You knew that would be the case when you bought the tickets though. You knew it was expected of you, once again it is perhaps daft, but it is not unfair. You still had the choice of tickets.
. . . ?
(I apologise now,
hhf, that my persistent questioning might appear to be directed at you, or at
RJ for that matter. But its not.
I am, however, looking for clarity of both the technicality of how the Regulations and Conditions are read, how the Regulations and Conditions are applied, and also clarity of the ethical application of those Regs and Conds. and how they are applied)
This is
NOT a question about stopping short when travelling on an Advance ticket. This very specific question just happens to involve stopping short, but that is
not the point of the question.
I don't think you need me to re-iterate the question, but just in case . . . . .
..The journey is from A via B to C. It can be done by travelling A > B or by travelling A > B > C then back again C > B.
..The passenger has an Advance A to C (on a train which stops at B), plus an Anytime from C back to B (doubling back).
..The one train travels from A via B to C and (after a pause) it (or a readily available other train) travels from C back to B
..The passenger wants to travel A to B
The question of the validity AND the ethics of alighting at 'B' is the crucial matter.
The passenger has exactly 2 opportunities to alight at 'B'. The first time, and the second time (after doubling back via 'C').
And the TOC's also have exactly 2 opportunities to consider the passenger alighting at 'B'. The first time, and the second time (after doubling back via 'C').
I fully accept that stopping short (without holding the Anytime C to B) is not within the terms of the Advance. But the very interesting implication of the passenger having bought the Anytime which would bring them back to "B" is that
a) there is no benefit to the railways of actually conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
b) there is no financial difference to the railways or passenger of conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
c) there is a potential increase of liability and costs to the railways of conveying the passenger for that unneccessary "doubling back",
d) there is a practical inconvenience to some passengers of the unneccessary "doubling back" and a benefit (perhaps to those with time to kill?) of the unneccessary "doubling back",
e) the cost to the passenger of the combination of 2 tickets may be neutral, but equally it could be much more expensive than for the simple A to B journey (We musn't assume this question has anything to do with prices).
The 2 comnbined tickets authorise the journey.
The only debate applies this very specific question:
Does the passenger alight when the train stops at the station the first time, OR, does the passenger stay on the train (incurring time, expense and liabilities for all parties) until the train returns to the same station again) the second time?
I think, if you grasp the question properly, you'll see that it is not simply a question of applying the T&Cs of an Advance ticket.
And its not just 'stopping short'.
And its not just a calculation of ticket prices (its quite possible to phrase the question with examples which would not oblige the passenger to pay more to alight at "B" without travelling on to "C" and back.
And its not just another attempt to find a 'loophole'.
Its an attempt to understand how the Regulations and Conditions are to be read and applied.