• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"

Status
Not open for further replies.

blacknight

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2009
Messages
543
Location
Crow Park
Rail staff have been known to use discretion & little bit of common sense but those stories don't make the headlines in papers, for example if passenger travelling on earlier service then offer chance for passenger to get off train at next station & wait for their booked service, if they refuse that offer only alternative then is to charge full fare.
What is the point of having rules if not prepared to enforce them.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
But it simply is not possible on a train to guarantee that the guard will see everyone. That would result in people trying it on - and lost revenue.
Ah the classic "it can't be done, so it's not even worth bothering to try" response.

And how is it lost revenue if the customer has already paid for the ticket...? What I suggested is no more of a revenue risk than the current situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
We are here to serve the passenger. But the passenger also has a responsibility themselves - and its quite apparent that a lot of passengers dont want that responsibility.

I think this has hit the nail on the head.
I don't think anyone has said that passengers should be able to abdicate themselves of all responsibility. Just that the balance can be shifted by TOCs making it easier to do business with them by having a bit more carrot and a bit less stick.
 

Pumbaa

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
4,982
You make a very good point. It would help everyone significantly if the websites had clearer segregation between:

- totally flexible (anytime) tickets
- fairly flexible (off peak) tickets
- totally inflexible (Advance) tickets

These are not difficult concepts for people to understand.

I agree.

But I also feel that;

- You should be able to excess your Advance or Off-Peak ticket onboard to the next appropriate fare if your ticket is no longer valid; the railway wants repeat business, not to put people off.
- You should be able to excess to the full payable fare if you are unable to demonstrate that you are entitled to the discount eg railcards.

A lot of the angst seems to me to be the price difference between the Advance and the Anytime. 2 solutions; you either allow passengers to upgrade their ticket when it is no longer valid to the next appropriate (see above) or you reduce that price difference.

Ultimately private TOCs are still there to provide a quasi-public service and at times the PR job the railway gives itself from pretty ridiculous T+Cs is shocking but deserved.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
....
On the other hand, I do have some sympathy with some of the other issues the Guardian raises... So for example:

* Forgotten/lost railcard - if the passenger has proof of name/address why not give them seven days to demonstrate that they have a railcard without having to pay extra on the day? If they prove it, they don't pay extra at all - if they can't or don't prove it they get a draconian "fine" (I'm thinking three figures) which is rigourously collected...

Won't work, too many people will know someone who has a railcard and will take the fall for them. Zero tolerance is the only way to deal with it. Perhaps if the Guard sells them a new ticket and if they can produce the railcard they can get the discounted ticket refunded....Oh wait......

....* Forgotten reservation, or only got the reservation, on an advance - same thing, if they have proof of name/address give passengers seven days to produce the other bits. If they prove it, they don't pay extra - if they can't or don't produce it they get a draconian "fine" (again, I'm thinking three figures)....

So two travel for the price of one? good call, passengers will love that. Perhaps if they can't produce the ticket coupons on the train they get a new ticket and learn to read the T&CS and the tickets (which tell them that they need every coupon) and they learn from their mistake.

....* Standardisation - yes, there's got to be a means by which passengers have the same sanctions applied irrespective of the TOC concerned. For example, sit in the wrong class on some TOCs and just get invited to pay the upgrade whilst on others its a penalty or worse - its got to be one way or the other across the whole network so passengers don't get caught out expecting behavior of one TOC is replicated by all. Same with buy-onboard - it should either be OK across the network or not OK across the whole network - it's too difficult for casual passengers to determine where its OK and they're not going to get caught out and where its not OK and they risk being penaltied or reported for prosecution....

Tbh, if they are obeying the conditions of the ticket it shouldn't matter what the penalty is. I really don't think this should be a case of "What's the penalty?", no one should need to know that because they don't get "caught out" because they are obeying the conditions of the ticket/railcard they are using. I know, I'm in dreamland again.
 

neilmc

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2011
Messages
1,028
There is a world of difference between the two. I think you're unfairly attacking people on here who selfishly help others reduce the cost of their travels legally.

There is a thin line and it can be easily missed.

Well, maybe - but other people have argued that to allow passengers to stop short or travel on an alternate train to the one they'd booked on would distort revenue flows, exploit loopholes, etc.

If, on this forum, you advise someone travelling from Manchester to Birmingham in the late morning peak to save money by split-ticketing at, say, Stafford then you doubly deprive Cross Country of revenue as not only are they paying cheaper off-peak fares for part of the journey but also (I assume) Northern Rail and London Midland will get a portion of the revenue even though they're not using their trains. Plenty of revenue distortion there.

I presume "selfishly" should read "selflessly" and, yes, it's good and I applaud it, but I bet you any money Cross Country for one aren't too happy with this forum as they'll be losers most if not all of the time. But I'm sure you don't care as they need a good kicking for trying to charge full standard fares on morning provincial journeys, and failing to provide decent discounts on advances and they're regularly getting one here.

