Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Yes, what I'm trying to so is if Southern are told they cannot restrict travel on GatEx services, surely they are allowed to do this exact thing and restrict the times you can travel, at least at some times of the day.
They can and if they did, it would be lawful. What they do currently is not in my opinion lawful.
It's not about whether it is right to restrict trains in this way or the way you mention but whether it is lawful to do so. What is lawful and what is morally right do not have to match
Say you own a farm and through it is a public right of way. Off it is a path that is not a public right of way or a permissive path. The PWoR path is lawful for the public to walk over, but the second isn't. Now say you don't want people walking across your farm. With the second path, you can lawfully say no but with the first path you can not.
Yes I’m aware, my point was to a newspaper etc, the difference is not obvious, you could argue every TOC is just running services in an outsourced contract for the government, so the only real difference is GWR is running it for Heathrow, and GTR for the DfT.
Id suggest that for the passenger there is no difference between GTRs brands and the seperate operating companies all operating by Dft OLR (LNER, Northern and Southeastern). Surely in the probably unlikely instance of losing the court case all that will happen is that GTR will set up shell companies and charge the taxpayer for the extra costs.
Gtr has been a management contract since before the Thameslink project as no commercial company would have taken on the revenue risk. Do you think the DFT would not approve such a move to retain the Gatwick Income?
Dont forget that Gatwick Express was an Intercity franchise because it was so profitable that it covered the MML and XC loses.
Gtr has been a management contract since before the Thameslink project as no commercial company would have taken on the revenue risk. Do you think the DFT would not approve such a move to retain the Gatwick Income?
Dont forget that Gatwick Express was an Intercity franchise because it was so profitable that it covered the MML and XC loses.
I guess my question would be what's stopping GTR from changing the tickets so they're like GWR's, in that rather than saying "not valid on gatwick express services" they say "not valid on trains leaving London Victoria from 10:58-11:00, 11:28-11:30" etc
Id suggest that for the passenger there is no difference between GTRs brands and the seperate operating companies all operating by Dft OLR (LNER, Northern and Southeastern). Surely in the probably unlikely instance of losing the court case all that will happen is that GTR will set up shell companies and charge the taxpayer for the extra costs.
I wouldn't say the likelihood of them losing the Court claim is necessarily low; it has been given permission to be heard, which means that the judge has accepted there is at least an arguable case, and it has received substantial funding, which the funders stand to lose if the case fails.
Setting up shell companies that are still all effectively one company is unlikely to be sufficient to make the current setup lawful, and regardless of what is done in response, if GTR loses, they and/or the DfT will be liable to pay out millions in compensation to people who have historically been overcharged. So it's not a moot point in the way your post may be taken to imply.
I guess my question would be what's stopping GTR from changing the tickets so they're like GWR's, in that rather than saying "not valid on gatwick express services" they say "not valid on trains leaving London Victoria from 10:58-11:00, 11:28-11:30" etc
It seems very odd that anyone claiming for a refund gets one though. That suggests to me that the company lawyers might have the view they would loss any such case.
So would you be happy for GTR to change their restriction to be "not valid on trains scheduled to depart London Victoria at 05:59, 06:29, 06:59, 07:29, 07:59, 08:29, 08:59, 09:29, 09:59....."? Because that's a time restriction, not a brand restriction, but an identical effect.
So your idea is that GTR would give up claiming that Anytime fares are not valid (sell that's a good start at least!), but would continue the charade with ostensibly "off peak" fares, with "peak" times occuring twice an hour every hour, in addition to the actual peak times?
This is not serious, is it?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The main difference between GTR and the "brands" of other operators is that, operationally, TL, GX, SN and GN are still 4 different "operators" in the Network Rail and National Rail industry systems with separate codes, while all the Stansted Express, Inter7City, Castle Class or InterCity 225 aren't different operators in the industry systems and the services are listed under the code of the real operator. Therefore it is possible to restrict a ticket to be not valid on GX services but not only specific services inside a single operator unless using the time-based restrictions to get around it.
Id suggest that for the passenger there is no difference between GTRs brands and the seperate operating companies all operating by Dft OLR (LNER, Northern and Southeastern). Surely in the probably unlikely instance of losing the court case all that will happen is that GTR will set up shell companies and charge the taxpayer for the extra costs.
I recently contacted the BBC News to correct them when they said 15 TO's were on strike.
I pointed out
However, that is the terms the Rail Develiery Group use and even at the Transport Select Committee one of the union reps referred to there being 15 TOCs in dispute.
Even they can't get it right, it seems and they work in the industry.
No wonder the BBC didn't correct their factual error or respond to my e-mail.
