Set Down only stops with an ALR?

[Old Timer]

evil hippo
Your attitude is a perfect example of why modern Society is heading the way it is.

Firstly, when you come onto the Railway and buy a ticket you accept a legal contract to comply withn the rules. If you don't like the rules well you have alternative options you can exercise, although National Express coaches for example will also have rules and byelaws that are not dissimilar in many respects.

Set down only and pick up only stops are not the result of some planner making indiscriminate and irrational decisions but are the result of experience of train loadings.

Take overnight trains, some of which may convey only sleeping vehicles and one or two conventional carriages. The capacity of these trains is set to meet a pre-determined demand. Now one of these arriving at (say for the purposes of this example) Milton Keynes at the start of the Peak, offers a rapid service to London as opposed to the other serevices. So what happens ? Punters jump on and suddenly the train looks like a LUL train with peoople stood about everywhere. Now in addition to the fact that it causes congestion within the train, as a long distance passenger do you really want to have to worm your way past people standing in the corridors or in the isles ?

It is for this reason that many sleeper services were denoted to set down, as well as the obvious issues about timekeeping. What do you do for example if the train is advertised but is running late ? People expect another Class 1 to be pulled in to compensate.

Pick up only stops are to prevent disruption to long distance passengers. Commuters and others have a habit of aiming for the table seats, even though they are travelling maybe only 10/15 minutes. Long distance passengers who may preferr to be at a table for a variety of reasons then have to move when someone bales out at say Watford Jct or Runcorn. Damned annoying and then impacts upon joining passengers at that stopm as people move around like musical chairs.

A perfect example is the Coventry Corridor on the Up where there is a continuing problem, and always has been with people doing short hop journeys between New St and International in the Peaks and sitting at table/window seats. Centro tickets never used to be valid on InterCity services and I presume it is the case now.

In the reverse having started to use these services recently I am becoming more irritated with the groups of people who will insist in jumping into the First Class section even though they are obviously travelling on std class travelcards, simply to be alongside the stairs on arrival. They stand and block the corridors at times and will not let you get up to pack away laptops, or get prepared to alight, and if you are going forward on a connecting service you then have the issue of having to wait for them to get off.


Rules are the glue by which Society as a whole is retained, even Moses had to come down the Mountain with rules which regulated that Society.

Once you reach the point where people decide that they can pick and choose which rules THEY will obey, then you are on the slippery slope. Hence we have uninsured, unlicensed motorists, driving untaxed and unroadworthy cars.

I know of people who would drink and drive because it suits them to do so, I have listened to a radio show where a man admitted to buying, using and returning clothes under a shop's relaxed returned policy on the basis that he wanted to "dress well" but held the view that why should he pay for it.

Virgin serve free meals and drinks including alcoholic drinks on their services in First Class. Why should I be restricted to one item, why can I not have as many sausages as I want ? why cannot I have as many alcoholic drinks as I want ?

Similar arguments can be made for a number of other matters on the basis you propound, such as using radios and personal music players.


Who is to be the arbiter of what is causing annoyance or harm in your scenario ? You ? Someone else ? Me ? and what about differences in perspective ?

Oh stop the bickering!

On any train, you need a ticket which is valid between two stations at which it picks up passengers.

Whilst you're getting on at a SD stop, your ticket is valid from that trains last calling point, even if it was 100 miles north of where you are now.

Your ticket is valid, you can't be charged anything, end of discussion.

Now give it a rest?

That is not the point of the debate at this stage anymore, it has moved on to the legitimacy of boarding a set down only train.

 

[John @ home]

Although I see that I could physically board or alight a W&S train at Banbury, all of their services from that station are noted as PU only northbound and SD only heading south.

Yes. That is currently a condition of their permission to operate. This may change, perhaps as soon as 13 December 2009, but for the moment they are not allowed to SD northbound or PU southbound.

Given that I normally hold a Chiltern OPH ticket for my journey between Moor St and Marylebone, what would be my position if I attempted to use a W&S service between MYB and BAN (Or vice-versa) with that ticket?

A Woking - Tame Bridge Parkway Railcard OPR route + High Wycombe costs £14.20, the same price as to Birmingham Stations. At present, that's your best bet if you want to try WSMR.

 

[Old Timer]

This HAS to be tested in court and a proper decision made once and for all.

A sign saying 'please do not board' is not sufficient in my view to stop someone contravening a byelaw and allow someone to be punished, or charged as if they travelled from somewhere they didn't. It's too easy for someone to board a set-down only train under the circumstances mentioned.

