Preference to buy tickets from a ticket office

[TUC]

To give an actual example:

Walk up fares between London and Oxford are priced by GWR. If a member of staff at Marylebone sells a combination of a London to High Wycombe and a High Wycombe to Oxford ticket, all of the revenue will go to Chiltern, as opposed to whatever their ORCATS share would be for the through ticket.

Whilst it saves the customer money, it breaks the impartiality rule and could result in GWR making a claim against Chiltern for loss of revenue if it happened on a frequent basis. That all revenue goes to HM Treasury doesn't alter that.

That assumes that impartial retailing is primarily for the TOCs' benefit, which it is party, but surely it is also for the customer's benefit?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 08:47 ==

It's a lot more than that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 08:21 ==

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre-docman/archive/408-2016-12-national-rail-mystery-shopping-survey-ticket-office/file.html

RDG accreditation

[widgetkit id='8']

www.raildeliverygroup.com

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/retail-code-of-practice-atoc.pdf

"Impartial Retailing" - What is it? To whom does it apply?

I've heard the term "Impartial Retailing" bantered about on this forum. I think I have a fairly good idea of what it is, but would like to know if there is a precise definition, or "rule," regarding it that people must follow? Also, which outlets does it apply to - websites, ticket offices...

www.railforums.co.uk

Impartial Retailing ...

Customer requests a Brighton to Oxford Circus (LU) single ticket to travel on a weekday after 12pm ... following the rules of impartial retailing correctly ... what ticket do you sell them ? ...

www.railforums.co.uk

Interpretation of "impartial retailing"

I am aware of the responsibilities on rail companies to retail impartially (unless they say that they only sell their own tickets through particular sales channels). How do others interpret the breadth of this responsibility? Does it extend to a "best advice" concept? I have read others...

www.railforums.co.uk

What is striking in many of the examples in the above is that , as far as I can see, none deal with split ticketing. The ones I have seen all seem to be about asking the time of day the customer wishes to travel, whether buying a railcard would make the journey cheaper, offering London zonal add-ons etc. . These are important, but it does feel like the world has moved on since much of the impartial retailing guidance was developed.

 

[styles]

I suppose the question is, once the GBR transition is complete for all the TOCs, will there be a need for ticket offices to have such impartiality considerations?

In fact if they could have a standardised journey planner across the network which did factor split ticketing etc, I might be more inclined to use ticket offices again.

 

[Haywain]

That assumes that impartial retailing is primarily for the TOCs' benefit, which it is party, but surely it is also for the customer's benefit?

No, it is primarily for the benefit of the customer. Fo the TOCs it imposes a form of neutrality on the ticket office staff.

I suppose the question is, once the GBR transition is complete for all the TOCs, will there be a need for ticket offices to have such impartiality considerations?

Yes, because of open access operators.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, because of open access operators.

Should GBR even sell tickets for OAOs post nationalisation? I think it's questionable if they should. In most other countries they stand (and fall) completely on their own, none of that ORCATS nonsense etc.

Italo, for example, sells via its own website, TVMs and has its own booking facilities in stations.

 

[TUC]

No, it is primarily for the benefit of the customer. Fo the TOCs it imposes a form of neutrality on the ticket office staff.

The reason for questioning which it is was that one of the examples given above was it was claimed that offering a split ticket where one part was linked to a specific operator was unfair to other operators in terms of ORCATS because a through ticket would have given them a share of the revenue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 09:29 ==

Should GBR even sell tickets for OAOs post nationalisation? I think it's questionable if they should. In most other countries they stand (and fall) completely on their own, none of that ORCATS nonsense etc.

It would be inherently non- impartial and unfair on both open access operators and to customers if they did not.

 

[AlterEgo]

That assumes that impartial retailing is primarily for the TOCs' benefit, which it is party, but surely it is also for the customer's benefit?

At the risk of repeating myself yet again!

Impartial retailing is solely about train companies being impartial to and among one another.

