NRCoC replaced by NRCoT from 1/10/2016

[Bletchleyite]

It certainly seems good news that PTE products are no longer excluded from the season tickets which can be combined without stopping. This has been a bugbear of mine for some time.

Though this, depending on the interpretation of "another ticket", may mean it is no longer possible to construct an "outboundary Travelcard season ticket" by combining the PTE season with another season.

I think this Condition, while well-meaning in its changes, needs revisiting to ensure it is totally clear what is meant by it. In particular I don't think the issue with combining adjacent Travelcards is intentional, I think whoever wrote it didn't consider the unique issues posed by TfL ticketing and the fact that the zone boundaries aren't stations but rather are arbitrary points between them (it would make things an awful lot easier if they were).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's almost the opposite of my reading!

14.2 allows combination of two tickets only ("a Season Ticket... and another Ticket") for the train to not stop. Any other tickets would require the train to stop where they join as per 14.1.

14.2 requires that one of the tickets is a Season (etc) but places no restrictions on the other, so two Seasons would be OK on non-stop trains. Can't see GWR being too happy about that once all the Bristol commuters split at Didcot!

Depends whether "another ticket" simply means "a ticket that is not the first one", or means "a ticket that is not one of these listed types". That seems unclear.

 

[furlong]

Under the current conditions, a 1-3 Season Travelcard and a Rugby to zones 4-6 Travelcard could be used in combination under 19a (both Zonal Tickets), but under the new NRCoT, as there is no 'border station' between zones 3 and 4, the combination would not be valid because there is no common station and another ticket would be needed to 'bridge the gap'. This would be different to a Luton to 4-6 Travelcard combined with a 1-3 Travelcard as Hendon is in zone 3 and zone 4.

Unless the Travelcard Agreement was also updated in the same way, I think that particular aspect of this change has no validity.

CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE
12.1 LRT authorises each of the Operators and each of the Operators authorises LRT to sell Travelcards as its agent such that Travelcards shall be sold and accepted subject to the applicable Conditions of Carriage of the seller and the provider of services upon which the passenger travels as laid down and published from time to time. Conditions of Carriage shall not prevent, inhibit, or otherwise restrict the use of Travelcards in accordance with, or otherwise contradict, the provisions set out in this Agreement and in particular shall not, except as provided in the Operating Schedule, prohibit or restrict the use at any time of Travelcards on all routes within the Zones for which the Travelcards are valid.
12.2 No party shall alter its Conditions of Carriage if to do so would make them inconsistent with those of the other parties insofar as is necessary properly to implement the provisions of this Agreement. The parties further agree and acknowledge that it is their intention to maintain consistency as between their respective Conditions of Carriage insofar as may be desirable to facilitate or promote the objectives of the Travelcard arrangements as set out in this Agreement.
...
Travelcards shall mean tickets (available on their own or as an additional element to other tickets issued for services not covered by this Agreement) valid for travel on the following services in accordance with the Zonal availability appearing on the tickets:
(a) regular scheduled Railway Services and regular scheduled Underground Services within the Zones;
...

Provided the zones are adjacent, at each point of your journey one of your tickets surely remains 'valid for travel'.

 

[duncanp]

Under the current conditions, a 1-3 Season Travelcard and a Rugby to zones 4-6 Travelcard could be used in combination under 19a (both Zonal Tickets), but under the new NRCoT, as there is no 'border station' between zones 3 and 4, the combination would not be valid because there is no common station and another ticket would be needed to 'bridge the gap'.

My reading of the new condition 14.2 is that a Zones 1 - 3 travelcard and a Zone 4-6 to Rugby travelcard would still be allowed.

The new condition 14.2 says "....If you are using a Season Ticket, daily Zonal Ticket, or another area based ticket such as a concessionary pass, ranger or rover in conjunction with another Ticket and the last station at which one Ticket is valid and the first station that the other Ticket is valid are the same, then the train does not
need to call at that station for your combination to be valid...."

This says nothing about what happens if the last station at which one Ticket is valid and the first station that the other Ticket is valid are different.

My earlier example was from Victoria to Sutton with a Zones 1-2 travelcard and a single from boundary Zone 2 to Sutton.