But I also believe all TOCs need a good kicking for making people pay full standard fares IN ADDITION TO what they've lost by failing to make the exact journey specified on the advance ticket, for whatever reason, or having forgotten a railcard. And I'm pretty sure that the general public agree - on the Guardian website, words like "scam", "robber" and "gangster" crop up pretty regularly. And I didn't write any of them.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
....But I also believe all TOCs need a good kicking for making people pay full standard fares IN ADDITION TO what they've lost by failing to make the exact journey specified on the advance ticket, for whatever reason, or having forgotten a railcard. And I'm pretty sure that the general public agree - on the Guardian website, words like "scam", "robber" and "gangster" crop up pretty regularly. And I didn't write any of them.

The TOCs need a good kicking because the passenger can't keep to a set of terms and conditions? Really?

If passengers try to sort their problems before boarding the train they will probably get a better deal.

Instead, most try it on to see if they can get away with it or plead ignorance, get the full fare to pay and complain about how unfair the whole system is and how it should be changed to suit them (and only them) but still catch "the real offenders", which they never are of course.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
...Ultimately private TOCs are still there to provide a quasi-public service and at times the PR job the railway gives itself from pretty ridiculous T+Cs is shocking but deserved.
No "quasi" about it. They are not purely private companies offering a service to the public - they are franchisees, engaged by the government to provide a public service on its behalf. This brings with it obligations and responsibilities that are not necessarily present in a purely private situation

The TOCs need a good kicking because the passenger can't keep to a set of terms and conditions? Really?...
It is regularly argued - here and elsewhere - that the Ts & Cs are 1) far too complex, abstruse, contradictory, and heavily weighted in favour of the TOC, chiefly because they have evolved over 150 years and no one has had the gumption to redraft them for the 21st century and 2) are only "published" inasmuch as they are available to those who know where to look. The TOCs need a good kicking because, rather than move into the 21st century by reworking them properly and making them more openly available an accessible to their passengers, they seem to fall back on gleefully pouncing on anyone who transgresses with threats of legal action and fines*

*Yes, I know. But the knee-jerk reaction of some on this board to point out that it is not a fine but some sort of excess or penalty fare is symptomatic. To just about anyone in any sphere a fine is money extracted in punishment for some transgression of some rule. The sneering response of "they don't even know what they are talking about" is, quite frankly, demeaning both to railway employees or railway enthusiasts who regularly spout it. Rant over!
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,025
Location
No longer here
Ah the classic "it can't be done, so it's not even worth bothering to try" response.

No, your solution could certainly be done. The problem is it would require significant investment and lose revenue. So it is undesirable to be done.

Unscrupulous business passengers who regularly buy Anytime and Off Peak tickets online would just never ever collect their tickets. Why? Because the worst that'll happen is the guard will print them off for them with a hand held machine.

If on the 20%, say, of journeys where the guard does not materialise because of other duties, the ticket remains uncollected and the passenger requests a refund as per the terms and conditions.

That could be a £200 ticket whose revenue you don't see, admin fee excepted.

It just does not make a good business case. Not that it "cannot be done", because it most certainly could. It would just lead to revenue loss.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Rail staff have been known to use discretion & little bit of common sense but those stories don't make the headlines in papers, for example if passenger travelling on earlier service then offer chance for passenger to get off train at next station & wait for their booked service, if they refuse that offer only alternative then is to charge full fare.
What is the point of having rules if not prepared to enforce them.

It's pretty standard to hear Virgin TMs announce on departure from [stn]BHM[/stn] that anyone with an irregular ticket (e.g. LDN MIDLAND ONLY) may alight at [stn]BHI[/stn] and get the right train/a new ticket.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
....It is regularly argued - here and elsewhere - that the Ts & Cs are 1) far too complex, abstruse, contradictory, and heavily weighted in favour of the TOC, chiefly because they have evolved over 150 years and no one has had the gumption to redraft them for the 21st century and 2) are only "published" inasmuch as they are available to those who know where to look. The TOCs need a good kicking because, rather than move into the 21st century by reworking them properly and making them more openly available an accessible to their passengers, they seem to fall back on gleefully pouncing on anyone who transgresses with threats of legal action and fines

So "Valid on booked train only", "Valid only with reservation coupon", "non-refundable" and "admin fee for changes to travel plans before booked departure" are contradictory, difficult to understand and complex?

Those terms may be "heavily weighted in favour of the TOCs", but Advance ticket prices are discounted (quite heavily in some cases), and if the conditions have evolved over 150 years (actually I doubt that figure) then people have had plenty of time to adjust to them.

To say they have evolved and then to say they have not been brought up to date is a bit contradictory too (or atleast can be taken to be contradictory).

The terms are given to the passenger at the time of purchase, as governed by the NRCoC, when you buy at a station (they should also be given when buying online, even if only by a link with a tick box to confirm they have been read).