If you read the document: https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/d...0.dD3cidEb6qATbPBj6IiCzqqtgVgLRPnTGVREuo7NvAc

1-1, the first sentence of the Agreement itself, explains that the agreement is between operators and RSP, and one another.

And as I quoted earlier, the Impartiality Obligation therein means operators must:

act fairly and impartially between Operators.

As @yorkie and others have explained, this is not about ticket office staff, their intentions, prejudices, or beliefs. It is about a set of retailing standards that TOCs are bound by.

It does indeed govern, and therefore restrict the advice that can be given at Impartial Points of Sale, it does mean that staff cannot proactively recommend split tickets, wheezes, or workarounds. They simply have to sell the customer the appropriate fare as per their request.

 

[JamesT]

Should GBR even sell tickets for OAOs post nationalisation? I think it's questionable if they should. In most other countries they stand (and fall) completely on their own, none of that ORCATS nonsense etc.

Italo, for example, sells via its own website, TVMs and has its own booking facilities in stations.

Does that mean no tickets being valid on both the state operator and the OAO?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does that mean no tickets being valid on both the state operator and the OAO?

New thread to continue this spin-off discussion: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-gbr-sell-tickets-for-open-access-operators.287638/

 

[TUC]

At the risk of repeating myself yet again!

Impartial retailing is solely about train companies being impartial to and among one another.

If you read the document: https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/d...0.dD3cidEb6qATbPBj6IiCzqqtgVgLRPnTGVREuo7NvAc

1-1, the first sentence of the Agreement itself, explains that the agreement is between operators and RSP, and one another.

And as I quoted earlier, the Impartiality Obligation therein means operators must:



As @yorkie and others have explained, this is not about ticket office staff, their intentions, prejudices, or beliefs. It is about a set of retailing standards that TOCs are bound by.

It does indeed govern, and therefore restrict the advice that can be given at Impartial Points of Sale, it does mean that staff cannot proactively recommend split tickets, wheezes, or workarounds. They simply have to sell the customer the appropriate fare as per their request.

The RDG Mystery Shopping survey linked to above https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/m...stery-shopping-survey-ticket-office/file.html

includes the following questions:
'Clerk asked:
* exactly when going
* when departing
* can you travel earlier/later
* can you take a slower service?
* would you mind changing trains?
* which route are you taking?'

It is hard to see how in that context staff cannot 'proactively recommend split tickets, wheezes, or workarounds' and 'simply have to sell the customer the appropriate fare as per their request'. The 'can you take a slower service/would you mind changing trains' questions in themselves will lead to different tickets and service/TOC options potentially being offered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 10:54 ==

At the risk of repeating myself yet again!

Impartial retailing is solely about train companies being impartial to and among one another.

but Haywain said:

No, it is primarily for the benefit of the customer.

How can both of these be correct?

 

[redreni]

Not particularly, but I think confusion is a pretty normal reaction to Translink ticketing!

Yes, I was thoroughly confused not long after arriving in NI. At that time they had installed, but not yet switched on, brightly coloured and conspicuous validator posts at all the stations. It was eventually explained you were supposed to know these weren't working and that you should instead tap in on a different reader hidden inside a grey box that looked like it might perhaps house a staff telephone or PA microphone or similar. But those were only present at certain stations.

All adds to the charm, I suppose!

There weren't many aspects of the ticketing system I would want to see imported to GB, however. I was particularly disappointed to find that you can't extend a zonal ticket and must pay twice for the portion of a longer journey already covered by your zonal ticket. We ended up hiring a car to go to Derry as it was cheaper.

 

[yorkie]

The RDG Mystery Shopping survey linked to above https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/m...stery-shopping-survey-ticket-office/file.html

includes the following questions:
'Clerk asked:
* exactly when going
* when departing
* can you travel earlier/later
* can you take a slower service?
* would you mind changing trains?
* which route are you taking?'

It is hard to see how in that context staff cannot 'proactively recommend split tickets, wheezes, or workarounds' and 'simply have to sell the customer the appropriate fare as per their request'. The 'can you take a slower service/would you mind changing trains' questions in themselves will lead to different tickets and service/TOC options potentially being offered.

