Telegraph article on proposals to ban split tickets

wintonian · 2 Jun 2012

marks87 said:
"...negative implications of split-ticketing for passengers..."

If you'll pardon the expression...lol, wut?

Perhaps if fares were actually...er...fair, people wouldn't split tickets. What would be wrong with operating like taxis - an initial charge, then a certain amount per mile. Either that, or be more realistic when it comes to day returns; for instance, in my part of the world, ScotRail seem to think you can enjoy a day out in Glasgow from Perth, but not from Dundee or Aberdeen. Which is ludicrous.

I completely agree, however can anyone enlighten us to what ATOC refer when saying; "...negative implications of split-ticketing for passengers..."?

Could they possibly mean the negative implication to the passenger of their members not training their guards properly in this area leading to many passengers being wrongly and unfairly issued with penalty fares or UFN's?

RailUK Forums

Failed Unit · 2 Jun 2012

Many journeys it won't help, in do splits where I am changing trains anyway like at Perth.

BrianTheLion · 2 Jun 2012

I've always found the fact that splits can save you money ludicrous. Wouldnt the simple solution here be to stop TOC's from creating so many fare permutations?

A more simple structure would be good too?

How about std and 1st equivalents of just 3 fare types?

A-Super Advance (bought more than a 2 weeks ahead of travel)
B-Advance (bought within a week of travel)
C-Standard (bought on the day of travel)

Scotrail are notorious for strange fare structures. Where I live it costs me £6.20 return to Glasgow Central, Glasgow to Edinburgh costs £12.10 Total =£18.30, Yet a return from Port Glasgow to Edinburgh costs 20.70... £2.40 more, for absolutely no reason whatsoever? The routes on Scotrail I mentioned dont have any advance reduced fares at all so why one piece of paper has to cost £2.40 more than two is beyond me?

142094 · 2 Jun 2012

Ivo said:
Taxpayers? Are they not the passengers?.

Unfortunately not, which is why all the price increases are designed to get the passenger to pay more and not the taxpayer.

455driver · 2 Jun 2012

Easiest solution is bring the long distance fares prices down to the equivelant split prices, eradicating the market. Job done, no more split tickets!

Dont think they will go for that though! :lol:

Of course if the long distance fares werent a complete rip off then there wouldnt be a need to split in the first place but hey what do I know!

RJ · 2 Jun 2012

wintonian said:
I completely agree, however can anyone enlighten us to what ATOC refer when saying; "...negative implications of split-ticketing for passengers..."?

Could they possibly mean the negative implication to the passenger of their members not training their guards properly in this area leading to many passengers being wrongly and unfairly issued with penalty fares or UFN's?

Or maybe, people buying split tickets based upon what these websites say, then getting it wrong and quite rightly being chinged up to the SOS price. Don't forget that there are several places to become unstuck with split ticketing, as it often narrows flexibility.

I think it should be noted that the advent of these fancy new applications has led to notices being issued to retail/revenue staff, reminding them of the conditions and to charge customers appropriately who get it wrong.

455driver said:
Easiest solution is bring the long distance fares prices down to the equivelant split prices, eradicating the market. Job done, no more split tickets!

Dont think they will go for that though!

Of course if the long distance fares werent a complete rip off then there wouldnt be a need to split in the first place but hey what do I know!

Good question

The complexity of some combinations that certain people use make them nigh on impossible to pre-empt.

wintonian · 2 Jun 2012

BrianTheLion said:
I've always found the fact that splits can save you money ludicrous. Wouldnt the simple solution here be to stop TOC's from creating so many fare permutations?

A more simple structure would be good too?

How about std and 1st equivalents of just 3 fare types?

A-Super Advance (bought more than a 2 weeks ahead of travel)
B-Advance (bought within a week of travel)
C-Standard (bought on the day of travel)

Scotrail are notorious for strange fare structures. Where I live it costs me £6.20 return to Glasgow Central, Glasgow to Edinburgh costs £12.10 Total =£18.30, Yet a return from Port Glasgow to Edinburgh costs 20.70... £2.40 more, for absolutely no reason whatsoever? The routes on Scotrail I mentioned dont have any advance reduced fares at all so why one piece of paper has to cost £2.40 more than two is beyond me?

So are you saying we should abolish single fares?

Also that would result in a very significant fare increase for people here in the South East and on intercity flows example:

Bournemouth to London terminals

super off-peak day return - £45.80
anytime return - £97.60
difference £51.80

Southampton - Manchester stations Route +London

off-peak return £99.10
anytime return £387
difference £287

I cannot see Virgin charging people £287 less to go to Manchester first thing in the morning than they do now and can also not see people paying £287 more to go later in the day, leaving us with the effect of effectively abolishing walk on fares and making rail travel an aristocratic play thing as I doubt the middle classes would pay the incease.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

RJ said:
Or maybe, people buying split tickets based upon what these websites say, then getting it wrong and quite rightly being chinged up to the SOS price. Don't forget that there are several places to become unstuck with split ticketing, as it often narrows flexibility.

