Stopping Short

[VauxhallandI]

The price to Stockport was the same as to Manchester Picc.

 

[34D]

I've had a few glasses of wine. I'm totally confused now. Please can someone set out precisely what the "most favourable to the passenger" definition is here, and why.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Nobody has answered the fact that I looked at my booking confirmation on the train and even followed the link to the terms and nothing is mentioned about the no break in journey clause.

Should it not be there? Have I missed it?

Or is it there just once when booking which means you have to read them quickly (don't want to lose the ticket or be timed out on the site) any memorise them all.

It maybe not in following of the t&cs but boy is it loaded, cumbersome and some would argue spoiling for a fight

 

[MikeWh]

If I sit in it for the whole journey the fare is £20.

Yes, because that is what you agreed to do.

And is of course what 99% of people are quite happy to do.

If I get off a stop before the end it's £20.

No, because you have not paid for this journey.

Technically yes, but the railway does shoot itself in the foot here. If the fare is exactly the same (eg Weymouth or Upwey) then there really shouldn't be a problem at all. If the shorter distance is cheaper then there also shouldn't really be a problem. If the shorter distance is more expensive (eg Brockenhurst or Southampton) then I'd agree that the customer ought to pay the required fare to get back from where they should have gone.

If I don't travel at all it's £20.

On the basis that the railway can't actually force you to travel at all, yes.

And this is the bit that multiplies the percieved ridiculousness. If they are so concerned about you not using some of the service, surely they should be even more concerned about you not using it at all? Hence why I don't think any TOC would have a problem with you stopping short if you have bought a ticket to enable you to double back. They've got all the money they were ever going to get and have made you happy by saving you time. I also think the same should apply in reverse too. If you have a valid ticket to make the double back to the start of your advance then you should be able to join the advance service late. Again the railway hasn't lost anything, apart from forcing you to waste however much time that the double back would have taken. And as we've just said, the railway can't force you to travel at all.

If I go a stop beyond it's £20 plus the fare between those two stops at the end.

That is one way of doing it.

As long as you have the extra ticket before you get to your original destination, of course.

 

[Goatboy]

And in this case the seller has determined that the price of stopping short is more than the cost of only going to the destination. The buyer did not take up the option to have flexibility at the time of purchase and went with an inflexible fare. They agreed to that fare for that specific journey, nothing else.

Everyone in this thread understands exactly what the rules are. By continuning to repeat what the rules state you are simply demonstrating that you've missed the point people are making.

Nobody is disputing what the terms and conditions say.

 

[yorkie]

Everyone in this thread understands exactly what the rules are. By continuning to repeat what the rules state you are simply demonstrating that you've missed the point people are making.

Nobody is disputing what the terms and conditions say.

Indeed, I think everyone here knows what the conditions are (though many passengers do not) and we all know that the rail industry chooses not to enforce the conditions in the circumstances described by the OP. There is also a good argument to say the OP was valid by using a combination, and an even stronger argument if the OP had bought the Altrincham ticket from Manchester.

It's become a moral argument now, with most of us arguing that the rail industry policy of not charging passengers is a good solution, but with some arguing that the rail industry should not have this policy and should charge people an excess fare.

We've had that moral argument before, and we won't ever have everyone agreeing on it, so I don't really see what more can be gained in this discussion.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Indeed, I think everyone here knows what the conditions are (though many passengers do not) and we all know that the rail industry chooses not to enforce the conditions in the circumstances described by the OP. There is also a good argument to say the OP was valid by using a combination, and an even stronger argument if the OP had bought the Altrincham ticket from Manchester.

It's become a moral argument now, with most of us arguing that the rail industry policy of not charging passengers is a good solution, but with some arguing that the rail industry should not have this policy and should charge people an excess fare.

We've had that moral argument before, and we won't ever have everyone agreeing on it, so I don't really see what more can be gained in this discussion.

Strangely enough buying a ticket from Manchester to Alty instead of from Stockport would seem incorrect to me. I can see the logic but I doubt even more that joe P would get their head around it. Travelling on a line without a ticket for the line

 

[yorkie]

Strangely enough buying a ticket from Manchester to Alty instead of from Stockport would seem incorrect to me. I can see the logic but I doubt even more that joe P would get their head around it.

I agree, the average person would not think this necessary, but I also agree with DaveNewcastle's logic on that matter.