As you said above, split tickets are not part of it. The questions are to determine if the customer should be sold e.g. "Route High Wycombe" instead of "Any Permitted" fares.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 10:54 ==


but Haywain said:

How can both of these be correct?

That's a matter of opinion.

 

[Haywain]

but Haywain said:
How can both of these be correct?

The benefit to the customer is in consistency of what will be sold, and of not having to be concerned about which TOC is doing the selling. My comment was that it is not to the benefit of the employing TOC. @AlterEgo is singing from the same hymn sheet as I am on this.

 

[TUC]

As you said above, split tickets are not part of it. The questions are to determine if the customer should be sold e.g. "Route High Wycombe" instead of "Any Permitted" fares.

My point is that the questions, and the potential impact upon which TOCs receive the revenue from the tickets, are not dissimilar to those that are relevant to identifying split ticketing options, so it is difficult to see why there should be any impediment to them being offered.

 

[Haywain]

My point is that the questions, and the potential impact upon which TOCs receive the revenue from the tickets, are not dissimilar to those that are relevant to identifying split ticketing options, so it is difficult to see why there should be any impediment to them being offered.

I think part of the problem you are having with this is that what is imposed is not someone's interpretation of "impartiality" but a specified method of being impartial.

 

[xotGD]

"I can sell you a ticket for £40, but if you go online you'll be able to pay £30. Support your local ticket office!"

Crazy.

 

[TUC]

I think what this discussion reflects is that the world has moved on since the impartial retailing rules were devised, not least in terms of both split ticketing and the sheer range of methods/retailers for buying tickets, and they are not necessarily fit for purpose in their current form.

 

[yorkie]

That assumes that impartial retailing is primarily for the TOCs' benefit, which it is party, but surely it is also for the customer's benefit?

I'm sure RDG would argue that their members act in the best interests of customers, and that the rules are put in place for that reason, but there's no denying that the rules are also designed to avoid any given operator from acting in a way that is not impartial to the other operators.

What is striking in many of the examples in the above is that , as far as I can see, none deal with split ticketing.

Yes, ticket offices don't do split ticketing, as part of the rules of impartial retailing. Every so often, you see memos reminding people of this. LNER sent one out a few months ago, demanding that ticket office staff don't circumvent their fares trial, i.e. requiring ticket offices to sell Anytime tickets instead of

The ones I have seen all seem to be about asking the time of day the customer wishes to travel, whether buying a railcard would make the journey cheaper, offering London zonal add-ons etc. . These are important, but it does feel like the world has moved on since much of the impartial retailing guidance was developed.

Yes; the world has moved on a lot, and most people now buy online (or, for shorter journeys where applicable, use PAYG)

"I can sell you a ticket for £40, but if you go online you'll be able to pay £30. Support your local ticket office!"

Crazy.

(Some) ticket office staff have been shooting themselves in the foot for many years, e.g. refusing to do things that can be done online, or charging more, so it's nothing new. However, the amount of money spent on ticket offices is such that TOCs probably want an excuse to reduce them as much as possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 11:39 ==

I think what this discussion reflects is that the world have moved on since the impartial retailing rules were devised, not least in terms of both split ticketing and the sheer range of methods/retailers for buying tickets, and they are not necessarily fit for purpose in their current form.

Feel free to submit a proposal in the speculative discussion section.

 

[AlterEgo]

My point is that the questions, and the potential impact upon which TOCs receive the revenue from the tickets, are not dissimilar to those that are relevant to identifying split ticketing options, so it is difficult to see why there should be any impediment to them being offered.

Because asking those questions ensures the customer gets sold the correct fare and that train companies act impartially towards one another. This is difficult to understand if you don't know anything about the TSA or its context, less so if you read it and understand how and why it was implemented.

For example, let's say ticket offices can start offering splits. Ignore the clerk earlier who trod on my little bomb by admitting to using a third party site which they absolutely should not be using in the ticket office.

