Stupid fares

[Castle Cary]

But would you expect there to be two fares for exactly the same journey made by the same airline?
Let's say you're flying from Robin Hood to Inverness, and there are no direct flights, but if you change planes in Glasgow, SuperCheapoAir say it will cost £40 for a through ticket.
Would you think it right that if you buy two separate tickets with SuperCheapoAir from Robin Hood to Glasgow, and from Glasgow to Inverness, for exactly the same flights, it'll be £30?
Would you not think that if that is the cheapest way to make that journey, then SuperCheapoAir should tell you?

Not really a valid comparison. With a through ticket you get through luggage facilities and, more importantly, if the first flight is delayed, the airline sorts out your onward leg or whisks you through the airport security to save time. With a split ticket you have to collect any luggage and re check it and you miss check in for the onward flight, and it is your loss.

 

[James Wake]

Well he was deciding about the bus, but when he found there was a train to Hove 4 mins after arrival into Brighton, and it was past 9 when buses run a bit less, he decided to buy all the way to Hove. We arrived on time and he easily caught the train to Hove. So next time do I say, 'ahhh save yourself £1.80, go and stand and wait in the heavy rain for a bus, not sure when the next one is, but you will save the £1.80?

I would agree that it depends on when the next train to Hove is and on the time of day.

 

[alastair]

Hee hee. The point I was making was that this kind of anomaly goes right back to BR days and is nothing new.

Thats so true. One of the maddest ones I recently encountered was wanting to make a day return journey from North Camp to Leamington Spa via Reading. A through fare leaving at 0941 or later is £54.90. By splitting at Banbury(where all trains call anyway) you get 2 day returns £18.00 and £8.40 total £26.40 - less than half the through fare. Bizarrely you can also use this on an earlier train from North Camp at 0926!

If you had to leave before 0926 the difference is even greater,2 anytime fares are £33.60 and £9.90 total £43.50 against a ludicrous £93.30 through anytime fare.

I presume this oddity is due to the old NSE area ending at Banbury and no day return fares being available beyond there? But how any "normal" non-reader of this forum could begin to make sense of it I don't know!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It often occurs by stringing together short distance CDRs for journeys where one does not exist. But I thought the Ormskirk-Preston example was odd because a through CDR existed, just at a higher price than the components.

 

[sheff1]

Not really a valid comparison. With a through ticket you get through luggage facilities and, more importantly, if the first flight is delayed, the airline sorts out your onward leg or whisks you through the airport security to save time. With a split ticket you have to collect any luggage and re check it and you miss check in for the onward flight, and it is your loss.

Wrong I'm afraid. I travelled from Manchester to Stockholm via Copenhagen on split tickets recently (saving around £90). Luggage was checked in throughout at Manchester and I am 100% certain that if the connection had been missed at Copenhagen (it wasn't) I would have been rebooked on the next available flight at no additional cost.

 

[Llanigraham]

It shouldn't have to be the passengers responsibility though, and it's arguable as to whether or not it is the passengers responsibility in the first place.

If the customer asks for a ticket from A to C then that is what they get, even if it might be cheaper than asking for A to B, and B to C. If the customer wanted the cheaper ticket then they have to ask for it.

It is just the same as someone going into a shop and asking for a particular product even though the shop's own might be cheaper.

Your bias is showing!

 

[EM2]

If the customer asks for a ticket from A to C then that is what they get, even if it might be cheaper than asking for A to B, and B to C. If the customer wanted the cheaper ticket then they have to ask for it.

It is just the same as someone going into a shop and asking for a particular product even though the shop's own might be cheaper.

Your bias is showing!

Why should they have to ask for it? Especially when it's the same company offering both products!

I'm not arguing that staff should be offering to research splits as a matter of course, but that the situation shouldn't arise in the first place. The fare for the journey should be the fare. If the company has made it that splitting tickets at station B makes the fare cheaper, then that fare should be what is paid even if the split isn't applied.

Regarding the shop analogy, if I go into a shop and ask specifically for Heinz baked beans, then I want Heinz baked beans and will pay for Heinz baked beans. If I ask for some baked beans, and I am sold Heinz baked beans when the own brand are 50p cheaper, I will be annoyed.

 

[talldave]

If the customer asks for a ticket from A to C then that is what they get, even if it might be cheaper than asking for A to B, and B to C. If the customer wanted the cheaper ticket then they have to ask for it.

It is just the same as someone going into a shop and asking for a particular product even though the shop's own might be cheaper.

Your bias is showing!

I think your analogy is not quite holding together, since in the case of split tickets, the train can often be the same - it's not a case of slumming it on an "own brand" in order to save money.