To say they are not available is an excuse for not following them (and it doesn't wash frankly), you can find them out at any stage before, during or after travel by simply asking ticket office or on train staff about them (you can even phone NRES or the TOCs themselves or visit the NRES website), it really isn't that hard.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
Unscrupulous business passengers who regularly buy Anytime and Off Peak tickets online would just never ever collect their tickets. Why? Because the worst that'll happen is the guard will print them off for them with a hand held machine.

If on the 20%, say, of journeys where the guard does not materialise because of other duties, the ticket remains uncollected and the passenger requests a refund as per the terms and conditions.
But that's no different from the current situation. A passenger may not collect the ticket from the TVM, the guard may not appear and the passenger may request a refund of the uncollected ticket. This could all be happening today.

A reminder of my suggestion:
An example how the railway can adopt such practices is that InterCity-type TOCs could allow the conductor print my tickets on board (for a small fee) if for some reason I wasn't able to collect them from a TVM in time - rather than simply charging me the full fare.

So there's no additional revenue risk than the current situation.
 

MarkyMarkD

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2009
Messages
504
Location
Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
I agree.

But I also feel that;

- You should be able to excess your Advance or Off-Peak ticket onboard to the next appropriate fare if your ticket is no longer valid; the railway wants repeat business, not to put people off.
- You should be able to excess to the full payable fare if you are unable to demonstrate that you are entitled to the discount eg railcards.

A lot of the angst seems to me to be the price difference between the Advance and the Anytime. 2 solutions; you either allow passengers to upgrade their ticket when it is no longer valid to the next appropriate (see above) or you reduce that price difference.

Ultimately private TOCs are still there to provide a quasi-public service and at times the PR job the railway gives itself from pretty ridiculous T+Cs is shocking but deserved.

I'm sorry, but those suggestions are completely daft.

Taking the first one:

- You should be able to excess your Advance or Off-Peak ticket onboard to the next appropriate fare if your ticket is no longer valid; the railway wants repeat business, not to put people off.

Right, so nobody would EVER buy a flexible fare. They would all buy an Advance, because on the offchance they actually catch the right train, they won't have to pay any extra; and any other time, they'll simply excess to the "next appropriate fare" which is the same as they should have paid in the first place.

So, from a revenue point of view, this is a complete FAIL because it reduces revenue dramatically, mainly by reducing the costs incurred by business travellers who require flexibility, and making far less financial difference to the occasional travel who innocently (read, incompetently) catches the wrong train.

Taking the second one:

- You should be able to excess to the full payable fare if you are unable to demonstrate that you are entitled to the discount eg railcards.

Right, so every scally in the world will purchase railcard discounted tickets all the time. On the (regular on some routes) occasions that tickets are not checked, they'll get away with paying too little. On the (irregular on some routes) occasions that tickets are checked, they'll just pay the excess to the correct fare.

Another complete revenue FAIL which largely benefits fraudsters, far more than it benefits those making occasional innocent mistakes.


So, both suggestions have huge "dead weight loss" for the TOCs. And most of the savings are (for 1) to business travellers who are generally willing to pay a lot more for flexibility, and (for 2) to fraudsters.

Great ideas! :rolleyes:
 

Tracky

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2011
Messages
483
Its not just the scallys.

Most of the 'To-earlies' are business people who come out of meetings and expect to travel on their £12 tickets much earlier.

While some of the open ticket fraud is performed by chavs travelling to and from their holiday caravans, I see plenty of suited men and women who have adopted the green recycling policy with unmarked tickets.

A lad I found regularly buying tickets short worked in the financial services industry.


'Full Fares' are the only tools many of us have to work with and I can't see a problem with these basic conditions. And what is it with railcard holders not carrying the cards... Its a basic condition.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,025
Location
No longer here
The conditions for Advance fares and for railcard holders are abundantly simple. I disagree strongly with the few posters who are under the notion that they are complex.

Advance tickets are valid on booked train only.

Railcard holders must always carry the railcard.

It is not hard to understand at all.
 

Pumbaa

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
4,982
Right, so nobody would EVER buy a flexible fare. They would all buy an Advance, because on the offchance they actually catch the right train, they won't have to pay any extra; and any other time, they'll simply excess to the "next appropriate fare" which is the same as they should have paid in the first place.

So, from a revenue point of view, this is a complete FAIL because it reduces revenue dramatically, mainly by reducing the costs incurred by business travellers who require flexibility, and making far less financial difference to the occasional travel who innocently (read, incompetently) catches the wrong train.

I forgot nobody just turns up the station and buys a ticket...

I doubt it would change ticket purchasing habits completely. I'm simply suggesting that on a £75 off-peak return, £175 anytime return, the £17 you've already given to the railway should count towards that. You were going to give them your money anyway - why should you penalised? If anything it should be encouraged!

Similarly, why do clothing retailers offer exchanges and/or refunds? If an item of clothing is unsuitable for a customer and they wish to change it, the retailer is prudent to allow them to do so (within reasonable time of course) and chose the next suitable product. As a result, the retailer will probably get return custom.