This argument could (and probably will) go on as long as the one about whether you can pass a circular sign showing a pedestrian being crossed out - even when such a sign is placed before a set of stairs that leads to the only station exit!

SO you are saying in effect that no sign is legitimate on that basis. There are trespass signs. They don't stop people trespassing but are still held to be sufficient in law. Similar traffic signs do not stop me going down a one-way street, if I want to do this.

Why should a railway sign therefore be inadequate ?

 

[90019]

I didn't really expect a question about why you can't do something when it's pretty clear that you can physically do it and the question is about what happens if you do.

Yes, being physically able to do it is all very well but that's different from being allowed to; I mean, I'm physically able to sit on top of a moving train, but it doesn't mean I'm allowed to do so.

I posted a simple query about how if a train is set down only surely it's only for setting down passengers at that station, hence "set down only".

Now, if you want I'll explain my question much more clearly this time, so you don't miunderstand it.
What is wrong with questioning something someone has said in a thread, that doesn't sound right, which is to do with the main topic at hand (In this case set down only trains), by posting a reply in the same thread?

Would you rather everyone started a new thread every time they wanted to ask a question that wasn't 100% about the OP, regardless of how relevant it is to the current thread?

 

[yorkie]

Yes, being physically able to do it is all very well but that's different from being allowed to; I mean, I'm physically able to sit on top of a moving train, but it doesn't mean I'm allowed to do so.

So you don't agree with the railway that a ticket from the previous pick-up station is considered valid for someone boarding at a set-down only station? What do you suggest as an alternative?

I posted a simple query about how if a train is set down only surely it's only for setting down passengers at that station, hence "set down only".

Again, what do you suggest to prevent people?

Now, if you want I'll explain my question much more clearly this time, so you don't miunderstand it.
What is wrong with questioning something someone has said in a thread, that doesn't sound right, which is to do with the main topic at hand (In this case set down only trains), by posting a reply in the same thread?

Well, as I said before, you can board a set down only train and people do. It's alright for you to say it "can only set down passengers, and not pick them up", but unless you have loads of staff spread along the platform to prevent it, clearly it isn't correct to say it "can only set down passengers, and not pick them up". When I answered the question to say what the "punishment" is, you then simply asked "Can you please show me where it states that you are allowed to board set down only trains?" if you are not "allowed" to do something then there is a consequence. That is what is being debated. You can ask the question, but the answer as to what the concequence is, is what matters, and that has been answered over and over again. You said you are "not interested" though. So what do you want to know - how can it be prevented? Well, if the TOCs were desperate to prevent it, you can guess as well as I can, how many staff they'd need spread across any platform where such a train calls. A staff at every door perhaps? Or maybe just every other door? That'd need about 10 staff. I don't know, your imagination is as good as mine, I'm sure. You can wonder about that, but it's not practicable and it's not the question. The TOCs are not interested in preventing it, they have a fare they charge when it occurs, it's just that with an ALR that fare is already paid.

Would you rather everyone started a new thread every time they wanted to ask a question that wasn't 100% about the OP, regardless of how relevant it is to the current thread?

If you are asking 'Can TOCs prevent people boarding set-down only trains?' then maybe that would justify a seperate thread. However I believe it is a non-issue, as TOCs really are not that interested in preventing it. It would cost a lot of money to prevent it. As you are "not interested" in the OP's question but want to explore the possibilities of prevention, then yes, by all means start a new thread if you like. It's more a 'general' issue than a ticketing issue. As you said, you are not interested in the ticketing aspect.

 

[90019]

So you don't agree with the railway that a ticket from the previous pick-up station is considered valid for someone boarding at a set-down only station? What do you suggest as an alternative?

Again, what do you suggest to prevent people?

Do I really have to go through this again?

Just because people do something doesn't mean they're allowed to; people speed when driving, does that mean it's allowed now?

You said that people are allowed to board set down only trains and the only evidence you gave for this was that people do.
As I have already stated, what happens when people do was not what I'm asking about, but whether they're allowed to get on in the first place.

I've had enough of this, and really can't be bothered arguing with someone this stubborn; I have better things to do.

 

[jon0844]

SO you are saying in effect that no sign is legitimate on that basis. There are trespass signs. They don't stop people trespassing but are still held to be sufficient in law. Similar traffic signs do not stop me going down a one-way street, if I want to do this.

Why should a railway sign therefore be inadequate ?