I agree that ticket sellers should sell what they're asked for unless very confident that offering a split has no impact. The underlying issue is that we shouldn't have ended up in the stupid situation where splitting is cheaper.

I think most people's perception is that the longer the journey, the lower the cost per mile should be; therefore it seems barmy that a nice long journey can be cheaper by breaking it down into a number of small journeys.

 

[455driver]

So if you earn £560 a week do you hand £150 back to the company when you do things like sell unrequested lower price spilt tickets ?

Pay is based on the price of tickets.

I don't do tickets, does that mean I work for free?
I have read some rubbish in this forum but that is by far the best I have read this year!
Oh Sarahj gets commission on the tickets she sells so is actually doing herself out of a few pennies by selling the cheaper combination of tickets.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Analogies don't really work here, especially shop ones, here's something for you all to consider though:

A passenger turns up at a West Midlands station and requests a ticket, for travel the next day, from Brighton to Edinburgh. They cannot be specific about travel time because of various commitments, but did not care about route or time taken and needed the ticket to be as cheap as possible and as flexible as possible.

1) Using the current guidance of only offering through tickets, unless asked for something specific, how much would the clerk charge? How long would it take to issue?

2) Assuming the clerk had free reign to offer the absolute cheapest fare and had no time constraints to worry about, how much would the clerk charge? How long would it take to issue?

3) If you were in the queue waiting to be served, which of those two would be most satisfactory?

It shouldn't have to be the passengers responsibility though, and it's arguable as to whether or not it is the passengers responsibility in the first place.

How long would you be prepared to wait in a queue as a clerk tries to find the cheapest possible option for another passenger who really has no idea what they want to do? It's hard enough getting them to buy the correct ticket as it is, nevermind if they have to be offered splits!

It seems such a shame that that rather than addressing the dysfunctionalities of the fares system, the response of railway companies is to either blame passengers for not being clever or savvy enough to find the cheapest ticket(s), or to discipline their dedicated and hard working professional staff who want to offer a good service, which can only serve to improve the profile of the companies in question.

People, on this forum, have tried to suggest better ways of setting fares, all have had flaws of one form or another, or been left with unanswered questions. You think you can do better? Go ahead!

 

[crehld]

People, on this forum, have tried to suggest better ways of setting fares, all have had flaws of one form or another, or been left with unanswered questions. You think you can do better? Go ahead!

I did not offer a solution, nor did I claim I could. I simply conveyed dissatisfaction that TOCs who object to split ticketing effectively absolve themselves of responsibility for the consequences of a situation they have caused by accusing passengers of not being savvy enough to conduct appropriate research and/or threatening disciplinary sanctions against their own well meaning, professional and customer focused staff. The problem of split ticketing has been wholly created by the fragmented nature of fare setting and the pricing decisions made by individual TOCs.

 

[exile]

A better cans of beans analogy is where 6 cans of beans are £3 but if you buy 4 it costs £1.80 and if you buy 2 it costs 80p.

No, I don't expect individual sales staff to research split tickets, but I also don't expect TOCs to moan about a situation they've caused themselves.

 

[Via Bank]

If the customer asks for a ticket from A to C then that is what they get, even if it might be cheaper than asking for A to B, and B to C. If the customer wanted the cheaper ticket then they have to ask for it.

It is just the same as someone going into a shop and asking for a particular product even though the shop's own might be cheaper.

Your bias is showing!

I'd argue this analogy doesn't really hold (as EM2, talldave and exile have mentioned) since the tickets have exactly the same effect.

Consider: I go into a shop and pick up a pack of 6 tins of Heinz baked beans for £3.00. The cashier, before scanning my items, tells me loose tins of Heinz baked beans are 40p each, meaning I can buy 6 tins of exactly the same product for £2.40 and save 60p. This happens (and in my book, counts as excellent customer service.)

The only situation in which sarahj's customer might be disadvantaged is if their train is delayed, and the delay only crosses the compensation threshold on the latter leg (e.g. ticket A->B->C, A->B delayed 28 minutes, B->C delayed 5 minutes.) This is possible, but unlikely, and if the journey is made regularly any lost compensation would be easily outweighed by the savings on the journey.

If the TOCs and DaFT don't like it, frankly they should fix the bloody pricing structure.

 

[Merseysider]

The only situation in which sarahj's customer might be disadvantaged is if their train is delayed, and the delay only crosses the compensation threshold on the latter leg (e.g. ticket A->B->C, A->B delayed 28 minutes, B->C delayed 5 minutes.)

One small point. Using split tickets would in no way reduce the passenger's right to delay compensation. In the circumstance you describe the passenger would still be eligible for an overall delay of 30+ minutes.