And for the latter half of your point, many businesses already purchase off-peak or Advance fares. Those who require flexibility will not change their purchasing habits, especially those using travel agents or similar. Besides, it is a prerogative of all businesses to reduce costs; the railway shouldn't just rest easy on the fact that businesses will always be happy paying above the odds.

Finally, the railway is still a public service and as such should be accessible to all, not just the wealthy businessmen. Removing barriers such as the inability to upgrade tickets and getting 'stung by unfair T+Cs' should be a priority; who knows it may even encourage an increase in travel?!

Right, so every scally in the world will purchase railcard discounted tickets all the time. On the (regular on some routes) occasions that tickets are not checked, they'll get away with paying too little. On the (irregular on some routes) occasions that tickets are checked, they'll just pay the excess to the correct fare.

Another complete revenue FAIL which largely benefits fraudsters, far more than it benefits those making occasional innocent mistakes.

Why doesn't the railway then make a relatively inexpensive change to circumvent this? All it requires is a barcode/strip on a discount card that has to be swiped/inserted/scanned at the time of purchase to qualify for the discount. Retailers all over the country implement them for little cost - there is plenty of room for innovation in the railways!

Besides all railcards can be issued on the plastic 'cards' already, it wouldn't be a massive technological leap.

So, both suggestions have huge "dead weight loss" for the TOCs. And most of the savings are (for 1) to business travellers who are generally willing to pay a lot more for flexibility, and (for 2) to fraudsters.

Great ideas! :rolleyes:

Both suggestions make the railway more accessible for those who matter - the public, not just the business men who whack out the Gold credit card. The railway T+Cs are so outdated, the attitude pretty apathetic to any sense of improving genuine customer relations, barriers to reducing costs and improving revenue, disincentives to improve at almost every level.

Hey we could be really radical and turn the railway into a supply creating business rather being demand led, but I think the entire industry might just have a seizure at the idea <(
 

MarkyMarkD

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2009
Messages
504
Location
Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
Why doesn't the railway then make a relatively inexpensive change to circumvent this? All it requires is a barcode/strip on a discount card that has to be swiped/inserted/scanned at the time of purchase to qualify for the discount. Retailers all over the country implement them for little cost - there is plenty of room for innovation in the railways!

Besides all railcards can be issued on the plastic 'cards' already, it wouldn't be a massive technological leap.
Because the same railcard could be used to purchase any number of tickets.

Buy 1 railcard - buy your whole group of friends discounted tickets!

Both suggestions make the railway more accessible for those who matter - the public, not just the business men who whack out the Gold credit card. The railway T+Cs are so outdated, the attitude pretty apathetic to any sense of improving genuine customer relations, barriers to reducing costs and improving revenue, disincentives to improve at almost every level.

Hey we could be really radical and turn the railway into a supply creating business rather being demand led, but I think the entire industry might just have a seizure at the idea <(
But the railway is a hugely publicly-subsidised business. Reducing fare income - which is what both of your suggestions would cause - just means that greater subsidies are required, or fare levels have to increase.

The only way your suggestions make sense is if the great increase in flexibility resulting leads to a great increase in rail patronage (to the extent that this uses up surplus capacity, rather than increasing over-crowding). I would argue that most of the impact is revenue reduction, and the amount of incremental travel would be relatively small. But what do I know?
 

Tracky

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2011
Messages
483
Changing the time or date of travel

*
Changes to time or date of travel must be arranged before departure of the first reserved train printed on the ticket, after which the ticket has no value and a new one must be purchased. You will need to present the ticket(s) and reservation(s) when you request a change.
*
Changes to tickets cannot be made on-board the train. If you board a train without a ticket and reservation for that service, a new ticket must be purchased. Depending on the Train Company you are travelling with, you may be liable to a Penalty Fare if you board the train with an invalid ticket.
*
The origin, destination and Train Company or route shown on the ticket(s) must remain the same.
*
The difference between the price paid and cost of the next suitable fare for your journey is payable, plus a £10 administration fee per person, per single ticket for each change to a journey. If you change to a train on which a cheaper fare is available, the difference will not be refunded.

Looks to me as though you can upgrade your advance ticket...

As a compromise with Passenger Focus in making the railway more ameanable ATOC could consider reviewing "Changes to tickets cannot be made on-board the train. If you board a train without a ticket and reservation for that service, a new ticket must be purchased. Depending on the Train Company you are travelling with, you may be liable to a Penalty Fare if you board the train with an invalid ticket." to allow a passenger to join an earlier train and pay up to apropriate fare ticket plus the £10 change of journey fee.
 