The BBC is not interested in accuracy; it probably suits their agenda to give the illusion that more train operators were involved than was actually the case, so I am not surprised at this outcome.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Do you blame them though? The lines between a 'brand' and an 'operator' are very blurred.
Gatwick Express is a service run by Southern, using rebranded Southern trains and Southern staff.
Heathrow Express is a service run a GWR, using rebranded GWR trains and GWR staff.
Yet Heathrow Express is its own operator, which doesn't have to obey NRCoT, can charge effectively whatever it wants with no recourse and can inflate prices of competing services.
This is effectively all down to legal complexities with franchising and open access operators, which can be quite difficult to understand.
HEX is a very odd and unique case; it's worthy of a dedicated thread. The situation for GTR is actually straightforward and unambiguous, if you read the relevant parts of the Ticketing Settlement Agreement.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Is it not a brand restriction by proxy? It still exists to this day, and for example ticket restriction FO bans travel on every service except the Didcot stoppers in the evening. Surely this is just as bad, and also not allowed in the same way, otherwise tomorrow Southern could repaint their entire fleet in Southern colours and just use ticket restrictions to ban travel on their 'premium', faster trains.
The concept of having an evening peak period, but allowing specific trains to be used within that period, is not in any way equivalent to the theoretical position of claiming that two minutes of every hour, at all hours of the day, including weekends, are "peak" times.
Yes, this bizarre theoretical idea is technically possible in the data structure, but only for ticket types other than those within the Anytime category.
So your idea is that GTR would give up claiming that Anytime fares are not valid (sell that's a good start at least!), but would continue the charade with ostensibly "off peak" fares, with "peak" times occuring twice an hour every hour, in addition to the actual peak times?
You're right, I don't think they'd seriously try it . Although GWR has done something similar in the past, so I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that it could be an outcome from them being told they have to stop selling brand-restricted fares.
The point is that I don't understand the merit in kicking up such a fuss about brand-restricted fares, when restrictions implemented in a different (and completely valid) way could achieve exactly the same thing.
The point is that I don't understand the merit in kicking up such a fuss about brand-restricted fares, when restrictions implemented in a different (and completely valid) way could achieve exactly the same thing.
They don't seem to bother with that any more. There are several 387s booked on Brighton to Hastings diagrams but nothing on the screens. Not really a problem there to be fair. More of a problem when the wrong stock is used between Brighton and London.
So you either change the TSA or reinstate the operating companies that were defacto merged by the DFT in 2013 by the TSGN franchise tenders to bid.
Either way the liability must rest with the Dft so I can't see that its a competition issue. I really can't see that there is any possible "win' here for the passenger or taxpayer.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It seems very odd that anyone claiming for a refund gets one though. That suggests to me that the company lawyers might have the view they would loss any such case.
I d suggest its because the refunds are a small percentages of the fares taken and are much cheaper than the legal costs to defend a small claim. Ultimately I believe it will just be kicked down the road and if it ever came to court the ultimate outcome would not be in passengers or the taxpayers interest.
Ultimately I believe it will just be kicked down the road and if it ever came to court the ultimate outcome would not be in passengers or the taxpayers interest.
Exactly the best we can expect is the people in the class get a payout. What is almost definitely not going to happen is a lasting beneficial change. Best case scenario the DfT and GTR find another way with the same outcome, be it with ticket restrictions or splitting the franchise. Worst case the cheaper Thameslink and Southern only tickets disappear, and we're left with just the more expensive tickets that they claim are valid now. There isn't a situation where they just let you travel on GatEx with the cheaper tickets, it's in the DfT's interest as well to maintain the different fares, and they very much can change the rules.
Again, it's in the DfT's interest to maintain the current fare structure, and the DfT grants the licenses. There is nothing stopping GTR registering GTR Southern, or GTR Gatwick Express at companies house tomorrow, and the DfT granting them a passenger license. First Group already hold 3 passenger rail contracts under 3 separate companies, and Abellio hold 2.
I think you might be missing the point here. The government and the rail companies must act within the law. Just because they can change that law, doesn't mean they can do as they please and ignore it. They should change it first, but they get lazy. Once bodies like the SRA and the Rail Regulator disappeared, some parts of the industry realised they could get away with taking short-cuts. Another example is the way the Routeing Guide in legal force only gets updated on a small number of fixed dates each year - yet the industry now ignores that and purports to update it whenever it wants and however it wants. It could have changed the legal framework to match what it is actually doing yet it still hasn't taken the trouble to do so - one day that might hit them in the pocket. This happened with Penalty Fares too. For years and years the train companies simply ignored obligations (passenger safeguards) they didn't like and nobody did anything about it. Eventually the DfT acted to update the framework and quietly dropped some of those safeguards for the passenger.