Travelling on a line without a ticket for the line

You mean the other way round: holding a ticket for the line (Stockport-Manchester & back) and not travelling on it? Yeah, I agree, but it makes your case that bit more 'watertight' as you then definitely have a valid combination of tickets for a journey London - Stockport - Manchester - Stockport - Altrincham, and you could approach the guard with that valid combination and ask for advice on where to change trains, and specifically whether or not you are required to do a double-back.

So far, I'm aware of a small number of people who have done that, and in all known cases the guard authorised the passenger to avoid the double-back.

I am not necessarily saying that it is necessary, nor that you did anything wrong, but for the sake of 20p to solidify your case, it is worth it in my opinion.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Nobody has answered the fact that I looked at my booking confirmation on the train and even followed the link to the terms and nothing is mentioned about the no break in journey clause.

Should it not be there? Have I missed it?

. . .

I thought I'd mentioned them, but if not, here they are (from the National Rail website) under "Advance ticket terms and conditions":-

Break of journey

You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.

I've had a few glasses of wine. I'm totally confused now. Please . . . . .

A few?
Can you assure us that you completed each glass before commencing the subsequent leg of your wine intake?
If there is any suggestion that you 'topped up' your glass with more wine before completing the consumption of the previously supplied glass, then I think we need to investigate you further. Your consumption of wine should extend all the way to the bottom of the glass as it was originally filled without Refilling Short.

 

[Starmill]

I've had a few glasses of wine. I'm totally confused now. Please can someone set out precisely what the "most favourable to the passenger" definition is here, and why.

Indeed, I'm profoundly concerned that I have agreed with everything 455driver and hairyhandedfool have posted on this matter!

 

[VauxhallandI]

I agree, the average person would not think this necessary, but I also agree with DaveNewcastle's logic on that matter.

You mean the other way round: holding a ticket for the line (Stockport-Manchester & back) and not travelling on it? Yeah, I agree, but it makes your case that bit more 'watertight' as you then definitely have a valid combination of tickets for a journey London - Stockport - Manchester - Stockport - Altrincham, and you could approach the guard with that valid combination and ask for advice on where to change trains, and specifically whether or not you are required to do a double-back.

So far, I'm aware of a small number of people who have done that, and in all known cases the guard authorised the passenger to avoid the double-back.

I am not necessarily saying that it is necessary, nor that you did anything wrong, but for the sake of 20p to solidify your case, it is worth it in my opinion.

I see a ticket back to Stockport and then on to Alty.

To do this I would have had to have known in advance. If I had known in advance I would have bought the ticket to Stockport at the same price as the Manchester one. Making this whole debate a farce.

In the buying the extra scenario I would have had to gamble that the ticket lady would have allowed me to do it, may have just sent myself to the gallows.

Inconsistency is a problem it would seem.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

If I had known in advance I would have bought the ticket to Stockport at the same price as the Manchester one. Making this whole debate a farce.

And ultimately this is the problem. The ticket system is understood by no-one including the rail companies. The rules make so much sense that they don't get enforced for fear of publicity making the rail company a laughing stock. So passengers pay what they think is correct, or faced with being hit with what in effect are huge fines for getting it wrong, they fly or drive. Any business has to have it's customers understanding and accepting their pricing structure to succeed. Have the railways succeeded?

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

 

[Goatboy]

advance i would have bought the ticket to stockport at the same price as the manchester one. Making this whole debate a farce.

but the rules!! But the revenue you deprive them of!!!!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....To do this I would have had to have known in advance. If I had known in advance I would have bought the ticket to Stockport at the same price as the Manchester one. Making this whole debate a farce....

Or you could have bought an Advance to Altrincham and saved some hassle and a couple of pounds.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's absolutely fine that you don't understand yield management. No-one is expecting you to.

Yield management is about getting bums on seats. My bum is on a seat between London and York regardless of whether my advance ticket is to Darlington, Newcastle or Pluto. If the yield- i.e. the number of advance seats available on a train between London and York- is actually being managed, it should be no cheaper to go to Darlington than to York. There should also not be a situation where all the London-York tickets have gone when there are still London-Darlington tickets available.

If it is cheaper to travel further on the same type of ticket, then the TOCs are ripping people off. The only "revenue loss" is from the passenger's wallet into the greedy fat cat TOC's bank account.

I'm assuming you wouldn't demand I pay an excess fare all the way back home if I decide I can't be chewed with travelling after all. Therefore I see no reason, other than sheer greed, why a TOC should charge me an excess if I only go half way.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Or you could have bought an Advance to Altrincham and saved some hassle and a couple of pounds.

I don't believe this an option on the virgin website?..