OwlMan

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2008
Messages
3,206
Location
Bedworth, Warwickshire
All of the above forgets the real problem that Pasenger Focus & The Guardian gloss over
How do you tell the difference between a serial fare evader and someone who has made a mistake?
If that was easy there would not be a problem, once you start "letting" people off you encouirage fare evasion.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
I doubt it would change ticket purchasing habits completely. I'm simply suggesting that on a £75 off-peak return, £175 anytime return, the £17 you've already given to the railway should count towards that. You were going to give them your money anyway - why should you penalised? If anything it should be encouraged!
This is already the case before your journey unless the ticket cost under £10.
Why doesn't the railway then make a relatively inexpensive change to circumvent this? All it requires is a barcode/strip on a discount card that has to be swiped/inserted/scanned at the time of purchase to qualify for the discount. Retailers all over the country implement them for little cost - there is plenty of room for innovation in the railways!

Besides all railcards can be issued on the plastic 'cards' already, it wouldn't be a massive technological leap.
Except it makes it impossible to issue railcards on the spot at stations and/or requires a massive refitting of TVMs.
 

Pumbaa

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
4,982
Advance tickets are valid on booked train only.

Railcard holders must always carry the railcard.

It is not hard to understand at all.

I agree that is not hard to understand, but I am arguing that the requirement to then pay a full fare is ridiculous.

I find it harder to sympathise when it is genuinely one's own fault that they missed their train, but the for the following five examples, it was not and all were 'stung by unfair rules';

1) a passenger booked on an Advance ticket Paddington - Newport suffered an epileptic fit while travelling to get her train. On missing the booked train, tried to explain the situation. Paddington office told them point blank SOS. The passenger happened to be tweeting at the time, and after a lot of public flak they apologised and cancelled the charge.

Why should any passenger be penalised for something which is so evidently outside of their control? You could leave a day ahead to get to the station on time, and something similar to that could happen. Passengers should be able to upgrade/excess when that happens ; it is far more appropriate than being charged full whack.

2) another passenger booked on an Advance Penzance - Paddington had their wallet stolen with railcard in it. Ticket office told them not valid, new fare please.

Again, surely an excess for something outside the passengers control is far more suitable than 'sorry about your stolen property, but now we're also going to ask you for another hundred quid or so because the thief didn't have the decency to leave behind your railcard'?

3) a passenger travelling Aberdeen - York had had their case dropped out of a helicopter, and their items scattered across the helipad. One of the lost items included the reservation coupon of their ticket. Despite having the travel ticket, and a full itinerary, both ticket office and guard refused travel. After correspondence, NX eventually refunded the open fare charged.

Not an everyday example admittedly, but the point is relevant. Surely on evidence that the first £30 or whatever had been paid, an excess to the next available ticket would be far more appropriate than a full fare?

4) a passenger travelling between Glasgow and Edinburgh for an interview had misplaced their relevant discount card, but on habit had applied it. The passenger had a series of tickets in their possession all stamped and endorsed and okayed, each with the discount applied. In an attempt to make themselves look appealing for their interview, had selected a new bag and not transferred their discount card over. An innocent mistake - and chinged full fare.

Surely an excess again would have been far more appropriate? The passenger was already in a state enough without being asked for an extra fare.

5) a passenger travelling Crianlarich to London missed the train from Crianlarich to Glasgow Qst and hence missed the connection onwards. They were stopped by an elderly couple on the outside of the town crying for help. After assisting the man in distress suitably and making sure the situation was okay, the train had been missed. The guard on the next train passed the passenger to Glasgow no problem, but was then promptly asked for a full fare from Glasgow to London by the Virgin staff. Despite having details of the ambulance journey, the time of the incident etc - nada.

Surely an excess again would be far more appropriate?

I cede that the situations aren't everyday, but there are many situations just like it where the passenger is just as innocent. The railway shouldn't prevent it just because a few scallies may try it on - they should do whats best for the greatest number of passengers and try new ways of dealing with those remaining 'scallies'.
 
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
696
I'm sorry, but those suggestions are completely daft.

Taking the first one:

- You should be able to excess your Advance or Off-Peak ticket onboard to the next appropriate fare if your ticket is no longer valid; the railway wants repeat business, not to put people off.

Right, so nobody would EVER buy a flexible fare. They would all buy an Advance, because on the offchance they actually catch the right train, they won't have to pay any extra; and any other time, they'll simply excess to the "next appropriate fare" which is the same as they should have paid in the first place.

So, from a revenue point of view, this is a complete FAIL because it reduces revenue dramatically, mainly by reducing the costs incurred by business travellers who require flexibility, and making far less financial difference to the occasional travel who innocently (read, incompetently) catches the wrong train.

Taking the second one:

- You should be able to excess to the full payable fare if you are unable to demonstrate that you are entitled to the discount eg railcards.

Right, so every scally in the world will purchase railcard discounted tickets all the time. On the (regular on some routes) occasions that tickets are not checked, they'll get away with paying too little. On the (irregular on some routes) occasions that tickets are checked, they'll just pay the excess to the correct fare.

Another complete revenue FAIL which largely benefits fraudsters, far more than it benefits those making occasional innocent mistakes.


