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?....
I have yet to see any evidence of this "memo" from ATOC about a "policy" to directly contradict a term/condition of a ticket which, incidentally, was set by ATOC.
TOCs contradicting staff publically is nothing new, infact it is brilliant for them in terms of revenue, take money from those who don't moan to the media and lambast staff for doing 'the wrong thing' when they do so that the passenger feels they can travel again.
....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....
R.I.P. Advance fares, you were good while you lasted, but, as with all things in this country, the minority ruined it for the rest of us.
....If memos from ATOC are being ignored by TOC management, then that needs dealing with and escalating.
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.
ATOC have ways of telling staff without the need to go to the TOCs, the easiest being Newsrail Express and The Manual. If these "memos" and "policies" exist it is not just the TOCs that want it kept quiet.
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....
As I read it, FGW were appologising for staff refusing access to a train when the passenger had a new ticket to Taunton, but perhaps I misread it.
....When the excess is many times the cost of the ticket, that seems unreasonable....
If he felt the terms of the contract to be unreasonable he had options, I think it is far more likely that he did not read the T&Cs.
....It's just daft and everyone who isn't getting hung up on the detail knows it....
Doing 65mph in a 30mph zone is against the law, but that is just daft and everyone who isn't hung up on the detail knows it. :roll:
....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....
So, if he breaks the terms of his ticket he should be penalised, but if he breaks the terms of his ticket he should not be penalised, yeah, that's common sense alright.....
....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....
"Customers must be at the departure station shown on the ticket in good time to catch the train. If they miss the first train on which they are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased....
....Customers may not start, break and resume, or end their journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary....
....Changes to time or date of travel must be arranged before departure of the first reserved train printed on the ticket, after which the ticket has no value and a new one must be purchased. Customers will need to present the ticket(s) and reservation(s) when they request a change.
Changes to tickets cannot be made on-board the train. If customers board a train without a ticket and reservation for that service, a new ticket must be purchased.
The origin, destination and Train Company or route shown on the ticket(s) must remain the same...."
Anything still not clear?
....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....
Is there a statistic that backs up this opinion?
....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....
No delving required, it starts just after 'Conditions of Use'.
....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.
And yet strangely it seems as though one such person has caused this "hassle" and "fuss".....
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....
It's a bit like an 0800 number costing a different amount to call from a mobile than a 0207 number, I mean, they are both just phone numbers of the same length and possibly even just in a different order, so you'd reasonably expect to pay the same for them....
....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....
The purpose of Advance fares is not really the issue here, the conditions attached to those fares is, and the passenger attempted to breach them.
....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....
Lets examine another angle, the passenger wants some flexibility in his ticket and buys a walk up fare as the advance does not suit his needs, the Advance is then sold to a passenger who may not otherwise travel. What is the net loss now?
....It might be added hassle, but that is the sacrifice when he paid for something at knock-down prices....
Indeed it is.
....ALL the advertising around Advance Fares make it quite clear you are tied to that specific train. He's still catching that specific train....
And what of the terms and conditions he agreed to when he bought the ticket?
....His actions harm and inconvenience nobody....
I disagree.
....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....
Exactly how is people not read ing the T&Cs the railway's fault?
....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....
It's not hard to find.
....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....
A contract is a contract.
....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 benefits are that the passenger gets a cheap ticket (at the cost of certain restrictions) and the railway get more money if the passenger cannot meet those conditions, sounds like a win-win to me.