This is essentially the same situation, and it would be rather perverse if some outboundary journeys like this were allowed, and other were not allowed, depending on whether there happens to be a station en-route in both zones.

eg. You can use Zones 1 - 3 travelcard and a Zone 4-6 to St Albans travelcard to travel from London to St Albans because there is a changeover station (Hendon) in both zones, but you can't use a Zones 1 - 3 travelcard and a Zone 4-6 to Rugby travelcard to travel from London to Rugby because there is no station on the WCML in Zones 3 and 4.

I realise others may disagree with me, but if members of this forum have disagreements, how can we expect that railway staff and managers will apply the rules in a fair and consistent manner.

 

[AlterEgo]

Surprised nobody has picked up on:

14.3 Some Tickets specifically exclude their use in conjunction with other Tickets.
This will be made clear in the terms and conditions when buying such
Tickets, and you cannot use such a Ticket in conjunction with another except
as set out in 14.1 above.

That's new.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It clarifies that some PTE tickets already have "no 19(c) splits" in their T&C. I think WYPTE do this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AlterEgo]

It clarifies that some PTE tickets already have "no 19(c) splits" in their T&C. I think WYPTE do this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Indeed, but not only that, it codifies things and creates scope for other non-permanent fares to follow suit.

 

[furlong]

My earlier example was from Victoria to Sutton with a Zones 1-2 travelcard and a single from boundary Zone 2 to Sutton.

This is essentially the same situation,

A boundary zone ticket should be seen as a supplement to or extension of another ticket. It has no validity in isolation and as such it does not fall under paragraph 14, much in the same way as an excess doesn't.

 

[rs101]

At risk of going off topic, that must be resisted at all costs. There may be very good reasons why a card must not be used, for example a company card where usage is only for specific agreed spending and disciplinary proceedings might be started if this is abused.

Surely then, the company card isn't a valid method of payment, if you're not authorised to use it for purchasing that specific ticket?
Very different situation to having the cash and a personal card with sufficient limit but choosing not to use the card.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Can you give an example of another case, not related to these changes, where the validity of a Travelcard, or a combination of Travelcards (not involving any non-TfL tickets), is different on National Rail services from London Underground services?

If you are simply "proving by assertion" your interpretation of these new Conditions, I would suggest such a question would need to be addressed to ATOC, unless by "TOC employee" in your profile you mean "ATOC employee", or in absence of such an interpretation a Court in the event of a prosecution being brought.

The Conditions of Carriage for National Rail notes that it only applies to services on National Rail services, and that on LUL services, or any other services for that matter, their own Conditions of Carriage apply. The TfL Conditions of Carriage notes that the Conditions of Carriage applies to it's own services and that the NRCoC (soon NRCoT) apply to National Rail services. It doesn't matter if there is or is not a difference between the two, the expectation can only be that the Conditions of Carriage apply to each service type as appropriate.

To suggest that this is wrong and somehow different to any other multimodal ticket is somewhat strange and, in my opinion, unrealistic.

Though this, depending on the interpretation of "another ticket", may mean it is no longer possible to construct an "outboundary Travelcard season ticket" by combining the PTE season with another season....

"Ticket" is a defined term in the NRCoT which means any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by one or more of the operators listed in Appendix A (there are further notes on how it is displayed or carried). If the PTE product allows travel on a National Rail service it is considered, by the NRCoT, to be a "Ticket". A season ticket would also be a "Ticket".

.... In particular I don't think the issue with combining adjacent Travelcards is intentional, I think whoever wrote it didn't consider the unique issues posed by TfL ticketing and the fact that the zone boundaries aren't stations but rather are arbitrary points between them (it would make things an awful lot easier if they were)....

I would agree with that, but whilst it may not be intentional, it is there.

....Depends whether "another ticket" simply means "a ticket that is not the first one", or means "a ticket that is not one of these listed types". That seems unclear.

I think it has to be the former as it is not specifically the latter. The latter might also work against multiple Travelcards.

Unless the Travelcard Agreement was also updated in the same way, I think that particular aspect of this change has no validity.....

Given the briefing says there is little change, I don't think it is intentional, but I can't deny what is in the NRCoT, the particulars of the Travelcard agreement do not seem to be in the contract between traveller and TOC, but rather between ATOC and TfL.

My reading of the new condition 14.2 is that a Zones 1 - 3 travelcard and a Zone 4-6 to Rugby travelcard would still be allowed.

The new condition 14.2 says "....If you are using a Season Ticket, daily Zonal Ticket, or another area based ticket such as a concessionary pass, ranger or rover in conjunction with another Ticket and the last station at which one Ticket is valid and the first station that the other Ticket is valid are the same, then the train does not
need to call at that station for your combination to be valid...."