Ticket offices don't have splitting software, and never will (guess why - because of the Ticketing and Sett...okay I've laboured that enough).

Let's say I work in Coventry booking office. I know, for example, that if someone wants Advance tickets to Southampton, I'd be looking at three or four way splits, maybe Banbury, Oxford, Reading. Could save fifty quid (and cost XC £50 in revenue). I would know that. It's on my line of route, my station is involved, I get the request all the time.

Now let's say someone comes in and wants a ticket for next week from Beverley to Aspatria. I actually do not know the best value splits. I might give it a go, but there is less confidence that a) the customer gets what they want or need, and b) it's less likely I will sell a split. In this way, my train company (as it's the employer here) is not acting impartially among all train companies, because habitually their ticket office will be selling known split fares which undercut local TOCs near the line of route but not others.

It is fair and impartial to ascertain whether a customer wants to take a slower route to save money, or spend more for flexibility in the peak, or save lots and sacrifice refundability by getting an Advance. Why? Because that's what train companies contractually agree with each other. And that's that.

Discussion about whether the TSA or the Impartiality Principle should go in the current "all money flows down the same hole" situation would be very interesting but belong in a different thread.

 

[TUC]

Because asking those questions ensures the customer gets sold the correct fare and that train companies act impartially towards one another. This is difficult to understand if you don't know anything about the TSA or its context, less so if you read it and understand how and why it was implemented.

For example, let's say ticket offices can start offering splits. Ignore the clerk earlier who trod on my little bomb by admitting to using a third party site which they absolutely should not be using in the ticket office.

Ticket offices don't have splitting software, and never will (guess why - because of the Ticketing and Sett...okay I've laboured that enough).

Let's say I work in Coventry booking office. I know, for example, that if someone wants Advance tickets to Southampton, I'd be looking at three or four way splits, maybe Banbury, Oxford, Reading. Could save fifty quid (and cost XC £50 in revenue). I would know that. It's on my line of route, my station is involved, I get the request all the time.

Now let's say someone comes in and wants a ticket for next week from Beverley to Aspatria. I actually do not know the best value splits. I might give it a go, but there is less confidence that a) the customer gets what they want or need, and b) it's less likely I will sell a split. In this way, my train company (as it's the employer here) is not acting impartially among all train companies, because habitually their ticket office will be selling known split fares which undercut local TOCs near the line of route but not others.

How is that any different to ticket office staff more generally varying in their knowledge/interest in what tickets are available, particularly for other parts of the country, and so end up offering a passenger a ticket which is not the best value for their journey because they have, for example, offered an 'any operator' ticket when a cheaper TOC specific one is available? It is poor service, but is against the impartial retailing rules?

 

[AlterEgo]

How is that any different to ticket office staff more generally varying in their knowledge/interest in what tickets are available, particularly for other parts of the country, and so end up offering a passenger a ticket which is not the best value for their journey because they have, for example, offered an 'any operator' ticket when a cheaper TOC specific one is available? It is poor service, but is against the impartial retailing rules?

Yes.

You continue to be under the misapprehension that impartial retailing relates to a clerk's intent. It is nothing to do with it. It is an agreement between all TOCs as to which Fares should be retailed and the standards which apply to ascertaining the customer's needs.

A poorly trained or disinterested clerk who acts in what they believe to be a TOC-blind manner but fails to offer the proper fare - or choice of fare - for the customer's needs is not retailing impartially as per the TSA regardless of their intent.

 

[redreni]

LNER would have to do some pretty heavy surveillance (or mystery shopping, I guess) to establish whether people buying tickets that could be used to start and/or finish short and get around the Higher Fares trial were being offered them proactively, as distinct from asking for them (which they're perfectly entitled to do).

 

[CyrusWuff]

LNER would have to do some pretty heavy surveillance (or mystery shopping, I guess) to establish whether people buying tickets that could be used to start and/or finish short and get around the Higher Fares trial were being offered them proactively, as distinct from asking for them (which they're perfectly entitled to do).

