swj99
Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 765
I don't think you or anyone needs to apologise for having a point of view. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, regardless of whether other people agree with it or not.
-
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!
Was this trying to 'start late' on an Advance ticket?
- Thread starter CC 72100
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
I have yet to see any evidence of this "memo" from ATOC about a "policy" to directly contradict a term/condition of a ticket which, incidentally, was set by ATOC.
TOCs contradicting staff publically is nothing new, infact it is brilliant for them in terms of revenue, take money from those who don't moan to the media and lambast staff for doing 'the wrong thing' when they do so that the passenger feels they can travel again.
R.I.P. Advance fares, you were good while you lasted, but, as with all things in this country, the minority ruined it for the rest of us.
ATOC have ways of telling staff without the need to go to the TOCs, the easiest being Newsrail Express and The Manual. If these "memos" and "policies" exist it is not just the TOCs that want it kept quiet.
As I read it, FGW were appologising for staff refusing access to a train when the passenger had a new ticket to Taunton, but perhaps I misread it.
If he felt the terms of the contract to be unreasonable he had options, I think it is far more likely that he did not read the T&Cs.
Doing 65mph in a 30mph zone is against the law, but that is just daft and everyone who isn't hung up on the detail knows it. :roll:
So, if he breaks the terms of his ticket he should be penalised, but if he breaks the terms of his ticket he should not be penalised, yeah, that's common sense alright.....
"Customers must be at the departure station shown on the ticket in good time to catch the train. If they miss the first train on which they are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased....
....Customers may not start, break and resume, or end their journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary....
....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. Customers will need to present the ticket(s) and reservation(s) when they request a change.
Changes to tickets cannot be made on-board the train. If customers board a train without a ticket and reservation for that service, a new ticket must be purchased.
The origin, destination and Train Company or route shown on the ticket(s) must remain the same...."
Anything still not clear?
Is there a statistic that backs up this opinion?
No delving required, it starts just after 'Conditions of Use'.
And yet strangely it seems as though one such person has caused this "hassle" and "fuss".....
It's a bit like an 0800 number costing a different amount to call from a mobile than a 0207 number, I mean, they are both just phone numbers of the same length and possibly even just in a different order, so you'd reasonably expect to pay the same for them....
The purpose of Advance fares is not really the issue here, the conditions attached to those fares is, and the passenger attempted to breach them.
Lets examine another angle, the passenger wants some flexibility in his ticket and buys a walk up fare as the advance does not suit his needs, the Advance is then sold to a passenger who may not otherwise travel. What is the net loss now?
Indeed it is.
And what of the terms and conditions he agreed to when he bought the ticket?
I disagree.
Exactly how is people not read ing the T&Cs the railway's fault?
It's not hard to find.
A contract is a contract.
The benefits are that the passenger gets a cheap ticket (at the cost of certain restrictions) and the railway get more money if the passenger cannot meet those conditions, sounds like a win-win to me.
The offending condition may as well not exist. No member of staff will enforce it now as they'll be undermined by their employer as soon as the Customer complains. It'd be easier for all concerned if it was removed from the advance tickets Ts and Cs .
Lewisham2221
Established Member
I'm sure FGW wouldn't gave minded the extra revenue had the passenger not complained/gone to the press....
Another case of "rules are rules except when we say they aren't" from management, which ultimately helps nobody apart from the people who think they can ignore rules/T&Cs because they know that if they kick up a fuss they'll get a refund/compo anyway.
Another case of "rules are rules except when we say they aren't" from management, which ultimately helps nobody apart from the people who think they can ignore rules/T&Cs because they know that if they kick up a fuss they'll get a refund/compo anyway.
Oh come of it. Dramatic or what?
Did you actually just make this point? It's serves no purpose but to undermine the rest of your opinions. Driving at double the speed limit in a residential area is like using a train ticket incorrectly. You heard it here first, folks!
Do I need to go back and quote the part where I've already said I acknowledge the rules? The argument is not 'he should be able to break the rules' but 'this particular rule is ridiculous'.
This again has nothing to do with what you quoted me as saying. For me, the rules of Advance ticketing are clear. But as my point is that some of them (Infact only one of them!) are arguably excessive, this isn't relevant.
No, but do you really think its widespread? There is almost no benefit to it for the customer anyway - it's not as if his ticket from NA was cheaper than it would have been from Exeter. The majority of people buy a ticket from A to travel from A. This situation has only arisen because of the close proxoimity of stations in Devon and the fact that IC trains often make quick succesive local stops anyway.
It's not the same at all, is it? A call from a mobile which terminates at an 0800 number crosses a number of telephone networks and has different interconnect charges than a call to a geographic network. The way the network is structured is that with 0800 calls, the owner of the number pays for the call. As a call from a mobile is more expensive, the additional cost is carried by the mobile network who then pass it to the customer.
This nothing to do with getting the same train at the next stop. Infact it's just a bizarre sideshow.
Nobody disputes that. But as a result its highlighted that some of the conditions (Infact, not even that many!) are counterproductive and serve no real purpose other than just being awkward for no good reason.
Again, how would this even have happened? The article states his circumstances changed AFTER the ticket was purchased. Even if there was a massive neon billboard advertising exactly that he couldn't get on at Exeter he'd still have bought the Advance - at the time of purchase he wanted to travel from NA, not Exeter!