The argument was that a prohibition sign meant you couldn't walk beyond that point no matter what - except that would stop some people being able to board a train or exit a station! It was someone taking things far too literally. The warning sign was of course qualified by the text saying something - not literally 'no pedestrians'. This was argued to death, and I had photos showing how silly it would be if it was true.

As for all the comparisons with speeding or sitting on top of a train; do you really think that someone on a platform that sees a train coming in that says a destination they want to go on (either at the front or on the side windows as with an Intercity train) and boards is breaking the law? The answer might be yes, but I'd want to see that supposed law tested in court because too many people could do it innocently (easily missing a message on a screen).

Worse still, railway staff have admitted they would let people board the train if asked!

The railway is full of so many interpretations and inconsistencies, whereas I think it's pretty clear cut that speeding is illegal. I'm sure climbing up and sitting on a train is probably illegal too and doesn't have too many incidences where rail staff would say it's okay.

 

[yorkie]

Do I really have to go through this again?

No, but you can choose to. I'd rather you didn't

Just because people do something doesn't mean they're allowed to; people speed when driving, does that mean it's allowed now?

As Jon Morris says this really isn't a valid comparison. Speeding is illegal. Is boarding a set-down only train really illegal? Which law is that then? What's the punishment? (oh, yeah, there's a fare for it!)

You said that people are allowed to board set down only trains and the only evidence you gave for this was that people do.

I didn't say that actually. If the TOCs want to prevent it, they can. Usually they don't. So people do it, yes, and there is a fare for it - from the previous stop! Are you saying there is a fare for something illegal? If so, that makes no sense. Why do NRES say that if you board a set-down only train a ticket from the previous station is valid and you may be excessed, why do they not say you must not do it as you'll land in court? Hmm!

As I have already stated, what happens when people do was not what I'm asking about, but whether they're allowed to get on in the first place.

I realise that, but that is what this topic is about! I am trying to help the OP. You aren't - your choice, but please don't have a go at me for answering the OP's question in preference to, well, whatever it is you are asking.

I've had enough of this, and really can't be bothered arguing with someone this stubborn; I have better things to do.

Good

 

[Skip 10]

On this particular topic, I also have a similar question to ask:

As many of ye know, I now make quite a few journeys along the Chiltern line out of Marylebone towards Birmingham and back whenever seeing my other half.
I've always wanted to try out a W&S service to see what they are like (Mainly because they get special permissions to run at higher speeds along the Chiltern! ) but because of W&Ss timetable arrangements, this hasn't yet been possible.

Although I see that I could physically board or alight a W&S train at Banbury, all of their services from that station are noted as PU only northbound and SD only heading south.
Given that I normally hold a Chiltern OPH ticket for my journey between Moor St and Marylebone, what would be my position if I attempted to use a W&S service between MYB and BAN (Or vice-versa) with that ticket?

Farewell, and thanks for any info!

My way of looking at this would be as the train doesnt call at a station you can make a conection at then it would be ching time, please cough up for new fare to TAB. As pointed out save yourself the hastle and wait another week. Ive had it before now when people have tried to be clever and get a WSMR service from MYB to BAN only to find out the pre Oct 16:33 didnt call at BAN, next stop will be TAB then sir.....

 

[yorkie]

is a ticket to BHM valid to TAB? if not an excess would be issued. the excess is 0.00. a ticket to Banbury would incur a larger excess. but why pay to go to Brum if you only want to go to Banbury? and yes it may not call - it's your risk!

 

[theblackwatch]

Any chance of putting station names in English? We aren't all geeky enough to know the 3 figure code for every station without having to look it up.

 

[royaloak]

Some people do it because they are lazy, some because it makes them feel superior and some because they can't spell!

 

[Old Timer]

I presume MYB = Marylebone, BAN = Banbury, and TAB = Tamebridge Parkway

That said only those who deal with these things day in day out will actually know what the abbreviations are, and the above are guesses anyway.

 

[yorkie]

Some people do it because they are lazy, some because it makes them feel superior and some because they can't spell!

Or are using a mobile phone at the time!!!

If people are unsure, there are several ways to find out:-

http://www.livedepartureboards.co.uk
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/codes/

Ticket sites also use the codes, e.g:-
http://www.thetrainline.com/
http://tickets.nationalexpresseastcoast.com/

I always try to name the station when it is first mentioned, and I apologise if I ever don't by accident. Once it has been mentioned, I don't think using the codes is a problem providing they are correct. As the stations along with the codes had already been discussed by Death and Skip 10 I saw nothing wrong with continuing to use the codes.