Yes I expect ATOC would word it more like that.

Seriously though I do agree that other potential issues a passenger could trip up on if not significantly clued up but one could argue that it is the responsibility of a responsible retailer to educate their customers allowing them to make an informed choice?

swj99 · 2 Jun 2012

I suspect this one could end up blowing up in the face of TOCs.

I wouldnt be surprised if this is a piece of disinformation generated with the intention of bringing the complicated nature of ticketing even further into public awareness with a view to causing a moral panic resulting in demands for a massive simplification of the current situation.

hairyhandedfool · 2 Jun 2012

455driver said:
Easiest solution is bring the long distance fares prices down to the equivelant split prices, eradicating the market. Job done, no more split tickets!....

If only it were that simple, what about splits because of time restrictions, would you have multitudes of fares based on what time you are departing and what route you take and whether you commit to breaking your journey or not? There are so many variables that one 'easy solution' is not the answer.

Ivo said:
Negative implications for passengers? No chance. Taxpayers? Are they not the passengers?....

Passengers travel by train. Taxpayers travel by train, car, bus, taxi, aeroplane, motorbike, bicycle and probably other vehicles I can't think of right now.

DaveNewcastle · 2 Jun 2012

Perhaps I can just add a little background here (and I will apologise now that I have not read the newspaper article nor all the posts on this thread, but I suspect that the newspaper had not been very well informed in the first place.).

ATOC, on behalf of its members, have sought permission from the DfT to change the Conditions of Travel and/or changes to ticket types/restrictions 3 times in the last 6 months (the first of these in December has already been reported on here and the others have been refered to on here).

At each attempt, they have been rebutted by the Department.
On the first 2 occasions, they were challenged and refused the variation which they sought (for want of robust analysis and projection, as much as for thier proposed changes to split-ticket permissions), on the third, they were told to wait until the Department's currently open Fares & Ticketing consultation review has been evaluated.

(In the event that anyone reading this is considering making a contribution to any of that Consultation's questions, I will urge the greatest of caution: the questions have been very skilfully crafted and are likely to produce the responses that the Department wants to support its own agendas which have, for the most part, already been put out to contract. A cynic might even suggest that its attempt to provide evidence to support a bad decision which has already been made.).

btcc fan · 2 Jun 2012

In my opinion this 'proposal' is totally unworkable and would be very hard to enforce anyway. Take this situation for example:

Passenger is initially going from A to B and books a ticket before travelling. Sometime after but before travelling they decide they need to go a bit further to C (still on the same train). Would they really be expected to get off the train, and wait for the next train which could be an hour later, or perhaps even the next day!

To solve this 'problem' the best way is to to make it so that going from A to C via B is the same cost as A to B plus B to C. Simples

wintonian · 2 Jun 2012

btcc fan said:
In my opinion this 'proposal' is totally unworkable and would be very hard to enforce anyway. Take this situation for example:

Passenger is initially going from A to B and books a ticket before travelling. Sometime after but before travelling they decide they need to go a bit further to C (still on the same train). Would they really be expected to get off the train, and wait for the next train which could be an hour later, or perhaps even the next day!

Just to be devils advocate this already happens if you buy advances.

AlterEgo · 2 Jun 2012

Wath Yard said:
I expect the article is completely true. I would be amazed if ATOC, lead by the greediest of the TOCs - the ones that introduced restrictions on the ALR, weren't petitioning the DfT to ban split ticketing. Anybody who thinks that ATOC or the individual TOCs are on the passengers' side is naive beyond belief.

However, if ATOC are trying to ban them it doesn't mean the DfT will permit it.

Clearly you know not very much about ATOC.

This whole thread is filled with utter tosh, hyperbole, and no fact.

MikeWh · 2 Jun 2012

wintonian said:
Just to be devils advocate this already happens if you buy advances.

Forgive my confusion, but what already happens? Putting real names to the scenario, it's like someone has an advance from Waterloo to Bournemouth and then finds they need to get to Poole. The admin fee is probably more than a single from Bournemouth to Poole, so you'd just get another ticket.

Or am I missing something?

yorksrob · 3 Jun 2012

DaveNewcastle said:
Perhaps I can just add a little background here (and I will apologise now that I have not read the newspaper article nor all the posts on this thread, but I suspect that the newspaper had not been very well informed in the first place.).