This says nothing about what happens if the last station at which one Ticket is valid and the first station that the other Ticket is valid are different....

You are reading 14.2 in isolation, read 14.1 first, it starts with "Unless shown below". If 14.2 does not apply, and we safely assume 14.3 and 14.4 do not also, 14.1 does. Both 14.1 and 14.2 require the tickets to meet at a station.

My earlier example was from Victoria to Sutton with a Zones 1-2 travelcard and a single from boundary Zone 2 to Sutton....

A boundary zone ticket with a Travelcard is not using two tickets, it is one ticket and an extension of it, it does not need to conform to NRCoC Condition 19 or NRCoT Condition 14.

....This is essentially the same situation, and it would be rather perverse if some outboundary journeys like this were allowed, and other were not allowed, depending on whether there happens to be a station en-route in both zones....

I don't think it is the intention, but it is what it says.

....I realise others may disagree with me, but if members of this forum have disagreements, how can we expect that railway staff and managers will apply the rules in a fair and consistent manner.

Apparently ATOC doesn't believe there to be much difference between old and new, so maybe there wasn't intended to be, but then those making the rules don't see things from the frontline very often.

 

[jon0844]

How would this work with a London zone 1 to 3 travel card? Would one need a zone 3 to 6 travel card or does there just need to be one station in zones 3 and 4 that covers both, regardless of whether your on a line that, that station is on or not.

I may have misunderstood it.

A FCC RPI wanted to prosecute me for carrying a Z1-3 and Z4-6 Travelcard on that basis. I had it withdrawn and an apology by the end of the same day.

I can only imagine the idea is to somehow stop people getting an extension from Z6 to X, then travelling to X from leaving Z6 on the other side of London or something?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Apparently ATOC doesn't believe there to be much difference between old and new, so maybe there wasn't intended to be, but then those making the rules don't see things from the frontline very often.

I agree with your analysis. And, once again, I'm despairing of the fact that ATOC- with all their cash- have a proofreader is about as effective as Google Translate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can only imagine the idea is to somehow stop people getting an extension from Z6 to X, then travelling to X from leaving Z6 on the other side of London or something?

No, I think the plan was to enhance the customer's experience by allowing more passengers to use a combination of tickets on non-stopping trains, whilst clarifying that the two tickets must adjoin.

I'm with hairyhandedfool in believing cockup not conspiracy, I think they've obviously just totally forgotten that not all zonal tickets have stations that adjoin two zones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with your analysis. And, once again, I'm despairing of the fact that ATOC- with all their cash- have a proofreader is about as effective as Google Translate.

Quite.

I do take the view that, by and large, the change was intended to rewrite the NRCoC into plainer English without substantial changes to its meaning. However, it seems that it was not done entirely competently.

 

[John @ home]

Zonal tickets were allowed in multiple provided they covered the entire journey being made, now they will have to overlap by at least one station.

They don't need to overlap in the case of London Travelcard Season tickets held on Oyster.

(page 25 of 33)

Ticket type - Travelcard season ticket

Extra conditions

Where more than one Travelcard season ticket, covering the same date or dates of validity, is on an Oyster card, the zonal availability of any such Travelcard season ticket must cover adjacent zones at all times.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/rail-for-london-ticket-and-travel-guide.pdf

I would be surprised if a train company attempted to impose different rules in the case of London Travelcard Season tickets held on paper.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

They don't need to overlap in the case of London Travelcard Season tickets held on Oyster. I would be surprised if a train company attempted to impose different rules in the case of London Travelcard Season tickets held on paper.

The NRCoT covers National Rail travel regardless of the medium used for the ticket, this is mentioned in the definition of "Ticket" (for the purposes of the NRCoT). I wouldn't expect many cases of it popping up, but I suspect that's more due to staff being unaware of the different wording.

 

[Starmill]

Yorkie won't like this one, as it legitimises "Southern only" and "not Gatwick Express" as routeings. This being the case, the advice to ignore those must no longer be followed as of the start date of these Conditions, or prosecution may result.

I certainly wouldn't give this advice now, and I don't see anyone else doing that either. However, the new conditions and old are in accordance with using Thameslink Only, London Not Underground, Not Underground and Via Haywards Heath tickets on Gatwick Express, which are the ones I use now.