Simply reviewing sales in Lennon is likely to identify trends that suggest staff are proactively offering workarounds.

 

[TUC]

Yes.

You continue to be under the misapprehension that impartial retailing relates to a clerk's intent. It is nothing to do with it. It is an agreement between all TOCs as to which Fares should be retailed and the standards which apply to ascertaining the customer's needs.

A poorly trained or disinterested clerk who acts in what they believe to be a TOC-blind manner but fails to offer the proper fare - or choice of fare - for the customer's needs is not retailing impartially as per the TSA regardless of their intent.

I think you’re misunderstanding me. My point is more to highlight the inherent contradictions between what already is required under the TSA and the notion that it would be undesirable for ticket offices to offer split tickets.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think you’re misunderstanding me. My point is more to highlight the inherent contradictions between what already is required under the TSA and the notion that it would be undesirable for ticket offices to offer split tickets.

But that is really for a separate discussion, as it involves a suggestion which is speculative. Namely to remove the Impartiality Principle or scrap the TSA. Feel free to start one! It would be a great thread (and I don’t disagree entirely with your premise).

 

[yorkie]

How is that any different to ticket office staff more generally varying in their knowledge/interest in what tickets are available, particularly for other parts of the country, and so end up offering a passenger a ticket which is not the best value for their journey because they have, for example, offered an 'any operator' ticket when a cheaper TOC specific one is available?

In non-journey planning mode, all available fares should be shown, for any given origin/destination combination, so the clerk can see what tickets are available. They don't need to rely on their knowledge; you can see this at www.brfares.com. Similarly, in journey planning mode, all valid fares should be shown for any given itinerary.

It is poor service, but is against the impartial retailing rules?

Yes, it would be against the rules to sell a higher priced fare, if a lower priced ticket was available and suitable for the journey.

 

[Krokodil]

I'm sure RDG would argue that their members act in the best interests of customers

They could argue this. Then they would have to wait for me to finish laughing. There's a reason that a railway journalist dubbed them the "Rail Apology Group".

Especially in this context:

LNER sent one out a few months ago, demanding that ticket office staff don't circumvent their fares trial, i.e. requiring ticket offices to sell Anytime tickets instead of

 

[Killingworth]

Having the ability to trawl through different apps, and to use a TVM, the lack of a ticket office at my station determines my preference - I have no choice.

Having watched this thread through 7 pages and over 200 posts I'm not surprised to hear the simple statement "railway tickets are too complicated".

I've booked first class returns from Chesterfield to St Pancras for next week and got a very good deal with no splitting or seat frogs, so good I'm waiting to discover the catch I've missed.

A difficulty I'm seeing is that a significant number of travellers are not using booking offices, TVMs or maybe not booking themselves online. Maybe a helpful husband, wife, son, daughter, grand child or friend has done it for them. Sometimes, but not always, correctly. Split ticketing challenges many occasional rail users.

First issue is finding the relevant website or app to display the right ticket for the section of the journey being travelled. When the helper has arranged them a split ticketed journey the trouble really starts. Granny may not be familiar with her smartphone but at least she does speak the language. The teenager recently arrived from Africa with minimal English on his way from Derby to meet his elder brother in Liverpool had correct ticketing on his phone - but brother hadn't explained not to get off at a little station half way along his journey where he might have been stranded all day. He couldn't understand all the words on his screen or make known what his problem was (phone brother to translate). The Chinese students newly arrived in England making a similar mistake. The mature Cambridge academic heading for a weeks walking in the Peak District alighting to look for the train to Edale - the one that's just departed, next in 2 hours.

It's a lot easier driving with helpful satnav!

(Last time I used a ticket office was in Newcastle after just missing my train and hoping I might be able to get my ticket validated for the next one. No. So the two ladies arranged me a new ticket with a reserved seat. They seemed pleased to have a customer so I reminisced on how different it was from when I first used the station over 60 years ago. A different world.)