ATOC, on behalf of its members, have sought permission from the DfT to change the Conditions of Travel and/or changes to ticket types/restrictions 3 times in the last 6 months (the first of these in December has already been reported on here and the others have been refered to on here).

At each attempt, they have been rebutted by the Department.
On the first 2 occasions, they were challenged and refused the variation which they sought (for want of robust analysis and projection, as much as for thier proposed changes to split-ticket permissions), on the third, they were told to wait until the Department's currently open Fares & Ticketing consultation review has been evaluated.

(In the event that anyone reading this is considering making a contribution to any of that Consultation's questions, I will urge the greatest of caution: the questions have been very skilfully crafted and are likely to produce the responses that the Department wants to support its own agendas which have, for the most part, already been put out to contract. A cynic might even suggest that its attempt to provide evidence to support a bad decision which has already been made.).

Well, that's the "democracy" we live in.

Usually when TOC's come up with drivell, I tend to roll my eyes and shrugg my shoulders.

If this idea were to come to pass, I'd be tempted to join a campaign of civil disobedience, i.e. large number of people buy split tickets. Large number of people politely refuse to disembark from the train when ordered.

Said people get lots of newspapers and TV channels involved.

wintonian · 3 Jun 2012

MikeWh said:
Forgive my confusion, but what already happens? Putting real names to the scenario, it's like someone has an advance from Waterloo to Bournemouth and then finds they need to get to Poole. The admin fee is probably more than a single from Bournemouth to Poole, so you'd just get another ticket.

Or am I missing something?

I was thinking about longer distance journeys.

dggar · 3 Jun 2012

Can't find a link on the Telegraph site for the original story.

Has the story been pulled?

PauloDavesi · 3 Jun 2012

It is very disappointing that many here are attacking a reputable newspaper and the democratically elected government, when this is a story about organisations in the industry trying to introduce regulations to make their contract with the customer even more unfair and biased against the customer.
Perhaps you should direct your anger and contempt at the real cause of this situation. It is fair to say that some here should lose their 'customer is wrong, now what was the question' attitude.

londonbridge · 3 Jun 2012

A lot of it depends on how you define a journey. If you're going from A to C and hold tickets from A to B and B to C whilst remaining on the same train that could reasonably be defined as one journey. If you're changing trains at B and have seperate tickets for the two legs,does it then become two journeys? Some years back I did London-Blackburn,a saver return was £55.90 changing at Preston. Instead of which I got the old Virgin "Saturday Day Out" ticket from London-Preston for £24 and then a return from Preston-Blackburn for £3.90. One journey (with the through ticket) or two?

Failed Unit · 3 Jun 2012

On a similar note, you want to visit York and London

You buy a Newcastle - York and York to London saver return. You spend several hours in York so the sharks at ATOC are happy. On the way back you travel from London - Newcastle with breaking the journey. Oh dear you should bought an open return. Vultures. In reality if they were to do that I would change trains ( but as others have said if the gaurd changes they will never know. (or I suspect care)

All Line Rover · 3 Jun 2012

Basically, it would be impossible to enforce. If you change trains, they can't possibly say that it is "one journey." You could exit the station and walk back in again! Even if you DO change trains, what about stations such as Birmingham New Street, where the XC guards change trains, or Preston, where the VT guards change trains, or Newcastle, where the EC guards change trains? How would the new guard know what you've swapped tickets!? :roll: What about crossing London terminals? How on earth would the guard on a train from Victoria know that you have come from Euston!?

jkdd77 · 3 Jun 2012

Failed Unit said:
On a similar note, you want to visit York and London

You buy a Newcastle - York and York to London saver return. You spend several hours in York so the sharks at ATOC are happy. On the way back you travel from London - Newcastle with breaking the journey. Oh dear you should bought an open return. Vultures. In reality if they were to do that I would change trains ( but as others have said if the gaurd changes they will never know. (or I suspect care)

It wouldn't be the case with this particular flow, but what would happen when the passenger is 'forced' into buying separate tickets because a passenger wishes to break their journey on the outward leg (only) and the 'through' SVR from origin to destination (e.g Lancaster- London) does not permit BoJ on the outward leg.

Would they still be obliged to change trains at the split point on the return journey?

AlterEgo · 3 Jun 2012

PauloDavesi said:
It is very disappointing that many here are attacking a reputable newspaper and the democratically elected government, when this is a story about organisations in the industry trying to introduce regulations to make their contract with the customer even more unfair and biased against the customer.
Perhaps you should direct your anger and contempt at the real cause of this situation. It is fair to say that some here should lose their 'customer is wrong, now what was the question' attitude.