Break of journey is better defined all round, and it more explicitly states that it will not be available if going the long way round on a circular route, or a route only valid by the through train rule...

Except that it doesn't, because it says at the start that the things in the information boxes are not contractual...

 

[jon0844]

I do think that the Southern/Thameslink/Gatwick Express issue has now been solved. Sadly to the detriment of those who used GatEx with other, cheaper, tickets.

Ultimately, the way to save money is simply not use it. It's not much quicker, if at all, and there are other ways to get cheap any permitted tickets that work.

Consider it good while it lasted.

 

[Starmill]

No, I think the plan was to enhance the customer's experience by allowing more passengers to use a combination of tickets on non-stopping trains, whilst clarifying that the two tickets must adjoin.

Curious, then, that they didn't simply say that. It doesn't at all suggest to me that you can only have one split because they've used the word "another". In fact, 14.1 is explicit that two or more tickets can still be used for one journey. If your idea were correct they could say that only two were permitted.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Except that it doesn't, because it says at the start that the things in the information boxes are not contractual...

Except that neither are they irrelevant. Apart from those who are desperate to try and extract non-existent meaning from things, nobody else thinks that the permission to use through trains via a non-permitted route between the origin and destination on an "any permitted" ticket means that you may break your journey provided that you only use those through trains. You have to go all the way from origin to destination on one train. The text of the restrictions themselves covers this by saying "However, this may not
be the case with some through services that take an indirect route" and the information box simply makes a comment that confirms both points, viz. that you may take that roundabout route and that you may not be allowed to break your journey. The word "normally" doesn't help, however, as the longer route might nevertheless be permitted and go via a higher-priced station, in which case break of journey is still allowed.

 

[najaB]

Depends whether "another ticket" simply means "a ticket that is not the first one", or means "a ticket that is not one of these listed types". That seems unclear.

The former is the simplest interpretation and I see nothing that indicates we should complicate things by using the latter. Especially since they refer to the first and last stations of both tickets.

 

[yorksrob]

Though this, depending on the interpretation of "another ticket", may mean it is no longer possible to construct an "outboundary Travelcard season ticket" by combining the PTE season with another season.

Possibly true - although that's not a combination I've ever needed myself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It clarifies that some PTE tickets already have "no 19(c) splits" in their T&C. I think WYPTE do this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where does it say this in WYPTE's conditions ? I can't find anything on their website.

I'm confused now. Can I combine my metrocard with an ordinary train ticket without stopping or can't I

 

[AlterEgo]

Possibly true - although that's not a combination I've ever needed myself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Where does it say this in WYPTE's conditions ? I can't find anything on their website.

I'm confused now. Can I combine my metrocard with an ordinary train ticket without stopping or can't I

Depends on the TOC:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=933994&postcount=29

 

[yorksrob]

Depends on the TOC:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=933994&postcount=29

That's about season tickets though. It's the situation between metrocards and ordinary day tickets I'm interested in.

 

[cool110]

Where does it say this in WYPTE's conditions ? I can't find anything on their website.

I'm confused now. Can I combine my metrocard with an ordinary train ticket without stopping or can't I

I think WYPTE has been mixed up with SYPTE which does restrict a TravelMaster being used in that way (Condition 2.3.2)

 

[yorksrob]

I think WYPTE has been mixed up with SYPTE which does restrict a TravelMaster being used in that way (Condition 2.3.2)

Possibly. I know in the past I haven't been allowed to combine my Mertocard with tickets where a train doesn't stop.

 

[theageofthetra]

Regarding the new restrictions on dogs this could cause some interesting issues (please correct me if I have misinterpreted)

I have regularly seen a passenger (the grandmother I think) who travels on the train with a child each day to school with an accompanying dog. The child I think has some sort of non physical disabilty like Autism and the dog is (for want of a better expression) a 'comfort blanket' & makes him calmer if he has an episode. This dog is not an 'official' assistance dog but is vital to the boys ability to travel.

I have seen the child start to get very stressed if the train is late or may make him miss school and the lady travelling with him will put the dog as close to him as possible including on his lap to calm him down.

I know this is an unusual example but there must be others where a dog travels with a passenger for assistance reasons other than the generally better known deaf or blind assistance.

How will this also affect other working dogs such as drugs/explosive sniffer dogs?

I do wonder if these new restrictions are to do with 'religious sensitivity' rather than any health or hygiene issue?