 

[Clip]

It shouldn't have to be the passengers responsibility though, and it's arguable as to whether or not it is the passengers responsibility in the first place.

Dont be silly of course its the passengers responsibility unless you can show me documented evidence to the contrary? No? Ok then.

It seems such a shame that that rather than addressing the dysfunctionalities of the fares system, the response of railway companies is to either blame passengers for not being clever or savvy enough to find the cheapest ticket(s), or to discipline their dedicated and hard working professional staff who want to offer a good service, which can only serve to improve the profile of the companies in question.

Who is blaming the passengers then? We work within the framework that we are given and unless you can provide some documented evidence to the contrary? No? Ok then.

The fares system is screwed but we can only sell what the passenger asks us. If thats a bit too much for people to understand then do something about it apart from moaning on the internet about it. You're not going to? Ok then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Analogies don't really work here, especially shop ones, here's something for you all to consider though:

A passenger turns up at a West Midlands station and requests a ticket, for travel the next day, from Brighton to Edinburgh. They cannot be specific about travel time because of various commitments, but did not care about route or time taken and needed the ticket to be as cheap as possible and as flexible as possible.

1) Using the current guidance of only offering through tickets, unless asked for something specific, how much would the clerk charge? How long would it take to issue?

2) Assuming the clerk had free reign to offer the absolute cheapest fare and had no time constraints to worry about, how much would the clerk charge? How long would it take to issue?

3) If you were in the queue waiting to be served, which of those two would be most satisfactory?



How long would you be prepared to wait in a queue as a clerk tries to find the cheapest possible option for another passenger who really has no idea what they want to do? It's hard enough getting them to buy the correct ticket as it is, nevermind if they have to be offered splits!



People, on this forum, have tried to suggest better ways of setting fares, all have had flaws of one form or another, or been left with unanswered questions. You think you can do better? Go ahead!

Come now dont be silly - they would love to have to wait ages then they could come back on and moan about TOCs not adhering to the guidelines to about waiting time for a ticket. You should know by now how this forum works.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Consider: I go into a shop and pick up a pack of 6 tins of Heinz baked beans for £3.00. The cashier, before scanning my items, tells me loose tins of Heinz baked beans are 40p each, meaning I can buy 6 tins of exactly the same product for £2.40 and save 60p. This happens (and in my book, counts as excellent customer service.)

If a clerk knows of a good split and can sell it then it is good customer service. Disciplining them, as GWR tried to do, is disgraceful.

To use your analogy, if the shop assistant didn't know loose tins were 40p, and just rung through the product you'd picked off the shelves, then the idea they are being "deceitful" is laughable. You wouldn't expect the cashier to run around the shop on the off chance another offer is cheaper.

To get back to the point, I'd agree that offering splits is good customer service, but the onus can only ever be on the passenger to know the splits. There's no way a clerk could know all of them.

 

[bb21]

Can we stop with the analogies please?

None of them remotely resemble how railway fares work, and all of them are frankly, stupid.

Edited to add: Any further analogies will be liable for deletion. If anyone wants to have an argument over analogies, please search the forum for previous discussions. There are probably hundreds of threads.

 

[exile]

Can we stop with the analogies please?

None of them remotely resemble how railway fares work, and all of them are frankly, stupid.

Edited to add: Any further analogies will be liable for deletion. If anyone wants to have an argument over analogies, please search the forum for previous discussions. There are probably hundreds of threads.

This is censorship. It's quite reasonable, in a thread on "stupid fares", to discuss how the rail industry might learn from others.

 

[Via Bank]

If a clerk knows of a good split and can sell it then it is good customer service. Disciplining them, as GWR tried to do, is disgraceful.

To use your analogy, if the shop assistant didn't know loose tins were 40p, and just rung through the product you'd picked off the shelves, then the idea they are being "deceitful" is laughable. You wouldn't expect the cashier to run around the shop on the off chance another offer is cheaper.

To get back to the point, I'd agree that offering splits is good customer service, but the onus can only ever be on the passenger to know the splits. There's no way a clerk could know all of them.

On this we can agree. There is no way a clerk can know all the available splits, and less still if it is low-risk to issue them.

But these situations shouldn't exist in the first place. The clerk is not being deceitful, the fares structure is, because the fares structure is broken and no-one is willing to fix it. So it is no wonder TOCs have a reputation as rip off merchants: situations such as this where customers are charged more for through tickets are rip offs, end of.

(Yes I know SN's fares go straight to DfT. They are equally responsible.)

