NRCoC replaced by NRCoT from 1/10/2016

[hairyhandedfool]

Yes, such as Off Peak or Advance tickets....

I think you are clutching at straws here Yorkie, there is no mention of ticket type in that condition, at all, just as you claim there is no mention of 'by brand'. I'm sure you can find many other things to claim it covers without actually mentioning brand, but as I believe we can now agree the list is clearly not exhaustive (it can't be if your statement here is true) I think you have to accept that 'by brand' can be included.

....The intention of NRCoC Condition 10 has always been to restrict tickets to that of a train company. It's never been an issue anywhere else, as tickets restricted to merged companies then became valid on the new company and were usually quite promptly correctly re-named....

With all due respect, I don't think this point does your argument any favours. Southern Railway Limited and GTR (which are essentially the same company) are the only franchises that have been mergers of two or more preceding franchises, which all had existing TOC specific tickets over the same route, that have kept both the brand names and the existing routed tickets. There is no other example where this sort of merger has happened, so to put across a point of discussion that this is no different to anywhere else is dubious at best.

As a further point, Condition 10 has never limited restrictions/prohibitions to those of route or TOC, it merely states that a route or TOC restriction/prohibition can apply to some tickets and that, where it applies, it has to be shown on the ticket, but I believe we have been over this ground many times before.

 

[infobleep]

Whilst I agree on the absurd nature of the all too frequent Gatwick Express debates, your assertion about First Class isn't correct in all circumstances. Round my way it is proactively advertised that the First Class accommodation is available for use by Standard Class ticket holders on certain services. On Southern it is even automatically announced on board through the passenger information system.

Perhaps from the 1 October the PIS will be incorrect or modified to not say that.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps from the 1 October the PIS will be incorrect or modified to not say that.

The new NRCoT do not prohibit TOCs from declassifying accommodation if they so wish; if they do so it is not then First Class accommodation. The thing that appears possibly no longer to be the case is that in the absence of them actually having done this FC is not FC if the train is not timetabled to have it.

 

[button_boxer]

As I see it, the new condition 14 makes much more sense than the old 19. The old condition 19 started from the overall "journey" and described how you can combine tickets to make a journey, whereas the new 14 looks at each split point in isolation to decide whether or not the train needs to stop at the point where you move from one ticket to the next. 14.1 says that you're always valid if you stop at the changeover point, 14.2 relaxes that by saying that any split point that has a season/ranger/rover on one side or other (or both) does not require you to stop.

Under the new rule you should be allowed to string together any sequence of season and non-season tickets for a non-stop journey as long as every changeover point involves at least one season (so it allows SNSSNSN but not SNNSNS).

 

[bb21]

As a Senior Fares Advisor requested,

Please can you take all GTR branding discussion elsewhere and not let it spill onto every thread

I'm going to repeat that request and ask for discussions on Gatwick Express/Southern/GTR ticket validity to be taken into a separate thread from this point on (including any discussion on whether tickets can be restricted by brand or TOC only with specific reference to this subject). I have created such a thread here. I don't think there will ever be any agreement as I am sure everyone has an opinion on this issue so please leave it at that. The same arguments being made repeatedly and going around in circles is not helping the discussion progress in any way.

Anyone with particularly strong feelings on this subject and wishing to carry on this debate will need to do in this new thread from this point onwards, to avoid clogging other threads up (including this particular one). From conversations with a good number of forum members and other forum staff, there is more than just a handful of people thoroughly fed up with this particular subject.

Any further mention of this issue outside the dedicated thread without a good reason will be deleted without any exception. Thank you for you co-operation.

 

[button_boxer]

Also, re company/brand/any other kind of restrictions, condition 13.3 seems to shoot itself in the foot rather. It starts off by saying

Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services, such as those of a particular Train Company, or on trains travelling via a certain route or routes.

The use of "such as" suggests that they intended "those of a particular Train Company" to be just one example of the kind of restriction that could be imposed, but no longer the only restriction allowed. But then it goes on to say

If no specific route or Train Company is shown, then (subject to any time restrictions for the type of fare you have purchased) it will be valid on: ...

and this sentence suggests that Train Company restrictions are the only kind of restrictions that can be imposed. If they had worded it as "If no specific route or validity restriction is shown" then it would be unambiguous.

 

[furlong]

Also, re company/brand/any other kind of restrictions, condition 13.3 seems to shoot itself in the foot rather.

And this change also removes the existing route restrictions from TOC-only fares: from 1st October, you no longer need to bother with the direct train/shortest distance/routeing guide rules when using such tickets: as long as you're using the right TOC(s), you'll be OK on any route whatsoever...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For example, what in the new rules now stops someone purchasing Euston to Milton Keynes Central, Virgin West Coast only, then catching a non-stop train to Warrington Bank Quay, breaking their journey there, then doubling-back to Milton Keynes?

