Tickets inspected by the train porter...that's a new one on me
To be fair, that is part of a quote, rather than the journalist's own wording. Nevertheless, it's a pretty poor article; but also disappointing communication amongst EC staff too.
Tickets inspected by the train porter...that's a new one on me
He broke a rule that many of us believe is unenforceable, generally not enforced anyway, morally wrong, and quite possibly unlawful (this is untested) that is a term of the ticket. The Conditions of Carriage permit Break of Journey (BOJ), which includes starting/finishing short, unless there is a restriction imposed on the ticket itself.
If he had a walk-on ticket, he would have been entitled to end his journey early at Durham.
FAO SunMoon: please check the email I sent you last night, and reply (via email or PM) ASAP.
Why has this particular incident 'set a precedent'? I've quoted previous examples of starting/finishing short, under GNER in around 2007. The precedent has been set long ago, and I predicted this outcome, and it was no surprise to me whatsoever. I know some people are annoyed at that; tough!That said, seems N-E has let him off and thus set a precedent which may lead to a more reasonable pricing structure for e.g. Megabus rail and associated rail operators..
This story is being quoted by numerous passengers who feel that they've been done an injustice for various reasons.
And herein lies the problem of, firstly, having a condition such as this on tickets and then, secondly, not supporting staff if they enforce this condition. In the eyes of many people the whole situation, rightly or wrongly, reduces the validity of other conditions ("all rail tickets have stupid conditions attached") and/or puts them off using the rail ("I won't understand the complex ticketing and might get fined"). The first creates more trouble for staff who have to deal with people trying to get around ticket restrictions, and the latter reduces the number of people on the rail, which is a shame.
Can I just point out that it's not only Advance tickets that have break of journey restrictions? It's not just Advance tickets y'all are attacking, it's a fundamental element in the restrictions system which applies to numerous ticket types depending on the flow.
Is it being suggested that BoJ restrictions on Off Peak/Advance tickets should be completely abolished? Because I'm sure that will never happen as it would be counter productive to both TOCs and passengers like me looking for the best deal for leisure travel.
Probably the most sensible and constructive post on this subject of stopping short!. . . . What I think would probably allow cheap tickets to remain, and maintain an appearance of fairness to the general public, is that if penalties for breaking terms and conditions were more proportional to the 'offence' committed.
. . . .
One way to do it in this instance might be to ask people stopping early to pay for a single for the uncompleted portion of their journey. That way someone getting off a stop early might have to pay a small fee (around £4 in this case), perhaps with a £10 admin slapped on top. £14 - the professor might have been a bit annoyed but he did break the terms and conditions. What I like about this is that someone using a short distance ticket to get through barriers would still have to pay a lot, but someone getting off a stop early because their house is in-between two stations wouldn't.
I disagree - the above simple policy for managing stopping short on an Advance ticket (and as discussed on other thread(s) is informed by both though and consideration of the economics - it also (again in other threads) may be more compatible with the legislative framework than the prosecution of a passenger stopping short.Well the offerings I have seen to reform the current system seem to lack any genuine thought or consideration to the economics of railway travel.
I think we're agreed, there.. . . All the railway needs to do is remove the restriction about starting late and stopping short. Break of journey (break and resume later) is still a complete no-no.
Well the offerings I have seen to reform the current system seem to lack any genuine thought or consideration to the economics of railway travel. Suggest something that wouldn't send the profits into terminal decline, exacerbate the current issues of overcrowding/empty seats or cause people to abandon commuting by rail en masse and I will accept that it's better than the current, admittedly convoluted setup.
Suggesting that there only be one type of ticket, free of restriction and penalising all who are travelling for leisure/don't work 9 -5 shows a very elementary understanding of the forces of supply and demand. The current system may not be perfect but it could be much, much worse.
Impossible at present as the revenue data is a closely guarded secret. We could never come up with something to match figures that are a mystery to us....will not cost the TOC's revenue....
Impossible at present as the revenue data is a closely guarded secret. We could never come up with something to match figures that are a mystery to us.
To be honest, the system pre-Privatisation would have been fine. This is, largely, the same basic system used today, but it has been misused/abused.
Examples of how it has been abused include:
-Many more restriction codes, making it very difficult to know what "Off Peak" means
-Ticket type that was valid at 'Anytime' for all non-London area journeys generally renamed "Off Peak"
- Super [Off Peak] withdrawn, [Off Peak] renamed Super Off Peak, higher priced Off Peak introduced. This was to avoid breaking the law on so-called fare "protection" which is totally ineffective.
- TOC specific fares causing confusion & expense (wouldn't be a problem if they could be excessed)
- Price increases at different rates for neighbouring flows depending on TOC that owns the fares
- Allowing ATOC to effectively act as a regulator
- Allowing the RG to be so difficult for 'joe public' to understand
- Allowing the NRCoC to be so difficult for 'joe public' to understand
- Move from walk-on travel to airline-style yield management pricing on longer distance routes
- Unfair/unenforceable ticket terms due to ATOC setting the rules.
It would have been relatively easy to prevent many of these problems occurring if things had been done differently in 1994. But now it is difficult to fix many of these problems, but not impossible.
Prof Evans said:I am the passenger whose penalty fare has been so widely reported recently. I would like to make two points in response to allegations in a recent posting on this Forum.
First, at at no time during the discussion at Darlington Station was I offered the opportunity to leave the station other than by means of either (1) paying the penalty on the spot, or (2) accepting an unpaid fare notice, or (3) having the police summoned. In particular I categorically DID NOT at any time refuse to leave the station. On the contrary, I wished very much to leave the station from the moment of my arrival until I reluctantly accepted option (2), the unpaid fare notice. Until that time I was unable to leave because I was detained – lawfully or otherwise – by station staff. A recent posting to the contrary on this Forum, in which a seven-point summary was given purporting to show that I somehow engineered the whole thing, was categorically untrue in its conclusions and untrue in every detail (other than the obvious fact that my ticket was rejected as invalid). Given all the circumstances, I found this posting also to be extremely offensive.
Second, I understand that an earlier and still more offensive version of that posting, since withdrawn, actually suggested I had bullied station staff. Again, this is categorically untrue. In fact I told both members of the station staff directly that I recognised that they were only doing their jobs. I made the same point in a telephone conversation with senior East Coast managers, emphasising that I took issue only with Company policy and that I wished no adverse consequences to befall the station staff. I have said clearly in at least three media interviews – and I would like to declare here – that I sympathise with station staff who are doing a demanding job in difficult circumstances. Those circumstances are made more difficult for them, as well as for passengers, by their being required to implement unreasonable, incomprehensible and frankly indefensible restrictions and penalties. Sadly in only one of the three interviews did my comments to this effect make it on air – this was a live interview on LBC Radio. In the case of the other two interviews these views were edited out.
Committing oneself to a particular train and seat on an advance ticket is a reasonable restriction which anyone can understand. Being imprisoned on a train until one’s final destination is wholly unreasonable and no-one I have encountered can understand it. I doubt it is even lawful, and perhaps it is time this was tested in the courts. Be that as it may I will continue to urge reform of unreasonable policies or practices, and I will continue to do so in a manner that is, I hope, respectful of and sympathetic towards hardworking station staff who have not chosen the policies that they are required to implement.
Well done, yorkie! Why did none of the rest of us think of contacting the passenger directly?