So you either change the TSA or reinstate the operating companies that were defacto merged by the DFT in 2013 by the TSGN franchise tenders to bid.
Either way the liability must rest with the Dft so I can't see that its a competition issue. I really can't see that there is any possible "win' here for the passenger or taxpayer.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I d suggest its because the refunds are a small percentages of the fares taken and are much cheaper than the legal costs to defend a small claim. Ultimately I believe it will just be kicked down the road and if it ever came to court the ultimate outcome would not be in passengers or the taxpayers interest.
I think you might be missing the point here. The government and the rail companies must act within the law. Just because they can change that law, doesn't mean they can do as they please and ignore it. They should change it first, but they get lazy. Once bodies like the SRA and the Rail Regulator disappeared, some parts of the industry realised they could get away with taking short-cuts. Another example is the way the Routeing Guide in legal force only gets updated on a small number of fixed dates each year - yet the industry now ignores that and purports to update it whenever it wants and however it wants. It could have changed the legal framework to match what it is actually doing yet it still hasn't taken the trouble to do so - one day that might hit them in the pocket. This happened with Penalty Fares too. For years and years the train companies simply ignored obligations (passenger safeguards) they didn't like and nobody did anything about it. Eventually the DfT acted to update the framework and quietly dropped some of those safeguards for the passenger.
Indeed, but in this case the differential fares predated the franchises being combined and to some extent had existed since the pre- nationalisation "sectorisation". What changed was the DFT specifying in the TSGN tender that the 3 franchises had to be combined and that the FCC fares had to be maintained. The revenue risk has been with the DFT since the award of the management contract at the combination. GTR have been paid a management fee. Theres only one place that any loss of revenue will be paid for and that's the taxpayer.
So you either change the TSA or reinstate the operating companies that were defacto merged by the DFT in 2013 by the TSGN franchise tenders to bid.
Either way the liability must rest with the Dft so I can't see that its a competition issue. I really can't see that there is any possible "win' here for the passenger or taxpayer.
I d suggest its because the refunds are a small percentages of the fares taken and are much cheaper than the legal costs to defend a small claim. Ultimately I believe it will just be kicked down the road and if it ever came to court the ultimate outcome would not be in passengers or the taxpayers interest.
Exactly the best we can expect is the people in the class get a payout. What is almost definitely not going to happen is a lasting beneficial change. Best case scenario the DfT and GTR find another way with the same outcome, be it with ticket restrictions or splitting the franchise. Worst case the cheaper Thameslink and Southern only tickets disappear, and we're left with just the more expensive tickets that they claim are valid now. There isn't a situation where they just let you travel on GatEx with the cheaper tickets, it's in the DfT's interest as well to maintain the different fares, and they very much can change the rules.
I don't see how it could ever be the case that the only valid fare between Victoria and Gatwick Airport costs £20; do you really think that is possible?
Again, it's in the DfT's interest to maintain the current fare structure, and the DfT grants the licenses. There is nothing stopping GTR registering GTR Southern, or GTR Gatwick Express at companies house tomorrow, and the DfT granting them a passenger license. First Group already hold 3 passenger rail contracts under 3 separate companies, and Abellio hold 2.
Splitting the operator would have a lot of effects well beyond ticketing. A lot of time and effort was put into integrating the separate operations into the TSGN franchise a few years ago. To undo all that would be no small task.
Would DfT really split an operator purely on the basis of wanting to charge differentiated fares? This would be an extreme case of 'the rail wagging the dog'.
If anyone wishes to propose this, feel free to create a thread in the Speculative Discussion section.
Indeed, but in this case the differential fares predated the franchises being combined and to some extent had existed since the pre- nationalisation "sectorisation". What changed was the DFT specifying in the TSGN tender that the 3 franchises had to be combined and that the FCC fares had to be maintained. The revenue risk has been with the DFT since the award of the management contract at the combination. GTR have been paid a management fee. Theres only one place that any loss of revenue will be paid for and that's the taxpayer.
When GTR took on the franchise they were automatically deemed to have 'created' the fares, as per the TSA.
I can't believe GTR weren't aware of their obligations under the TSA, and it had been known since 2008 that many passengers had successfully claimed refunds from the then Southern franchise for additional charges made when holding Southern only tickets on GX.
Govia and DfT were both clearly aware of this matter and the possibility that, if they continued to maintain brand restrictive pricing in the TSGN franchise, that this could be subject to legal challenge.