 

[crehld]

Who is blaming the passengers then? We work within the framework that we are given and unless you can provide some documented evidence to the contrary? No? Ok then.

The responsibility for the 'screwed' system (as you accurately put it) has been shifted away from the TOCs who have screwed it up and on to passengers who are told to do the leg work of finding out which tickets are suitable, or onto staff who are issued guidelines for the sale of tickets with sanctions if those guidelines aren't adhered to. Some of the excuses offered in this thread for why those guidelines exist (e.g. we want to keep ticket office queues down) merely reinforce the perception that TOCs can't be bothered to tackle the root cause of the mess they have created themselves, instead issuing guidance to staff to work with the dysfunctional system (does the existence of these documented guidelines satisfy your desire for documented evidence?) and telling passengers do do some research.

The fares system is screwed but we can only sell what the passenger asks us. If thats a bit too much for people to understand then do something about it apart from moaning on the internet about it. You're not going to? Ok then.

You will note from both my clearly articulated posts in this thread that I express dissatisfaction that hard working, dedicated and professional staff are sanctioned for going the extra mile for their customers (I really do find this needless repetition for the benefit of a minority of posters rather tiresome). I do understand that staff have to sell tickets as per guidelines (though I don't necessarily agree with those guidelines, as is my right to disagree with them), but equallyy it is shocking to me that staff who want to go the extra mile by offering valid tickets which will save their customers a bit of money are potentially punished. It would seem to some in the railway industry the attributes of customer service, innovation, professionalism and dedication aren't welcomed from employees. To clarify, my comments are not aimed at staff selling tickets at all (they have to follow the rules like everyone else). Rather my dissatisfaction is aimed at the management of railway companies who rather than directly address a problem which they have created and find objectionable effectively pass the buck to their customers and staff.

This of course is my opinion. But if my harmless opinion offends you so much why don't you do something about it? You work for a TOC so have much more privileged access to those making pricing decisions that I do. Rather than getting in a flap on the internet over people's reaction to TOC's approaches to ticketing matters, why don't you be proactive and deal with the situation at source. Your employers seem as frustrated at the situation as you and I are, so I'm sure they'd welcome your insight. Or do your employers not permit staff to be innovative?

 

[exile]

The TOCs could, perhaps, look at other industries, particulary in the use of technology to allow the customer to find better deals. But we're not allowed to discuss that here, apparently.

 

[talldave]

On a lighter note, playing the game of "hunt the cheapest ticket" adds a little excitement to an otherwise rather boring activity.

In fact, one of the meetings I attend in London now has an informal/comical agenda point before the start of the formal meeting to discuss what bargain ticket I've used to get to the meeting that day! One positive outcome of this is that at least one other person in those meetings has started hunting for cheaper ticket options and, as a result, has started spending more money on rail travel. That's the point I was trying to get at that comes from SarahJ's positive customer service attitude - knowing it's a littler cheaper, that customer might use the train more than they would have done; they tell others who do the same, etc etc.

 

[londonbridge]

I was once looking up fares from London to Blackburn for a football trip. Cheapest through fare I found was a saver return for £55.90, changing at Preston. Instead of which I got the old Virgin "Saturday Day Out" ticket from London-Preston for £24 and a return between Preston and Blackburn was £3.90.

 

[jon0844]

It seems such a shame that that rather than addressing the dysfunctionalities of the fares system, the response of railway companies is to either blame passengers for not being clever or savvy enough to find the cheapest ticket(s), or to discipline their dedicated and hard working professional staff who want to offer a good service, which can only serve to improve the profile of the companies in question.

Given we must all know that one day there's going to be a HUGE shakeup of railway ticketing, I can only imagine some people are quite happy for Joe Public to be blissfully ignorant of ways to save money through split ticketing, and to make sure staff don't make too many people aware for fear of it speeding up the demise of the current ticketing system.

And the same people will then see that it's fine for them to partake... after all, it's perfectly legal (and that means for ALL rail passengers).

 

[Merseysider]

This is censorship. It's quite reasonable, in a thread on "stupid fares", to discuss how the rail industry might learn from others.

Quit chatting sh*te! It's not censorship to ask people to remain on topic :roll:

Whilst it would be nice if TOCs were automatically able to offer splits to passengers[/i], in many cases the retailer simply doesn't have the time to look it up without annoying the person next in the queue. Personally, if the public are happy to pay over the odds for their journey without questioning the price or doing any research whatsoever then it's just like any other industry; you might pay more than needed. But all this misses the fact that split ticketing shouldn't even be necessary.

 

[jon0844]

Regarding the shop analogy, if I go into a shop and ask specifically for Heinz baked beans, then I want Heinz baked beans and will pay for Heinz baked beans. If I ask for some baked beans, and I am sold Heinz baked beans when the own brand are 50p cheaper, I will be annoyed.