 

[Merseysider]

And this change also removes the existing route restrictions from TOC-only fares: from 1st October, you no longer need to bother with the direct train/shortest distance/routeing guide rules when using such tickets: as long as you're using the right TOC(s), you'll be OK on any route whatsoever...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For example, what in the new rules now stops someone purchasing Euston to Milton Keynes Central, Virgin West Coast only, then catching a non-stop train to Warrington Bank Quay, breaking their journey there, then doubling-back to Milton Keynes?

The barriers at Euston...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

And this change also removes the existing route restrictions from TOC-only fares: from 1st October, you no longer need to bother with the direct train/shortest distance/routeing guide rules when using such tickets: as long as you're using the right TOC(s), you'll be OK on any route whatsoever...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For example, what in the new rules now stops someone purchasing Euston to Milton Keynes Central, Virgin West Coast only, then catching a non-stop train to Warrington Bank Quay, breaking their journey there, then doubling-back to Milton Keynes?

I hadn't noticed that, but you're right, it's very poorly worded. I think you might have trouble when defining Warrington Bank Quay as an intermediate station (16.4) in that example.

 

[Starmill]

If you Google for Metro cross boundary that's what comes up. I don't see any new version on the new website, but nothing that says this version isn't still valid either, particularly bearing in mind it's a pdf of a leaflet, so won't have been affected by the change of website-and anyone who tries to argue on a train that it doesn't apply to MCards because they aren't mentioned, even though MCards are effectively electronic versions of Metro Cards, should get the response that pedants deserve.

Of course, you're absolutely right that it's pedantry not to Google a random term or find a leaflet that isn't circulated with tickets and doesn't have any reference in the terms of the product you've bought. MCards aren't just electronic versions of Metrocards, Metrocards no longer exist and MCards do different jobs and have different terms than Metrocards ever had.

 

[infobleep]

The new NRCoT do not prohibit TOCs from declassifying accommodation if they so wish; if they do so it is not then First Class accommodation. The thing that appears possibly no longer to be the case is that in the absence of them actually having done this FC is not FC if the train is not timetabled to have it.

How would they communicate that first class is declassified. Would it have to be done every single time after every single station. If a guard forgot to announce this or play an automated message, would it become first class first for that journey?

In other words, is there a way of block declassifing services going forward?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[bb21]

Of course, you're absolutely right that it's pedantry not to Google a random term or find a leaflet that isn't circulated with tickets and doesn't have any reference in the terms of the product you've bought. MCards aren't just electronic versions of Metrocards, Metrocards no longer exist and MCards do different jobs and have different terms than Metrocards ever had.

Perhaps someone can ask the PTE to clarify?

 

[bnm]

Any consensus on 14.2?

Can I still bookend a Rover with 'normal' tickets either side and not have to call at split points? Wording seems to suggest I can only add one other ticket to a Rover.

Simplified real world example (easement and avoiding line used too) I use often:

CDS Plymouth to Tiverton Parkway
Freedom of Severn and Solent Rover
CDS Westbury to Newbury

Can I still travel with this combo from Plymouth to Newbury on a service that doesn't call Tiverton or Westbury?

 

[najaB]

Any consensus on 14.2?

Can I still bookend a Rover with 'normal' tickets either side and not have to call at split points? Wording seems to suggest I can only add one other ticket to a Rover.

I don't read it that way. 14.1 specifically says you can use two or more tickets, 14.2 just spells out the required relationship between any pair of those tickets where one is a season, etc.

 

[csilke]

Given that it is not a break of journey unless you actually leave a station

The definition of break of journey

you will be treated as breaking your journey if you leave a Train Company’s or Rail Service Company’s stations after you start your journey other than to:
(i) join a train at another station, or
(ii) stay in overnight accommodation when you cannot reasonably complete your journey within one day, or
(iii) follow any instructions given by a member of a Train Company’s or Rail Service Company’s staff.

hasn't been carried forward to the new Conditions of Travel.

Perhaps the DfT want to encourage competition between the Train Companies for the most innovative and exciting definition.

 

[furlong]

The definition of break of journey
hasn't been carried forward to the new Conditions of Travel.

Its removal seems inexplicable to me. Was the idea perhaps to fall back on a much broader dictionary-based definition, allowing passengers much more flexibility? Or is it more likely that this definition is sufficiently sensible and well-established that, in the absence of any replacement, it would still be used?

 

[Merseysider]

Its removal seems inexplicable to me. Was the idea perhaps to fall back on a much broader dictionary-based definition, allowing passengers much more flexibility? Or is it more likely that this definition is sufficiently sensible and well-established that, in the absence of any replacement, it would still be used?

I think the people writing this document left it for so long, realised mid-September they needed to put something out pretty damn soon, and rushed it.

 

[yorkie]

I think the people writing this document left it for so long, realised mid-September they needed to put something out pretty damn soon, and rushed it.

Agreed, and it also seems likely that they didn't ask the DfT to approve the non-contractual "Information" boxes, which would explain why the "Information" boxes are often contradictory of the actual conditions. Very sneaky if so, but this is so typical of ATOC, and the DfT just seem to allow ATOC to get away with it. Another possibility is that the DfT didn't have time to do a proper check, or perhaps they just couldn't be bothered to do anything with it.

