake and eat it, such as this guy who started short on an Advance ticket, and that also applies to some train companies, too. This attitude stinks and that will more or less explain why I am quite cynical in this thread.

You seem to be of the opinion that it was a deliberate and calculated act by somebody who knew the rules. Perhaps it was but its more likely it wasn't. He probably bought his advance ticket ages ago, found himself in Exeter the afternoon of his train (These two towns are very close, many people live in one and work and/or shop in the other. Walk-on fares between the two are also very cheap) and thought 'Actually I guess I may as well just jump on here' as many people might consider sensible.

He's paid to travel from Newton Abbot to London Paddington on Train B. Outside of this forum I doubt a single person would consider it fair that you wouldn't be able to jump on AFTER Newton Abbot. He is taking less than he has paid for and not expecting a refund for the un-used section of his journey. The T&C's should permit this, there is no real reason for them not to.

 

[Holly]

Nobody is saying that starting short is allowed in the T&C's. We all know what the T&C's say and we all agree they forbid it. What we are saying is that this particular restriction is draconian and should not be in the T&C's.
Just as it's not in the T&C's that you must have the breakfast at the B&B. ...

Yes, there may be all sorts of good reasons why the railway wants to do this.

But the simple fact of the matter is that most of the travelling public does not regard prohibition of boarding long or alighting short to be fair, reasonable, or even conscionable.

It is simply bad for business; makes passengers very angry to see such a rule enforced even if they are not personally affected by it. Plus, if there is much more publicity on this it is distinctly possible that the political process and legislation will be used to put an end to the practice. If the TOCs don't want government to clamp down on them they need to put their house in order and act like decent reasonable people.

Here lies the body of Johnathan Gray;
who died maintaining his right of way;
his was right, dead right, as he sped along;
and he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

 

[bb21]

I'm suprised you need to ask that - its probably the most important relevant factor.

While I agree that this is what Advance fares are supposed to do, there are plenty of examples to suggest that it is far from the truth in reality.

The issue here I think is that we don't agree on what constitutes flexiblity. Changing trains is flexibility.

Yes, I think this is the root cause of the disagreement.

ALL the advertising around Advance Fares make it quite clear you are tied to that specific train. He's still catching that specific train. His actions harm and inconvenience nobody.

There is probably a need for certain information to be made more explicit. I haven't paid attention to the wording at the booking stage for a while. If they are misleading then there might be a case to argue otherwise.

Have you SEEN the NRCOC lately? We've all read it because we find that sort of thing interesting but come on! It's like asking if anyone has read the EULA of the iPad they bought for Christmas. Yes its very easy to sit on the internet and say 'Well you should have read that....' but people don't. Crucial and important information should be clearly and easily available not burried in a myriad of text most people won't have the inclination to read when purchasing something as trivial as a railway ticket. He's not signing a contract for a hire purchase on a new motorbike, or the deeds to a house, or a many thousand pound holiday. It's a 20 quid (or whatever) train ticket.

But aren't the principles the same? We can choose not to read it however if something were to happen then we can't really rely on the fact that we have not read it as an excuse.

Nobody is saying that starting short is allowed in the T&C's. We all know what the T&C's say and we all agree they forbid it. What we are saying is that this particular restriction is draconian and should not be in the T&C's.

I don't think it is draconian, as he was required to pay the same as others who require flexibility. Then again, this goes back to the fundamental disagreement between us so I don't think we are going to reach consensus.

Why should it come at a cost? Travelling further should come at a cost. Travelling on a different train should come at a cost. Travelling on a different day should come at a cost. Travelling on the specified train from a station one stop closer to your destination differs from all of these. It's not something he'd have had to pay more for at the time of booking.

That is not how tickets are priced though. Some tickets are, while others use totally different formulae.

There will be concencous on what is considered 'reasonable' which is why the term is often used in law.

There might be some guidance however it is open to interpretation and certainly not consensus.

I think we are just going around in circles here. There are some fundamental differences that I don't think we will be able to agree on.

 

[Goatboy]

He was required to pay the same as others who required the flexiblity to take a different train when all he wanted to do was take the same train...

I still dont fully understand understand what happened after he bought a new ticket. On what grounds was he stopped on the platform now holding a ticket to Taunton? This ticket was valid on the train he was intending to board.

 

[neilmc]

Well, did he in some way try to gain an advantage? If not - and I presume FGW consider it not - then they have grovelled and quite properly offered a refund.