So, both suggestions have huge "dead weight loss" for the TOCs. And most of the savings are (for 1) to business travellers who are generally willing to pay a lot more for flexibility, and (for 2) to fraudsters.

Great ideas! :rolleyes:

Right, first of all can you please drop the American "fail". The word is failure. Now, to business. The excessing of the incorrect ticket up to the price of the proper ticket is the correct thing to do. In B.R. days there were four main discounted fares. Day Returns, Off Peak Returns, Weekend Returns, Monthly Returns. Each was subject to restrictions. If a passenger was found to be using a restricted train they were excessed up to the correct fare. This excess fare being the difference between what they'd paid and what they should have paid. It was simple and effective for both parties. On the staff side it was easy to deal with, on the passenger side it offered flexibility in that if for whatever reason a person should, after purchasing the ticket decide to travel on a restricted train they knew that they would be paying the difference and not being penalised by being made to buy a new ticket. This didn't ever stop people buying discounted fares, most every train on a Friday afternoon out of Paddington was rammed with Weekend and Monthly return ticket holders. An example of excessing a fare up was a Weekend Return (return portion valid until Monday) holder deciding to stay for a day or two longer for whatever reason. The ticket would be excesed up to a Monthly Return, no problem. Failure to produce a railcard supported ticket was different in that a new ticket would have to be purchased due to the conditions of issue. Simple job, no card, no ticket. In either case there was no loss of revenue, the passenger would be paying what they should have paid rather than being ripped off in the name of restrictions and pettyfogging by a greedy TOC which due to this exposes itself to charges of the same and it's staff to be abused by passengers who feel with some justification that they're being taken for the wrong sort of ride.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
No, your solution could certainly be done. The problem is it would require significant investment and lose revenue. So it is undesirable to be done.

Unscrupulous business passengers who regularly buy Anytime and Off Peak tickets online would just never ever collect their tickets. Why? Because the worst that'll happen is the guard will print them off for them with a hand held machine.

If on the 20%, say, of journeys where the guard does not materialise because of other duties, the ticket remains uncollected and the passenger requests a refund as per the terms and conditions.

That could be a £200 ticket whose revenue you don't see, admin fee excepted.

It just does not make a good business case. Not that it "cannot be done", because it most certainly could. It would just lead to revenue loss.

Well said

As Basil Fawlty often said "It's perfectly simple" and I'm starting to understand his frustration too. It's hardly rocket science, more a case of pleading ignorance and hoping/expecting to get away with it.

Ah the classic "it can't be done, so it's not even worth bothering to try" response.

Ironically that phrase should be used as justification to just ignore the papers. The Press is like the Stalinist judiciary:

  1. Decide you don't like someone
  2. Collect incomplete, biased data from someone who doesn't like said target
  3. If point 2 is insufficient then simply fabricate some facts
  4. All out attack with a show trial (trial by press in this case)
  5. Allow the defence only a nominal say (bonus points for distorting it to fit the prejudice)
  6. Deliver damning guilty verdict

And so the facts are bypassed like NMP is bypassed on many VWC services.

And how is it lost revenue if the customer has already paid for the ticket...? What I suggested is no more of a revenue risk than the current situation.

Because they've paid far less than they should have for the ticket. Using an advance ticket on a later train is like trying to use a day single the following day - it's invalid regardless of whether you used it.

I don't think anyone has said that passengers should be able to abdicate themselves of all responsibility. Just that the balance can be shifted by TOCs making it easier to do business with them by having a bit more carrot and a bit less stick.

As Alter Ego said it's actually rather simple. It's only when passengers get caught out that a big stink starts which is exacerbated by the Papers not caring for the truth and emotionally charged blogs.

You can have either staff discretion or equal enforcement but not both. Is it right that a parent should get preferential treatment because they're a parent? Admittedly, this is hardly related to what you're saying but staff discretion is the only way you'll able to punish those who are deliberately evading the correct fare whilst not punishing those who've made a genuine mistake. The difficulty comes with identifying these two groups in turn causing profiling (i.e. targetting chavs over suits) and, hypothetically, crony-ism whereby a bent guard (I again stress this is hypothetical) lets their mates get away with it but stings everyone else.
 

Pumbaa

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
4,982
All of the above forgets the real problem that Pasenger Focus & The Guardian gloss over
How do you tell the difference between a serial fare evader and someone who has made a mistake?
If that was easy there would not be a problem, once you start "letting" people off you encouirage fare evasion.

The solution should be one that isn't just a deterrent to evaders - it should also be palatable to the everyday traveller.

Having a massive fine/charge is most definitely not palatable to anyone. If systems are fairly watertight and applied fairly and equally (ie barcoded unique discount cards) then surely the railways should put the potential evasion lower in the priorities than satisfying the majority of its customers instead. Part of that satisfaction comes from not treating them with impunity when it comes to pretty garish T+Cs.
 