When I go to Boots to buy sleep aid tablets, they'll go for Nytol over the Boots branded (and identical ingredients, at least the active ingredient) unless I ask for the own brand.

I assume there's a lot more profit on Nytol given the price difference, just as I'm sure they'd prefer to sell branded Aspirin even if the active ingredient that is all that really matters is the same as the 20p pack.

Of course they can do what they like, but it's somewhat cheeky. But no worse than promoting deals on just certain sizes of a product, such that people buy without doing basic checks to see if other sizes are still actually cheaper if bought in multiple (or vice versa).

I guess the argument is that it's up to the customer to be on constant guard and make sure that what they're being sold is actually what they want (or would buy if they were fully aware of all the facts).

Personally, I dislike feeling like someone is always trying to con or trick me. It's why I don't shop at certain retailers whenever possible, and prefer shopping online where I can do research at a more leisurely pace. Then I only have myself to blame if I get tricked.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the TOCs and DaFT don't like it, frankly they should fix the bloody pricing structure.

It will happen one day. The current system is just too complicated and whether we go with the recent idea of buying online and just having our tickets 'attached' to a card that we use as a virtual smartcard, or indeed just go with smartcards (and price paper tickets at a premium to discourage usage until they eventually go), the current system can't remain.

I have absolutely no sodding clue how to fix a number of obvious issues, and am sure there will be many winners and losers - perhaps more of the latter. But that won't stop progress, whether it takes 1, 5 or 10 years.

London and other cities, or indeed other countries are all moving in that direction if they haven't already. There's nothing to say split ticketing can't still exist, but whether there will be any benefit in doing so remains to be seen.

Those hoping for no change should just hope that given how slow the railway industry works, they'll be safe for some time.

 

[exile]

Quit chatting sh*te! It's not censorship to ask people to remain on topic :roll:

But making comparisons with other industries IS on topic. It's not in order to stop discussion because the moderator considers posts "stupid".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
jonmorris0844's post above is perfectly sensible - but it makes a comparison with another industry, so is apparently not allowed.

 

[jon0844]

Can we stop with the analogies please?

None of them remotely resemble how railway fares work, and all of them are frankly, stupid.

Edited to add: Any further analogies will be liable for deletion. If anyone wants to have an argument over analogies, please search the forum for previous discussions. There are probably hundreds of threads.

They DO work to a degree though.

If you buy a ticket for rail travel, it's clearly up to you to do the research as it's clear that rail staff may not do so - or are even told not to.

We know the reasoning (for one, imagine the time to check all permutations of ticket). I get it, we all get it. I also know why any business might tell staff to protect its business interests and not willingly let people save money if they were happy to pay the higher price.

If you go into a shop, you're also making your own decision. Nobody at the checkout has advised you on anything. That is a silly comparison.

But if you went to a shop and asked for assistance, or even a shop where you can make use of a personal shopper, would you expect them to sell you the best/cheapest options, or just sell what they'd like you to buy?

I guess the retailer would have a disclaimer somewhere that they're not impartial etc, and wouldn't be bound by any regulations.

There the analogies fall apart, but I don't see the harm in making comparisons because the railway isn't totally unique even if might want to be seen as such. It's selling a 'product' and has a series of prices, some of which are very well hidden to most people.

Plus, not everyone wants to spend ages looking up every possible deal (although now they can of course let this website work out much of that for them) and if they don't, feeling angry inside that they may have paid more than they should.

I bet when someone finds out one day that they've paid more than they should for days/weeks/months/years, they get somewhat angry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will happen one day. The current system is just too complicated and whether we go with the recent idea of buying online and just having our tickets 'attached' to a card that we use as a virtual smartcard, or indeed just go with smartcards (and price paper tickets at a premium to discourage usage until they eventually go), the current system can't remain.

If we look at other countries, the likely progress (if you'd call it that) is towards reservation compulsory train-specific ticketing for long-distance, and vastly simplified separate local fares - effectively mandating split ticketing. In cases where the InterCity train provides the local service, one coach can be held for that purpose using local style fares - but typically this won't be in abutting sections so splitting will not be useful.

However, if the TOCs just want to kill split ticketing, "compostage" (or a smartcard version of it) is the easy answer - require the ticket to be validated at the origin before use, and place those validators out of reach of a train calling at the station.

 

[mirodo]

This is censorship. It's quite reasonable, in a thread on "stupid fares", to discuss how the rail industry might learn from others.

It's like Nazi Germany! Now there's an analogy for you!