 

[Lampshade]

OT, good guesses

I use the station codes only if I've mentioned the full name of the station somewhere in the post prior to using the code.

EDIT: Oh and when using my mobile, 'Piccadilly' for example does not appear on predictive text :P

 

[yorkie]

I presume MYB = Marylebone, BAN = Banbury, and TAB = Tamebridge Parkway

That said only those who deal with these things day in day out will actually know what the abbreviations are, and the above are guesses anyway.

Correct!

 

[theblackwatch]

So you ave to luk up a code to type the abbreviation, and then expect everyone else who reads the thread to do the same or make a guess? Is it actually easier on a phone to go to the effort of looking it up to save a few key hits, surely you end up making more hits looking it up? I thought 'txt spk' (which is what this is a form of) wasn't allowed on here but when it suits.....

 

[Lampshade]

Do you really have to look up EUS, MAN, EDB, BHM, YRK? Thought they'd be pretty obvious, in fact it looks like what my mates would send me in a text :???:

I agree with something like DNY or COE though.

 

[theblackwatch]

Thought they'd be pretty obvious, in fact it looks like what my mates would send me in a text :???:

Which proves my point about txt spk!

 

[yorkie]

So you ave to luk up a code to type the abbreviation, and then expect everyone else who reads the thread to do the same or make a guess? Is it actually easier on a phone to go to the effort of looking it up to save a few key hits, surely you end up making more hits looking it up? I thought 'txt spk' (which is what this is a form of) wasn't allowed on here but when it suits.....

Nope, I expect stations to be mentioned by name the first time in accordance with the rules, then CRS codes can be used.

 

[evil_hippo]

Yorkie's suggestion of naming first, then using the CRS code thereafter, sounds like a good thing to me.

I'd also say, as a rough guide indicative of it being important enough for most of us to know it, that the network rail stations can probably be referred to with the CRS code from the outset.

I'm on an Amtrak forum which is just as bad if you don't know what station the equivalent 3-letter code is referring to.

 

[Helvellyn]

"Look, your honour, we are the rail industry. We make our rules up. We trust it never goes to court. Just do what we say. The customer is always wrong. Surely you agree, your honour?"

I can picture the scene now

The only one who seems to make their own rules up is you Yorkie. You've admitted in this thread you're not a Railway employee, so who are you exactly to be regularly giving out "advice" on rail tickets and routings? In fact it would appear it is just your opinion on what should be correct.

An All Line Rover is valid for a week or a fortnight, across the National Rail network, It doesn't give anyone the right though to do whatever they want because they paid £429 for a week version. If a train is set-down only, then it is perfectly clear it is not making a stop to pick up passengers!

Seems a lot of people on here - who don't work on the railway - just dismiss those of us who do as fascists and jobsworths. Don't like the system? Slag it off, throw insults at those who have to work with it, and do whatever I want anyway.

 

[yorkie]

The only one who seems to make their own rules up is you Yorkie.

I've not made any rules up, unlike certain rail employees.

You've admitted in this thread you're not a Railway employee,

So?

so who are you exactly to be regularly giving out "advice" on rail tickets and routings?

Someone who is capable of reading and understanding.

Who are you then?

If this is the typical TOC attitude, no wonder the TOCs don't care much if things are enforceable in court, as who is a judge to decide as they aren't employees either! So yeah, if you're staff, you can decide how to interpret rules, if not, you can't. Right :roll:

In fact it would appear it is just your opinion on what should be correct.

And ATOCs, and the majority of people who have contributed to this thread!

An All Line Rover is valid for a week or a fortnight, across the National Rail network, It doesn't give anyone the right though to do whatever they want because they paid £429 for a week version. If a train is set-down only, then it is perfectly clear it is not making a stop to pick up passengers!

Shall I repeat the whole of the previous topic or just the relevant parts? *sigh*

If you accept that people do, even though they shouldn't, board such trains, and if you accept that the NCoC states that those people can be charged from the previous stop, then you must accept that a ticket that is valid from the previous stop, to the next stop, IS valid. Do you not accept that?!

Seems a lot of people on here - who don't work on the railway - just dismiss those of us who do as fascists and jobsworths. Don't like the system? Slag it off, throw insults at those who have to work with it, and do whatever I want anyway.

I'm not throwing insults, but I will certainly argue my case against people who make up the rules. The rail industry has a certain culture whereby some staff think they can make up rules. Those people do the entire industry a disservice.