Yes the DfT have been irresponsible with taxpayers money on many occasions; this is nothing new. I can't see the DfT changing their ways anytime soon.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think you might be missing the point here. The government and the rail companies must act within the law. Just because they can change that law, doesn't mean they can do as they please and ignore it. They should change it first, but they get lazy. Once bodies like the SRA and the Rail Regulator disappeared, some parts of the industry realised they could get away with taking short-cuts. Another example is the way the Routeing Guide in legal force only gets updated on a small number of fixed dates each year - yet the industry now ignores that and purports to update it whenever it wants and however it wants. It could have changed the legal framework to match what it is actually doing yet it still hasn't taken the trouble to do so - one day that might hit them in the pocket. This happened with Penalty Fares too. For years and years the train companies simply ignored obligations (passenger safeguards) they didn't like and nobody did anything about it. Eventually the DfT acted to update the framework and quietly dropped some of those safeguards for the passenger.
Indeed. The loss of the SRA / Rail Regulator was an extremely poor move; the DfT has been a very poor replacement.
It is absolutely right that DfT/GTR are being challenged on their breaking of the rules. They clearly knew exactly what they are doing was wrong and they knew that it could be subject to legal challenge; it had been a known issue for 7 years prior to the award of the TSGN franchise
I don't see how it could ever be the case that the only valid fare between Victoria and Gatwick Airport costs £20; do you really think that is possible?
The journey from Paddington to Reading is roughly the same distance and 5-10 minutes shorter, yet GWR charges £30 for an Off-Peak Single, and nearly £40 for an Anytime Single. I can absolutely see them doing this and getting away with it .
The journey from Paddington to Reading is roughly the same distance and 5-10 minutes shorter, yet GWR charges £30 for an Off-Peak Single, and nearly £40 for an Anytime Single. I can absolutely see them doing this and getting away with it .
But then people could simply reduce this to a third of the cost by tapping out, and back in again, at East Croydon.
This doesn't take long and doesn't necessarily delay your journey; there have even been videos pointing out that this saves roughly the cost of a cup of coffee when compared to the non-GX fare.
Or if you didn't want the hassle of tapping out and back in, a significant saving could still be made by purchasing paper tickets to alternative destinations.
Also it would create a huge disparity between fares from London Bridge; a single between Gatwick and London Bridge is only £12.90 at any time (£10.70 at weekends). How many people would want to pay nearly twice the price just to go to Victoria?
Anyone wanting onward tube connections would simply replan to change at LBG surely?
These speculative suggestions really should be posted in the appropriate forum area though.
With respect, you've suggested this cost saving wheeze before, but tapping out, and then back in again at East Croydon, particularly so for anyone travelling to/from Gatwick Airport with luggage and/or during the rush hours, is somewhat impractical, particularly so with the entrances/exits and card readers up at street level at the top of what is usually a busy ramp to/from the platforms.
The journey from Paddington to Reading is roughly the same distance and 5-10 minutes shorter, yet GWR charges £30 for an Off-Peak Single, and nearly £40 for an Anytime Single. I can absolutely see them doing this and getting away with it .
Although we're getting off topic, by it's purpose I don't think we can call the Gatwick Express a commuter train. Both run a similar distance between two popular stations non-stop, albeit GWR is slightly quicker. If we are being honest I don't think anyone here can argue that GWR is offering a better quality service onboard the train, even if you do get a seat.
though we're getting off topic, by it's purpose I don't think we can call the Gatwick Express a commuter train. Both run a similar distance between two popular stations non-stop, albeit GWR is slightly quicker. If we are being honest I don't think anyone here can argue that GWR is offering a better quality service onboard the train, even if you do get a seat.
The Gatwick Express runs to Brighton so I'm sure some commuters use it as an express service. I'm not aware of it having any trolly food service on it.
The Gatwick Express runs to Brighton so I'm sure some commuters use it as an express service. I'm not aware of it having any trolly food service on it.
A large amount of commuters also use GWR services between Reading (and beyond) and London.
The trolley is an increasingly rare sight on GWR regardless, but I have never seen it appear between Paddington and Reading. It also bears the question of why a trolley service, which only offers refreshments at a cost similar to a station, should be factored into ticket cost at all.
Although we're getting off topic, by it's purpose I don't think we can call the Gatwick Express a commuter train. Both run a similar distance between two popular stations non-stop, albeit GWR is slightly quicker. If we are being honest I don't think anyone here can argue that GWR is offering a better quality service onboard the train, even if you do get a seat.
On the contrary we almost certainly are not going off topic. With respect I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. They literally extended the Gatwick Express to Brighton to increase capacity for commuters. Today it even stops at Hassocks and other stations instead of being fast to Brighton from Gatwick
I agree with you that GWR do offer slightly better seat quality. Although GWR’s non-stop service to Reading is not charged at a premium over the stopping service.