Last edited:

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
Right, first of all can you please drop the American "fail". The word is failure. Now, to business.
The excessing of the incorrect ticket up to the price of the proper ticket is the correct thing to do. In B.R. days there were four main discounted fares. Day Returns, Off Peak Returns, Weekend Returns, Monthly Returns. Each was subject to restrictions. If a passenger was found to be using a restricted train they were excessed up to the correct fare. This excess fare being the difference between what they'd paid and what they should have paid.

It was simple and effective for both parties. On the staff side it was easy to deal with, on the passenger side it offered flexibility in that if for whatever reason a person should, after purchasing the ticket decide to travel on a restricted train they knew that they would be paying the difference and not being penalised by being made to buy a new ticket. This didn't ever stop people buying discounted fares, most every train on a Friday afternoon out of Paddington was rammed with Weekend and Monthly return ticket holders. An example of excessing a fare up was a Weekend Return (return portion valid until Monday) holder deciding to stay for a day or two longer for whatever reason.

The ticket would be excesed up to a Monthly Return, no problem. Failure to produce a railcard supported ticket was different in that a new ticket would have to be purchased due to the conditions of issue. Simple job, no card, no ticket. In either case there was no loss of revenue, the passenger would be paying what they should have paid rather than being ripped off in the name of restrictions and pettyfogging by a greedy TOC which due to this exposes itself to charges of the same and it's staff to be abused by passengers who feel with some justification that they're being taken for the wrong sort of ride.

And we still have excesses for when someone on a walk up ticket is travelling at the wrong time, see 12(a) of the NRCoC.

12(b) is the exemption for certain ticket including Advances. I don't know if BR ever did something broadly equivalent but I imagine the conditions would not be too different.

Were you hoping your wall of text would distract a potential reader?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The solution should be one that isn't just a deterrent to evaders - it should also be palatable to the everyday traveller.

Having a massive fine/charge is most definitely not palatable to anyone.

They're mutually exclusive though
 
Last edited:

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
And how is it lost revenue if the customer has already paid for the ticket...?

Because they've paid far less than they should have for the ticket.
Er, no they haven't. They've paid exactly the right fare for the right journey.

Using an advance ticket on a later train is like trying to use a day single the following day - it's invalid regardless of whether you used it.
What has 'using an advance on a later train' got to do with it?

As a reminder, we were discussing:
An example how the railway can adopt such practices is that InterCity-type TOCs could allow the conductor to print my tickets on board (for a small fee) if for some reason I wasn't able to collect them from a TVM in time - rather than simply charging me the full fare.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,025
Location
No longer here
I agree that is not hard to understand, but I am arguing that the requirement to then pay a full fare is ridiculous.

I find it harder to sympathise when it is genuinely one's own fault that they missed their train, but the for the following five examples, it was not and all were 'stung by unfair rules';

1) a passenger booked on an Advance ticket Paddington - Newport suffered an epileptic fit while travelling to get her train. On missing the booked train, tried to explain the situation. Paddington office told them point blank SOS. The passenger happened to be tweeting at the time, and after a lot of public flak they apologised and cancelled the charge.

Why should any passenger be penalised for something which is so evidently outside of their control? You could leave a day ahead to get to the station on time, and something similar to that could happen. Passengers should be able to upgrade/excess when that happens ; it is far more appropriate than being charged full whack.

2) another passenger booked on an Advance Penzance - Paddington had their wallet stolen with railcard in it. Ticket office told them not valid, new fare please.

Again, surely an excess for something outside the passengers control is far more suitable than 'sorry about your stolen property, but now we're also going to ask you for another hundred quid or so because the thief didn't have the decency to leave behind your railcard'?

3) a passenger travelling Aberdeen - York had had their case dropped out of a helicopter, and their items scattered across the helipad. One of the lost items included the reservation coupon of their ticket. Despite having the travel ticket, and a full itinerary, both ticket office and guard refused travel. After correspondence, NX eventually refunded the open fare charged.

Not an everyday example admittedly, but the point is relevant. Surely on evidence that the first £30 or whatever had been paid, an excess to the next available ticket would be far more appropriate than a full fare?

4) a passenger travelling between Glasgow and Edinburgh for an interview had misplaced their relevant discount card, but on habit had applied it. The passenger had a series of tickets in their possession all stamped and endorsed and okayed, each with the discount applied. In an attempt to make themselves look appealing for their interview, had selected a new bag and not transferred their discount card over. An innocent mistake - and chinged full fare.

Surely an excess again would have been far more appropriate? The passenger was already in a state enough without being asked for an extra fare.

5) a passenger travelling Crianlarich to London missed the train from Crianlarich to Glasgow Qst and hence missed the connection onwards. They were stopped by an elderly couple on the outside of the town crying for help. After assisting the man in distress suitably and making sure the situation was okay, the train had been missed. The guard on the next train passed the passenger to Glasgow no problem, but was then promptly asked for a full fare from Glasgow to London by the Virgin staff. Despite having details of the ambulance journey, the time of the incident etc - nada.

Surely an excess again would be far more appropriate?