The whole thing sounds ludicrous to any member of the public. If FGW thought they were in the right they could have stood firm but they chose not to, so it's a clear invitation to the public to go to the media when these things happen.

Remember, most people on this forum are train enthusiasts or TOC employees so what you might think doesn't really have all that much clout compared to the BBC says even if you're technically right.

If, however, for example you buy an off-peak ticket from Lancaster to London for the 07.38 and board at Preston because "someone offered you a lift" I wonder whether Virgin would back down at an obvious attempt to "start late" and get round off-peak restrictions? I bet not, though to the public it would still seem ludicrous that you can get a much cheaper fare for a longer journey on the same train.

 

[bb21]

I still dont fully understand understand what happened after he bought a new ticket. On what grounds was he stopped on the platform now holding a ticket to Taunton? This ticket was valid on the train he was intending to board.

Too many unfilled gaps and I don't think we will know the full details anyway.

Now stepping away from my personal opinion of what is reasonable in this situation, which we disagree on, from purely business considerations, it would be pretty much PR suicide if FGW do not refund him the money for the extra ticket bought. The tabloids will have a field day.

 

[island]

I don't normally like making analogies but I'll make an exception here. You book bed and breakfast in a hotel, but in the morning you get up late and miss breakfast. Would you expect to be charged more because you didn't use all the services you'd paid for?

You've fallen into the common fallacy of assuming that travel from A-C via B is divisible into component parts of A-B and B-C. It's not. They are completely inseparable services.

In the alternative, bed and breakfast at a hotel isn't cheaper than room only.

Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that when you buy an advance ticket you obtain a severely reduced price, for which you give up the option to break your journey, start it late, end it early, etc. Part of the reason you have obtained the low price is because you chose voluntarily to give up that flexibility. A range of higher and more flexible fares is available, and these were almost certainly offered to you at the time of purchase.

A more appropriate analogy is that Tesco's is selling ham sandwiches for 50p each (reduced to clear) and you take a pack of ham from the shelves and want to pay £1 for it rather than the £2.20 pack price because it contains the same amount of ham as two sandwiches.

 

[Goatboy]

In the alternative, bed and breakfast at a hotel isn't cheaper than room only.

There is absolutely no reason to suggest that in this case Newton Abbot to Paddington was cheaper than Exeter to Paddington, therefore this isn't relevent. It is more likely than not that he originally he paid more for his ticket than he would have if he'd have purchased it from Exeter instead. I have just randomly selected 3 dates over the next 2 months and on every occasion the Exeter fare was either the same price or cheaper than the Newton Abbot advance fare.

Part of the reason you have obtained the low price is because you chose voluntarily to give up that flexibility.

Except where it gets more murky is that you remain using the *same* train. You don't take an earlier one or a later one or one on a different day or one using another route.

A more appropriate analogy is that Tesco's is selling ham sandwiches for 50p each (reduced to clear) and you take a pack of ham from the shelves and want to pay £1 for it rather than the £2.20 pack price because it contains the same amount of ham as two sandwiches.

This is a terrible analogy that has little to do with the issue at hand. The pack of ham on the shelves is a seperate thing entirely, whereas the train in question is the same train. It's perhaps like buying an all-day breakfast from the Tesco cafe at a bargain price but deciding, after purchasing it, that you don't want to eat the bacon.

 

[island]

Right, then, stick with the other two prongs of the argument.

 

[Goatboy]

For me, its simple. Why, in theory, are advance tickets offered? To control loadings on specific trains. To fill empty trains and discourage the use of busy trains - to make best use of the availablle capacity by filling the gaps on the train that would exist if only walkon fares were available.

Does allowing people to buy an Advance ticket on a cheaper train and then move to another train free of charge distort this? Yes. Therefore, it should be prohibited.

Does allowing people to buy an Advance ticket on a cheaper train and then move to a different day free of charge distort this? Yes. Therefore, it should be probhibited.

Does allowing people to buy an Advance ticket on a train and then subsequently board at the following station distort this? No. Therefore it should not be prohibited. The seat is still occupied, as planned, on the train on which the ticket was intended for use.

 

[island]

Advance tickets are also offered to facilitate people who would like to travel but would not like to pay the walk-up fare. The propensity of people in city A to pay might be less than that in city B, despite B being nearer the destination. It therefore absolutely does distort the purpose of advance tickets to allow passengers to join late, because the amount the company could have obtained if the passenger bought the ticket for the journey they were really using could be higher.