 

[Helvellyn]

Who are you then?

Someone who has experience of both Revenue Protection and ticket retailing.

If this is the typical TOC attitude, no wonder the TOCs don't care much if things are enforceable in court, as who is a judge to decide as they aren't employees either! So yeah, if you're staff, you can decide how to interpret rules, if not, you can't. Right :roll:

When it gets to Court all the details of the specific case are laid out for the Magistrates. They decide if the case is proved or not. And if TOCs weren't successful in their prosecutions they would not be regularly taking so many people to Court.

 

[yorkie]

Someone who has experience of both Revenue Protection and ticket retailing.

Well if you think you can't start short on a CDR then you either can't read or can't understand simple text, quite frankly.

When it gets to Court all the details of the specific case are laid out for the Magistrates. They decide if the case is proved or not. And if TOCs weren't successful in their prosecutions they would not be regularly taking so many people to Court.

The TOCs do not put cases like this to court. They take people to court who refuse to buy a ticket, or buy a ticket that is too short for their journey (not too long!), adult on child ticket, etc... They are hardly comparable to this!

 

[Helvellyn]

Well if you think you can't start short on a CDR then you either can't read or can't understand simple text, quite frankly.

I though you didn't do insults? If you go back to the thread you are alluding to here, you will see I never said anything of the sort. But don't let that get in the way of a good argument.

The TOCs do not put cases like this to court. They take people to court who refuse to buy a ticket, or buy a ticket that is too short for their journey (not too long!), adult on child ticket, etc... They are hardly comparable to this!

Oh, so you work for a TOC Prosecution Department do you? Actually I've seen some very complex cases taken to Court. But in many cases Court is also not the first resort, unless deliberate intent is shown at the time.

 

[dan_atki]

You've admitted in this thread you're not a Railway employee, so who are you exactly to be regularly giving out "advice" on rail tickets and routings? In fact it would appear it is just your opinion on what should be correct.

I'm not an employee either - does that make me in the wrong for also answering fares related queries? If so, I'm rather interested in that logic and hope you won't mind explaining why I'm in the wrong for doing so.

If not, then why does the rule apply to one but no-one else? The question in the first post was:

Now I know that if you had a ticket say from Stratford to Liv st, and you boarded a Set down only train, they could charge you from the last stop.

But what happens if you do this with an ALR? Would I have to pay some sort of penalty fare? (I'm still talking about Stratford - Liverpool St)

which is exactly what has been answered. Let's presume this is a perfect world in which no-one makes mistakes. The question is, therefore, hypothetical and I'm sure MCR247 has no intention of doing such a reckless thing - he was simply asking for his own curiosity. In which case, this whole moral debate is doing no-one any good. People are getting hot under the collar and for what? Someone's curiosity?

Regarding opinions on what people think is right then I don't really think that's argument at all. Take a look at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=376201&postcount=4 where it is clear the rules aren't even made clear to staff, leaving a lot open to interpretation... AKA opinion.

 

[yorkie]

I though you didn't do insults? If you go back to the thread you are alluding to here, you will see I never said anything of the sort. But don't let that get in the way of a good argument.

It's not an insult - if you are saying that, then it's true. But you are constantly avoiding stating if you can or not. Your posts suggest that you believe it is not valid, but interestingly you do not appear to be prepared to state categorically whether it is or isn't valid.

 

[90019]

It's not an insult - if you are saying that, then it's true.

So true things can't be insults?

 

[Old Timer]

The only one who seems to make their own rules up is you Yorkie. You've admitted in this thread you're not a Railway employee, so who are you exactly to be regularly giving out "advice" on rail tickets and routings? In fact it would appear it is just your opinion on what should be correct.

An All Line Rover is valid for a week or a fortnight, across the National Rail network, It doesn't give anyone the right though to do whatever they want because they paid £429 for a week version. If a train is set-down only, then it is perfectly clear it is not making a stop to pick up passengers!

Seems a lot of people on here - who don't work on the railway - just dismiss those of us who do as fascists and jobsworths. Don't like the system? Slag it off, throw insults at those who have to work with it, and do whatever I want anyway.

It is honestly not worth the hassle old chap.

We have been there seen it and done it.

We have seen the Prosecutions and indeed set them up. Somehow this counts for nought against the opinions and views of those who are self appointed experts.

Life proceeds or should proceed as they think. Meanwhile the rest of us are wrong.