I remember when working in the Canary Wharf area 12 years ago that there were strong objections by the sizable community of Orthadox Jewish working at Mcgraw Hill & Lehmans over the number of police sniffer dogs (drugs rather than bombs surprisingly) that were used around the Tube & DLR stations & the estate in general. Dogs are often associated with more observant/Orthadox Jews with Eastern Europe pogrom round ups and the later Nazi atrocities rather than any religious 'unclean' issue & is a complicated and difficult subject.

Muslims I believe also have religious issues with dogs (though for different reasons) and I wonder if this is what this rule is really all about?

I doubt we will ever know.





Any thoughts on this appreciated

 

[yorksrob]

Regarding the new restrictions on dogs this could cause some interesting issues (please correct me if I have misinterpreted)

I have regularly seen a passenger (the grandmother I think) who travels on the train with a child each day to school with an accompanying dog. The child I think has some sort of non physical disabilty like Autism and the dog is (for want of a better expression) a 'comfort blanket' & makes him calmer if he has an episode. This dog is not an 'official' assistance dog but is vital to the boys ability to travel.

I have seen the child start to get very stressed if the train is late or may make him miss school and the lady travelling with him will put the dog as close to him as possible including on his lap to calm him down.

I know this is an unusual example but there must be others where a dog travels with a passenger for assistance reasons other than the generally better known deaf or blind assistance.

How will this also affect other working dogs such as drugs/explosive sniffer dogs?

I do wonder if these new restrictions are to do with 'religious sensitivity' rather than any health or hygiene issue?

I remember when working in the Canary Wharf area 12 years ago that there were strong objections by the sizable community of Orthadox Jewish working at Mcgraw Hill & Lehmans over the number of police sniffer dogs (drugs rather than bombs surprisingly) that were used around the Tube & DLR stations & the estate in general. Dogs are often associated with more observant/Orthadox Jews with Eastern Europe pogrom round ups and the later Nazi atrocities rather than any religious 'unclean' issue & is a complicated and difficult subject.

Muslims I believe also have religious issues with dogs (though for different reasons) and I wonder if this is what this rule is really all about?

I doubt we will ever know.





Any thoughts on this appreciated

Scanning it, I was under the impression it was just no dogs on seats ?

 

[infobleep]

No, very explicitly not. Only a season ticket and not-a-season-ticket. The intention is to allow occasional extension of season tickets for genuine reasons, not to facilitate splits. As an example, someone might hold a Bletchley-Euston season ticket and wish to extend it to MKC on odd occasions so as to be able to use a non-stop service to get there (though VT staff are known for not understanding this and refusing it).

I was referring to a service that stops though. Were they not allowed as well?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also Bedwyn just grew in usefulness!

Will some stations suddenly see a rise in fares and may be other stations a decrease in fares. :cynical:

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Except that neither are they irrelevant. Apart from those who are desperate to try and extract non-existent meaning from things, nobody else thinks that the permission to use through trains via a non-permitted route between the origin and destination on an "any permitted" ticket means that you may break your journey provided that you only use those through trains....

It is very much allowed in the current set of rules, and I'm not someone out to exploit it.

.... You have to go all the way from origin to destination on one train. The text of the restrictions themselves covers this by saying "However, this may not
be the case with some through services that take an indirect route" and the information box simply makes a comment that confirms both points, viz. that you may take that roundabout route and that you may not be allowed to break your journey. The word "normally" doesn't help, however, as the longer route might nevertheless be permitted and go via a higher-priced station, in which case break of journey is still allowed.

How do I know which journeys I can or cannot break and resume, or start short? And if I can end my outward journey short why can't I start my return journey short?

And if I should be "caught out", what type of Excess Fare should I get? And what would be the fare calculation?

Doesn't seem like any thought has gone into this.

 

[strawbrick]

As far as I am aware up umtil now, at least on LM trains, you can only apply for a refund if the Conductor has "exercised his discretion" and announced that "1st Class is today declassified" and also reported that declassificatiion to Control.
This event is rarer than hen's teeth, and the best reason given for not "exercising his discretion" was the assertion that the train was so overcrowded that the Conductor could not get through to check that 1st Class was full and standing!
Has the position been changed by the new rules?

 

[jon0844]

Reading the varying interpretations here for some of the new/revised/reclarified rules, does anyone predict a nightmare when TOCs, particular revenue officers, start to take on their own interpretations?