I cede that the situations aren't everyday, but there are many situations just like it where the passenger is just as innocent. The railway shouldn't prevent it just because a few scallies may try it on - they should do whats best for the greatest number of passengers and try new ways of dealing with those remaining 'scallies'.

With all of your examples, the fault lies at some point with a member of staff not willing to (or, possibly, not being empowered to) use discretion or common sense.

I disagree that the system doesn't work. It isn't perfect and it can always be improved. Rules are rules, but there are times the rules should be bent. Some of your examples are unusual and I'm disappointed that common sense wasn't applied. In at least three of the cases it should have been blatantly obvious that the passengers were genuine.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
I forgot nobody just turns up the station and buys a ticket...

I doubt it would change ticket purchasing habits completely. I'm simply suggesting that on a £75 off-peak return, £175 anytime return, the £17 you've already given to the railway should count towards that. You were going to give them your money anyway - why should you penalised? If anything it should be encouraged!....

In my experience most people who travel over a distance long enough for an advance ticket to be available, tend to look fares up well before the day and often buy in advance to save money. People will only pay what they absolutely have to (who could blame them), so to say it won't change the way they buy is only fooling yourself.

So business man A normally buys a £100 Anytime fare, but now he can get an Advance fare at £17 knowing that if he misses his train he can just change the ticket for just £83. Family man B can no longer get the £17 fare because business man A has it, but they can't afford £100 to go on holiday, so they either travel by car (TOC £17 down) or don't travel (TOC £17 down).

....Similarly, why do clothing retailers offer exchanges and/or refunds? If an item of clothing is unsuitable for a customer and they wish to change it, the retailer is prudent to allow them to do so (within reasonable time of course) and chose the next suitable product. As a result, the retailer will probably get return custom....

Can't say I've ever had to do that, but then I do tend to make sure I get the right clothes in the first place.

....And for the latter half of your point, many businesses already purchase off-peak or Advance fares. Those who require flexibility will not change their purchasing habits, especially those using travel agents or similar....

Depends how the business operates, many business refund staff who have to buy tickets rather than buy the ticket for them. These people will look for the cheapest fare to suit them and if they can buy a cheap inflexible fare and change it to a flexible fare if they need to at no penalty, why wouldn't they?

....Besides, it is a prerogative of all businesses to reduce costs; the railway shouldn't just rest easy on the fact that businesses will always be happy paying above the odds....

First part of this says it all, businesses are looking to reduce costs, what better way than to buy the cheapest fare for the journey on the train most likely to be caught, knowing that if it is missed or the person travels earlier, the business hasn't really lost out.

....Finally, the railway is still a public service and as such should be accessible to all, not just the wealthy businessmen. Removing barriers such as the inability to upgrade tickets and getting 'stung by unfair T+Cs' should be a priority; who knows it may even encourage an increase in travel?!....

Allowing people to change the ticket without a penalty means that people who need to have some flexibility will buy the advance tickets knowing they can change them if need be, which means those who attempt to buy later and can definitely travel at a given time may have to buy a more expensive flexible ticket, which may put them off travelling by train. So rather than increasing numbers travelling, it could (and probably would) actually reduce it.

....Why doesn't the railway then make a relatively inexpensive change to circumvent this? All it requires is a barcode/strip on a discount card that has to be swiped/inserted/scanned at the time of purchase to qualify for the discount. Retailers all over the country implement them for little cost - there is plenty of room for innovation in the railways!....

How does that stop people travelling without a Railcard? I could have a friend with a Railcard buy the ticket for me and all the rest of my friends, and if the guard asks, we all forgot our railcards!

....Besides all railcards can be issued on the plastic 'cards' already, it wouldn't be a massive technological leap....

It is of no benefit to anyone, so why bother with the expenditure? Also, station issued Railcards cant be issued on plastic cards, so you'd have to buy online or over the phone rather than at a station (or face fare increases to cover the cost of new equipment).

....Both suggestions make the railway more accessible for those who matter - the public, not just the business men who whack out the Gold credit card....

Neither suggestion is workable. They may look great on paper but one creates situations were some people, who can currently afford to travel on advance fares, won't be able to afford the tickets, the other promotes fare evasion. Neither is particularly good for business (even if you are only in it for the passenger satisfaction scores).

....The railway T+Cs are so outdated, the attitude pretty apathetic to any sense of improving genuine customer relations, barriers to reducing costs and improving revenue, disincentives to improve at almost every level....

The problem is not that the T&Cs are out of date, the problem is that people do not adhere to them. IMO, any changes made would not be in the passenger's interest anyway, so trying to get them changed is a pointless exercise.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,025
Location
No longer here
Well at least we agree on one thing. :D

It's a serious comment re: frontline staff empowerment. At some TOCs staff don't feel as if they have the authority or training, or perhaps management support to use their initiative and solve a problem dispassionately using common sense.

I really hate to see it and I think it's a bigger issue than some people realise.

Just my 2p ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top