You’ve actually hit exactly my point here. It’s been lost a bit in replies but my original point was that in response to the lawsuit GTR could just stop offering the cheaper stopper only tickets. It was brought up that a GatEx ticket of £20 was too expensive for Gatwick to Victoria, and that is why I brought up GWR.
I believe at least Gatwick to Victoria is very similar to Reading to Paddington, in that a fast service and a slower stopping service is offered, across a roughly similar distance with a similar duration. Onboard these services the level of service is the same, at least on this section, and I’d say there’s more chance of getting a seat on GatEx. So my point is if GWR are charging nearly double that quoted fare, whether you take a stopper or not, for pretty much the same service, there is nothing stopping GTR charging it in terms of it being reasonable.
With respect, you've suggested this cost saving wheeze before, but tapping out, and then back in again at East Croydon, particularly so for anyone travelling to/from Gatwick Airport with luggage and/or during the rush hours, is somewhat impractical, particularly so with the entrances/exits and card readers up at street level at the top of what is usually a busy ramp to/from the platforms.
But to save around two thirds of the fare (about 13 quid), a lot of people would do this.
You only need to drag your luggage up the ramp if you are travelling alone; many people with a lot of luggage seem to be travelling as couples/groups/families.
But as I said there would still be cheaper ways (though not as cheap as that) with paper tickets, especially at weekends.
And would Victoria really command that much of a premium over London Bridge? How many people would be prepared to pay nearly double the price to go to Victoria?
Although we're getting off topic, by it's purpose I don't think we can call the Gatwick Express a commuter train. Both run a similar distance between two popular stations non-stop, albeit GWR is slightly quicker. If we are being honest I don't think anyone here can argue that GWR is offering a better quality service onboard the train, even if you do get a seat.
Not so. London to Reading is around 35 miles in around 22 minutes, using genuinely InterCity type rolling stock, with many non-stop trains each hour.
London to Gatwick is around 24 miles and is a slow trundle, taking around 30 minutes if you are lucky. It uses bog standard commuter stock and at peak times all trains are very crowded with commuters.
They are not comparable.
GTR's red 387 trains are no different to 387s on other parts of GTR or on commuter services on other TOCs (including GWR as it happens). They are also not materially different from the more recent 377s on GTR and other operators, with the same awful ironing board seats and lack of luggage space.
Yes GX carries a lot of fresh air at off peak times, but at the times most people want to travel, commuters do indeed pile onto the trains in huge numbers, with additional stops made to accommodate them. It's not been a dedicated airport shuttle for quite some time now!
A large amount of commuters also use GWR services between Reading (and beyond) and London.
The trolley is an increasingly rare sight on GWR regardless, but I have never seen it appear between Paddington and Reading. It also bears the question of why a trolley service, which only offers refreshments at a cost similar to a station, should be factored into ticket cost at all.
You’ve actually hit exactly my point here. It’s been lost a bit in replies but my original point was that in response to the lawsuit GTR could just stop offering the cheaper stopper only tickets.
Well they haven't, and as we saw with the Redhill hump matter, political pressure wouldn't allow it.
If Victoria to Gatwick cost 20 quid one way with no exceptions, you'd see huge changes to travel patterns as people look for alternative options (of which there are many ways to avoid such a fare).
It was brought up that a GatEx ticket of £20 was too expensive for Gatwick to Victoria, and that is why I brought up GWR.
I believe at least Gatwick to Victoria is very similar to Reading to Paddington, in that a fast service and a slower stopping service is offered, across a roughly similar distance with a similar duration. Onboard these services the level of service is the same, at least on this section, and I’d say there’s more chance of getting a seat on GatEx. So my point is if GWR are charging nearly double that quoted fare, whether you take a stopper or not, for pretty much the same service, there is nothing stopping GTR charging it in terms of it being reasonable.
A large amount of commuters also use GWR services between Reading (and beyond) and London.
The trolley is an increasingly rare sight on GWR regardless, but I have never seen it appear between Paddington and Reading. It also bears the question of why a trolley service, which only offers refreshments at a cost similar to a station, should be factored into ticket cost at all.
The journey from Paddington to Reading is roughly the same distance and 5-10 minutes shorter, yet GWR charges £30 for an Off-Peak Single, and nearly £40 for an Anytime Single. I can absolutely see them doing this and getting away with it .
I dunno where you got your prices from, but its £22.60 off peak and £27.60 peak, although the contactless off peak fare is just £11.30 - not sure that's £30 in anyones book
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