You seem to miss the point that the story has little factual basis whatsoever.

GadgetMan · 3 Jun 2012

All Line Rover said:
Basically, it would be impossible to enforce. If you change trains, they can't possibly say that it is "one journey." You could exit the station and walk back in again! Even if you DO change trains, what about stations such as Birmingham New Street, where the XC guards change trains, or Preston, where the VT guards change trains, or Newcastle, where the EC guards change trains? How would the new guard know what you've swapped tickets!? :roll: What about crossing London terminals? How on earth would the guard on a train from Victoria know that you have come from Euston!?

We'll be given new stampers so we can clip your ticket then stamp the head code onto the passengers forehead

.

Wath Yard · 3 Jun 2012

AlterEgo said:
Clearly you know not very much about ATOC.

This whole thread is filled with utter tosh, hyperbole, and no fact.

ATOC is a trade organisation. The sole purpose of trade organisations is to represent and benefit their members. ATOC's members are train operating companies, not passenger groups. If ATOC had any interest in passengers then Passenger Focus wouldn't exist.

RJ · 3 Jun 2012

wintonian said:
Yes I expect ATOC would word it more like that.

Seriously though I do agree that other potential issues a passenger could trip up on if not significantly clued up but one could argue that it is the responsibility of a responsible retailer to educate their customers allowing them to make an informed choice?

I would argue that it's the responsibility of the retailer to offer the simplest and cheapest ticket, i.e one through ticket appropriate for the time of travel. The Retail Standards Guide says as much and this is generally what is offered on online booking websites. ATOC provide enough material for anyone who wishes to look further into ticketing to make their own informed decisions.

I for one, accept full responsibility for my own fares research and if I get it wrong, I accept the consequences. In order to save money, I make use of the Conditions of Carriage, National Routeing Guide, the National Rail timetable, National Rail Enquiries and sometimes pure heuristics. You cannot expect retailers to have to go through all of these every time a customer says they want to save a few pennies.

The problem with some enthusiasts is that whilst they possess a great technical knowledge (sometimes

) they often, but not always, have no perspective whatsoever of what good customer service is, or concept of what interactions between normal passengers and staff are like. It's often overlooked that staff are human beings subject to err and do not possess obsessive levels of knowledge on the finer nuances of ticketing, which no amount of training can overcome. Any enthusiast who has been a member of staff knows exactly what it's like.

All too often, it seems that people are unable to distinguish between an idyllic situation and the likely reality.

AlterEgo · 3 Jun 2012

Wath Yard said:
ATOC is a trade organisation. The sole purpose of trade organisations is to represent and benefit their members. ATOC's members are train operating companies, not passenger groups. If ATOC had any interest in passengers then Passenger Focus wouldn't exist.

Have you ever met anyone who works for ATOC, or visited the place?

ATOC exist to protect their members' interests - correct. In fact, a lot of what ATOC do is there to benefit the customer, in the hope of repeat business.

You seem to think that it's headed by Scrooge McDuck, and they have meetings in a giant vault filled with gold, which they throw in the air gleefully.

Wrong.

exile · 3 Jun 2012

There is no way of linking a ticket to an individual so this will certainly not work (with current technology anyway).

I buy a ticket from A to B and one from B to C. The train does stop at B so this is currently valid.

Scenario 1. Conductor checks my A to B ticket. When we're stopped at B I flush the A to B ticket down the loo or otherwise "lose" it.

Scenario 2. Conductor doesn't check my ticket until we're past B.

The problem is of course the fare structure itself. I'd be quite happy to abandon split ticketing (can only really be banned in the "stay on the train" situation anyway) if it wasn't necessary to do so in order to get a reasonable deal. Example, fares from Warrington to stations on the Wirral or to Merseyrail Northern Line stations are vastly more expensive than splitting at the Merseyside border (eg Hough Green)

headshot119 · 3 Jun 2012

PauloDavesi said:
It is very disappointing that many here are attacking a reputable newspaper and the democratically elected government, when this is a story about organisations in the industry trying to introduce regulations to make their contract with the customer even more unfair and biased against the customer.
Perhaps you should direct your anger and contempt at the real cause of this situation. It is fair to say that some here should lose their 'customer is wrong, now what was the question' attitude.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean?

Peter Mugridge · 4 Jun 2012

dggar said:
Can't find a link on the Telegraph site for the original story.

Has the story been pulled?

Not neccesarily; not every story gets put on the website in the first place, and many of those that do have their headline changed making searching difficult sometimes.

The one sure way of finding it is to join the paid subscription part of the site, within which you can view an exact fascimilie of the published printed paper, but of course you could not then link to the story anyway...

Telegraph article on proposals to ban split tickets

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member