I accept it may not have applied in this specific situation, but I wish you the best of luck finding a way to indicate "this ticket from Swindon to London was cheaper than the cheapest ticket from Bristol to London on the same train, so the Bristol ticket is valid to start late at Swindon" or to decide whether the said ticket from Swindon to London is valid if Bristol to London on that train was more expensive but Newport S Wales to London would have been less.

 

[swj99]

Or should the TOC's babysit them and provide them with specific instructions such as "THE TRAIN MUST BE BOARDED AT THE ORIGIN STATION SHOWN ON THE TICKET"

It's got nothing to do with babysitting. Stating something important in plain English makes good sense, helps to avoid ambiguity and is not babysitting at all.

Or perhaps its time for a common-sense approach - lets be honest here, he was boarding exactly the same train heading to exactly the same destination, just 20 minutes further down the line. You can see why most of the general public would not even give a moments second thought to whether that was valid or not.

Very good point. Which I think sums up what is wrong in many areas of life in the UK at the moment. A lot of it stems from people not being allowed to use common sense or work on their own initiative, and the proliferation of rules and regulations, despite various governments promising to get rid of red tape.

Ultimately this rule is not common sense so if the TOCs want to enforce it they should ensure passengers are told.

Makes sense to me.

Why would a TOC want to shoot itself in the foot and highly publicise that they are unreasonable people who care only about profit and care nothing about customer service?.......

Don’t know, but that’s the effect I suspect it has. All it achieves is a PR disaster in which the TOC is yet again portrayed as the bad guy by the media.

On the subject of enforcing the rules, I think it’s time, either for Network Rail, TOCs and BTP to stop cherry picking which byelaws and rules they wish to enforce, or for those byelaws to be radically overhauled, so that the ones which are not enforced, the ones which are only enforced inconsistently, and the ones which are at odds with other UK and UE law, are changed or got rid of. It’s going to happen anyway, sooner or later, much though I hate to contemplate the prospect of further EU influence. But it will happen as more and more EU law is introduced to this country, and as a result of legal challenges to the railway bylelaws, where these are at odds with EU law, and the case law which will inevitably follow on from this.

And most importantly, that is not their fault. Until the railway (collectively) gets its arse in gear, it will remain a most backward industry.

I think you're right there.

Lets stick to focusing on the real fare evaders rather than people like this chap.

That suggestion is almost too sensible, they'll never go for it.

But cynicism aside, I wonder how many real fare evaders slip through the proverbial net whilst passengers like the one in the news story are being treated like twunts. It's kind of like when you get pulled by customs getting off a French car ferry, and you idly wonder while they're using mirrors to look under your car, how many lorry loads of illegal immigrants drove past while it was happening.

Well I am being very careful what i say on the subject on here but lets just say there is far more to it than the Beeb has reported.

PM the details to me if you like, and I'll quote it as, "an unknown source".
Why not just say then ? It's not as if disclosing the details would be in breach of the Official Secrets Act.

If the rail industry isn't going to apply common sense in this situation too, then someone is going to have to force them to.

I reckon you’re right. But as I said earlier, I don't think it will be limited to just this particular issue.

I actually care not a jot about the "common-sense" "feelings" of those who want something more than they have paid for.

Fortunately, there are those in a position to do something about it, who are interested in common sense. Some of them are in positions of some considerable authority.
It would seem that this particular passenger wanted something less (ie a shorter journey) than the one he’d paid for.

....PR is a powerful thing. Sometimes too powerful.

Yes, you're not wrong there. In the former Soviet Union, it was called propaganda.

From a purely common sense perspective, I don’t think it makes any difference why the passenger caught the train at a different station because it was going there anyway. A rule that is contrary to the notion of common sense exists only to tie people up in knots. I mean look at this thread, 4 pages so far and it’s not midnight yet.

 

[yorkie]

I am disappointed that arguments are being made against the 'common sense' policies that the rail industry has agreed to adopt.

I'm not sure what's more disappointing - reading those arguments, or the fact that FGW management failed to pass on those instructions to their front-line staff. Well, the latter is utterly unsurprising to me, but reading the arguments against the common sense policies is a bit surprising.

I hope that one day TOCs give appropriate and comprehensive training & guidance to all their staff to avoid such incidents, which are PR disasters and, more importantly, they should avoid placing their staff in very difficult positions of unnecessary conflict. But that day seems a long, long way off.

 

[MikeWh]

The most disappointing issue on this thread for me is how a member of forum staff is stubbornly trying to justify the anti-common-sense nature of this specific issue.

 

[bb21]

I am sorry if I offended anyone with my views. Clearly this is not shared by a lot of people and have gone down very badly.