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I don't know about the Virgin website, but it is an option at a railway station.

 

[island]

This whole argument is based on the premise that on a journey from A-E if the train calls at B, C, and D, that a journey from A-E is composed of four sub-journeys.

TOCs may choose to offer a better price from A-E than from A-D because passengers travelling to E have a lower propensity to pay. They then need to have some way of ensuring that people who buy the service of being conveyed to E do not fraudulently use a more expensive service, of being conveyed to D instead. And this is done by adding break of journey rules.

Thankfully there hasn't been any supermarket analogies yet in this thread because they are meaningless. The premise that people need to get around to is that a journey from A-E is (in economics) a different product entirely to a journey from A-D, not consuming more of the same product.

If the rules were definitively ruled unenforceable, the TOCs would simply increase prices to the disadvantage of those travelling to E so that nobody could benefit from stopping short.

 

[bb21]

If the rules were definitively ruled unenforceable, the TOCs would simply increase prices to the disadvantage of those travelling to E so that nobody could benefit from stopping short.

That is what will almost certainly happen, if current pricing is reasonable and fair.

The only two possibilities that I can see if these rules are relaxed and prices don't change is either these are already built into current pricing (i.e. current prices not reasonable nor fair), or that the train companies receive more subsidy, and I can't see the latter happening with this or any incoming government. The former is possible to a certain degree but I doubt the TOCs had accounted for stopping short in full in their pricing.

Be careful what you wish for is the view I always hold. A superficial victory may not actually bring about long-term gains.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I don't know about the Virgin website, but it is an option at a railway station.

Well it isn't on the TOC's website which is what I use and which also tells me the two tickets were the same price. A fact that seems to be gloriously ignored several times.

Euston to Stockport or Manchester is the same price.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well it isn't on the TOC's website which is what I use....

Well now you know there are other options available to you.

....and which also tells me the two tickets were the same price....

And........?

.... A fact that seems to be gloriously ignored several times....

I thought that had been covered time and again in this thread, to the point that someone mentioned that everyone in the thread was aware of the rules.

 

[Goatboy]

The premise that people need to get around to is that a journey from A-E is (in economics) a different product entirely to a journey from A-D, not consuming more of the same product.

In theory, yes, but in practice, it's not, and this is why it causes issue. This is an example where economic theory and practice contradict. It *is* the same product consumed for more of the time. It's the same seat in the same postion on the same train at exactly the same time. If you take that product and purchase to Manchester, nobody can use that seat to travel to Stockport. If you instead purchase to Stockport, nobody can use that seat to travel from London to Manchester.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You pay for a service, not a product.

If you pay the Manchester Advance fare your service is transportation to Manchester only.
If you pay the Stockport Advance fare your service is transportation to Stockport only.
If you pay the Manchester Anytime fare your service is transportation to Manchester with the option to get off at any station along the route, including Stockport.

There is a difference between all of them which is quite obvious if you look at them for a second or two.

If you insist the 'product' is the same then you must argue that the Off-Peak Single must be valid at any time because the Railcard discounted Off-Peak Single is valid at any time and is the same 'product'.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The premise that people need to get around to is that a journey from A-E is (in economics) a different product entirely to a journey from A-D, not consuming more of the same product.

Except that premise is entirely incorrect.

I have purchased occupation of a seat on a train between A and E, and that train so happens to stop at B, C and D.

If I travel from A to E, I have paid for occupation of that seat from A to E.

If I decide not to travel at all, I have paid for occupation of that seat from A to E, although I do not occupy it for the full length of the journey.

If I decide to only travel to D, I have paid for occupation from A to E, although I do not occupy it for the full length of the journey.

Comparison with other ticket types for other journeys is not relevant, just as hairyhandedfool says (although not for the reason he says). Comparing a ticket from A to D is as irrelevant as saying that I should have paid the top tier advance price from A to E, or the anytime price, because I'm not paying the TOC everything I could.

I know what the rules are and the rules are nonsensical. I actually firmly believe that these rules are there to make the TOCs more money in penalty and anytime fares, and that there is no other reason for their existence. Charging a penalty fare for getting off a train early is as stupid and nonsensical as charging a penalty fare for not getting on that train at all.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Well now you know there are other options available to you.



And........?



I thought that had been covered time and again in this thread, to the point that someone mentioned that everyone in the thread was aware of the rules.

I am aware there are other booking methods but when trying to juggle the world of ticketing and trying to catch the ideal ticket without booking costs I use the TOC site. As recommended by posters on here.