Whatever happened, it's utterly inexcusable, but so typical and predictable :roll:

 

[TUC]

Of course, you're absolutely right that it's pedantry not to Google a random term or find a leaflet that isn't circulated with tickets and doesn't have any reference in the terms of the product you've bought. MCards aren't just electronic versions of Metrocards, Metrocards no longer exist and MCards do different jobs and have different terms than Metrocards ever had.

The page at http://www.wymetro.com/howtogetto/cross-boundary/ refers to the validity of Metro prepaid and concessionary tickets and includes a reference to MCards. The leaflet linked to includes on p4 a list of rail lines showing the limits of validity of West Yorkshire prepaid tickets. Those together all look to me to be broad enough to incliude MCard.

Having said that, the wording in the leaflet on the validity of combining a West Yorkshire tocket with another is clearly lofted from the old condition 19 (c) and so needs revisiting to reflect the NRCoT, but at this point ithe existing wording still applies.

 

[bnm]

Nothing, as far as I can see, in these conditions expressly forbids the use of GroupSave on operators who say they don't accept it.

 

[kieron]

I agree! Especially as there's no hint as to how to determine when something "may not" be valid. Nowhere else does the restriction on BoJ on a circular route appear, so are we to suppose it's at the whim of the TOC?

Neither clause 16.4 nor the information box beneath it set out anything which is allowed or prohibited for the customer. 16.4 says "generally" as noted, and the information box says "normally". From this, I believe it follows that a TOC couldn't use the Conditions of Travel on their own to show that breaking your journey with any specific ticket on any specific route is not allowed.

The change I notice with 16.4 compared with 16 in the current conditions is that 16.4 only allows restrictions on break of journey for through services which take an indirect route, whereas the current version just says that these rights may not apply to some types of tickets. I haven't found any other clause which deals with this in the new version.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Nothing, as far as I can see, in these conditions expressly forbids the use of GroupSave on operators who say they don't accept it.

That would depend on if you are refering to Groupsave the discount or Groupsave the ticket type.

 

[ji459]

Clause 13.6 of the new conditions is essentially the same as clause 18 of the previous conditions: "If you travel beyond the destination shown on the Ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a valid Ticket for the additional part of your journey. Section 9 of these Conditions sets out what may happen if you travel without a valid Ticket." Are excess fares for going over-distance now officialy dead?

 

[najaB]

Are excess fares for going over-distance now officialy dead?

If you try to buy them after going over-distance when you've passed an opportunity to buy one then they should be. Otherwise it's 'short fare and buy an excess if challenged'.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Clause 13.6 of the new conditions is essentially the same as clause 18 of the previous conditions: "If you travel beyond the destination shown on the Ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a valid Ticket for the additional part of your journey. Section 9 of these Conditions sets out what may happen if you travel without a valid Ticket." Are excess fares for going over-distance now officialy dead?

As you note, it is essentially the same condition, so no, Over-distance Excess Fares are not 'officially dead', nothing changes in this regard. Where facilities exist, an Over-distance Excess Fare should only be issued before boarding a train.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Are excess fares for going over-distance now officialy dead?

Nope, but they must be purchased before going beyond the destination on the ticket. Which is exactly the same as the rules currently are.

Where facilities exist you buy before boarding the train, just as now, and where facilities don't exist at the origin you ensure a) you buy the ticket before the destination on your ticket from the guard or b) buy a new ticket/the excess at the destination on the ticket.

 

[ji459]

Thanks for the replies. I was concerned because condition 9.4 now appear to have an exhaustive list of instances when excess fares are available, yet fails to include travelling over-distance.

 

[Muzer]

I'm very surprised that nobody has yet spotted this one.

16.4 Generally, you may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction
in the case of a return Ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the
Ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. However, this may not
be the case with some through services that take an indirect route. You may
also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return Ticket) before
the destination shown on the Ticket

The lack of "Generally" on this second clause, and its separation from "start, or break and resume" (also note the word "and" there --- again implying that breaking alone doesn't count) implies to me that you can end your journey early without any restriction, in all cases. This would solidify the recent encouragement for TOCs to be lax on people finishing early on Advances. This also to me (combined with the removal of the definition of "break of journey") implies that it is now classed as a separate concept to BoJ. I'm not going to try to use this, but I'm curious: is my interpretation correct here?

 

[jon0844]

It does read that way, and if TOCs want to stop people using advance tickets 'strategically', they are of course free to price accordingly to manage it - while considering the impact on sales.

The only scenario I recall where it was enforced was in those Stagecoach megatrain fares. Does this even exist anymore?

 

[talltim]

It referred to dogs for the blind and deaf but not any dogs working for anyone with any other disabilities.

It seems someone forget or didn't know that there is more people than just people who are deaf and blind using dogs.

Perhaps they should have consulted far and wide on the different points of the document.

Given that TOC pricing managers read these forums and make changes, could ATOC do the same?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

You get dogs that sense blood sugar levels for diabetics (hoping to train our puppy in this for our son). Diabetes is obviously an invisible disability. I'm sure there are plenty of other disabled assistance dog roles.