Sometimes the nuances of my trips cannot be planned three months in advance.

So the point is that Virgin didn't lose any money on the price of the ticket as per half your argument!

I can assure you they were not turning people away at Stockport station because there was no room to sell people tickets for the Stockport to Manchester leg of my train.

And since when did it matter if my seat was empty or taken for that leg, TOCs will sell you and square meter on the train.

 

[aleph_0]

That is what will almost certainly happen, if current pricing is reasonable and fair.

The only two possibilities that I can see if these rules are relaxed and prices don't change is either these are already built into current pricing (i.e. current prices not reasonable nor fair), or that the train companies receive more subsidy, and I can't see the latter happening with this or any incoming government. The former is possible to a certain degree but I doubt the TOCs had accounted for stopping short in full in their pricing.

Be careful what you wish for is the view I always hold. A superficial victory may not actually bring about long-term gains.

There are potentially some revenue-positive effects possible from allowing stopping short on Advance tickets.

Take the case when ToCs X and Y both operate trains from A to C, with ToC Y taking a slower route stopping at several intermediate stops including B. Despit ToC Y's trains being full with passengers making journeys between intermediate stations, and ToC X having spare capacity, ToC Y offers cheap advance tickets from A to C, abstracting revenue from ToC X.

If we allow stopping short on Advances, an A to C ToC Y advance shouldnt be any less than an A to B advance. A to C passengers would pay more, with more travelling with ToC X, and A to C passengers might pay a bit less.

On the other hand, I could sympathise with a ToC wanting to stop a London to Inverness Advance being used for a London to York journey, when the shorter-distance passenger has a large choice of alternative trains.

 

[island]

Except that premise is entirely incorrect.

In your opinion.

I have explained that in economics, they are a different product (or service if you prefer to call it that; the economic term encompasses both). A journey to London and a journey to Rugby are different products, especially if you're starting from Milton Keynes Central.

 

[bb21]

If we allow stopping short on Advances, an A to C ToC Y advance shouldnt be any less than an A to B advance. A to C passengers would pay more, with more travelling with ToC X, and A to C passengers might pay a bit less.

Apologies if I am being slow but I am confused by this bit.

Firstly are you assuming that there are Advance fares between A and B in the first place?

Secondly are you able to elaborate a bit more on the second sentence please as I just cannot get my head around what it is that you were trying to say?

 

[island]

Here's a further explanation why preventing TOCs from enforcing a stopping-short prohibition can cause detriment to the general public.

Say that advance tickets are priced so that customers from London will pay up to £20 for a ticket to Peterborough, £50 for a ticket to York, but at most £40 for a ticket to Newcastle. The TOC can price tickets accordingly. If stopping short cannot be prevented, then either (1) the TOC will price tickets to Newcastle at £50 to prevent revenue abstraction from people going to York, meaning consumers are unable to get to Newcastle, or (2) the TOC will only get £40 from customers travelling to York, and will require additional government subsidy which falls on taxpayers.

As such, requiring people who purchase Advance tickets to use exactly the service they have bought causes advantage to consumers in general.

Customers requiring more flexibility will of course have the option to pay for that flexibility by purchasing walk-up tickets.

 

[Goatboy]

Say that advance tickets are priced so that customers from London will pay up to £20 for a ticket to Peterborough, £50 for a ticket to York, but at most £40 for a ticket to Newcastle. The TOC can price tickets accordingly. If stopping short cannot be prevented, then either (1) the TOC will price tickets to Newcastle at £50 to prevent revenue abstraction from people going to York, meaning consumers are unable to get to Newcastle, or (2) the TOC will only get £40 from customers travelling to York, and will require additional government subsidy which falls on taxpayers.

It shouldn't cost £40 to get to Newcastle and £50 to get to York unless the tickets are offered on different services perhaps with different demand profiles to justify the price difference.

A ticket to York on the 15:00 to Newcastle should not cost more than a ticket to Newcastle on the 15:00 to Newcastle (Assuming for the sake of argument both tickets are booked at the same time, obviously). The end. If fixing that causes a disadvantage to consumers then so be it, IMHO.

I completely support a £40 ticket to Newcastle on the empty 13:00 but a £50 ticket to York on the busier 14:00, but thats a different matter entirely (And I'd expect the York ticket to be £40 or less on the 13:00 and the Newcastle ticket to be £50 or more on the 14:00).

I appreciate the arguments against 'distance based pricing' but as far as the same train is concerned, the further you go on any particular train the more you should pay.