Round and round in circles. For the 12th time - the discussion is about whether the T&C's are just, not whether he broke them. There is no debate about whether he broke them. He did.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is an internet discussion forum. I welcome people who disagree with my views to engage in constructive debate with. No apology required from you at all.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say any condition that is reasonable is likely to get more people agreeing with it, and any condition that is excessive, bureaucratic or awkward is likely to have more people not agreeing with it?
ATOCs guidance on this matter seems reasonable and sensible to me, therefore I agree with it.
ATOCs guidance on this matter seems reasonable and sensible to me, therefore I agree with it.
If the traveller purchased their ticket online fgw online facility does not advise at point of sale that you can't start or finish short. It simply says you must travel on your selected train. As fgw are not advising this at point of sale, it is unenforceable.
Lewisham2221
Established Member
I fail to see what people find so excessive, bureaucratic and awkward about a ticket type which allows a massive cost saving to be made having strict restrictions and conditions applied to it. Don't like it? Buy the less restrictive ticket. You can't just ignore a restriction because you think it's unnecessary.
The rail industry realises that if someone boards a London service at, say, Exeter instead of the previous stop Newton Abbot, then the purpose and spirit of Advance ticket remains intact, there is no loss to the industry, and a PR disaster is unwelcome. People do not always know their precise arrangements to get to the station, but accept the fact they are committed to the specified train. It is therefore a sensible policy adopted by the rail industry to allow the passenger to start/finish 'short'. If people do not like that policy, that's fine, but they just have to accept it exists.
But why did ATOC set the condition in the first place, only to issue guidance that it can be broken? At face value, you'd have to call it an exercise in making yourself look stupid, and they've done that rather well!
It's a ridiculous state of affairs from where I'm sitting!
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
As guards, it's not unknown to charge people up (correctly) or issue UFN's, and come across the same individual at a later stage and have them say "I wrote in about you and got a grovelling apology and my money back / UFN cancelled".
It's part of the reason a significant proportion of Guards just clip whatever they are handed and move on. When the complaint comes in, the perception amongst staff is that we will not be backed up.
It's part of the reason a significant proportion of Guards just clip whatever they are handed and move on. When the complaint comes in, the perception amongst staff is that we will not be backed up.
Personally, I think the right balance has been set by ATOC (if this guidance does exist...) and it is up to those in the front line customer facing roles to be in charge of applying the common sense here. I disagree with changing any rules on Advance ticketing, they are there for a reason and all we'd end up with is people taking advantage by starting short/long at the next stop 50/75/100 miles down the line and using 'common sense' rules to back them up.
I think most people on here agree that in this particular instance the difference is negligible and if we believe the circumstances given - the customer made a genuine mistake. I would class this as in the same league as being caught at 75mph in a 70. Against the rules; yes. Would a police officer apply discretion; probably - it depends on the circumstances. This analogy also runs in that there is ACPO guidance in 10% + 2mph, however it is ultimately up to the police force (and officer) to decide when to prosecute; there has been plenty of 'zero-tolerance' campaigns. If the officer caught the same person doing 75 the next day, then clearly this would be dealt with as the rules are designed.
For such a minor mistake, (I have no sympathy for people trying it on with different trains, routes or operators - all are definitely against the spirit of Advance ticketing) I think that strong words of advice would suffice that what they are doing is not permitted by the conditions of their ticket but given the circumstances they will be allowed carriage on this occasion. The decision on how believable their circumstances are/whether they'd been seen before doing it would and should be up to the member of staff involved. It's also crucial that the TOC concerned backs up their staff in whatever decision they take.
I think most people on here agree that in this particular instance the difference is negligible and if we believe the circumstances given - the customer made a genuine mistake. I would class this as in the same league as being caught at 75mph in a 70. Against the rules; yes. Would a police officer apply discretion; probably - it depends on the circumstances. This analogy also runs in that there is ACPO guidance in 10% + 2mph, however it is ultimately up to the police force (and officer) to decide when to prosecute; there has been plenty of 'zero-tolerance' campaigns. If the officer caught the same person doing 75 the next day, then clearly this would be dealt with as the rules are designed.
For such a minor mistake, (I have no sympathy for people trying it on with different trains, routes or operators - all are definitely against the spirit of Advance ticketing) I think that strong words of advice would suffice that what they are doing is not permitted by the conditions of their ticket but given the circumstances they will be allowed carriage on this occasion. The decision on how believable their circumstances are/whether they'd been seen before doing it would and should be up to the member of staff involved. It's also crucial that the TOC concerned backs up their staff in whatever decision they take.
Which is why I think sensible rules are better than constantly applied descretion. Staff should be able to rely on backup - if a TOC is allowing rule breaks because arguably the rule is silly and draws much public criticism (Which isn't the case with a rule barring you taking a completely different train, most people understand and see this as reasonable) then its better to change the rule and support the staff not undermine the staff making what they feel to be the correct call at the time.
The Media are ridiculous much of the time but there is a reason why somebody getting charged more for getting on a train one stop later generates a media circus whereas somebody getting charged more for getting an earlier train is a non-story.
telstarbox
Established Member
I can see why people think it's unreasonable that you can't start or end short on an Advance, and the passenger in the BBC story apparently did this as a one-off. But if TOCs start to routinely allow people to start or end short on Advances without penalty, it denies "genuine" passengers Advance fares and means trains cart round more fresh air.
Using the stations in the OP, if Plymouth-London passengers started buying Newton Abbot-London Advances instead because they are cheaper (this is just an example and not based on actual prices), this means that people in Newton Abbot can't access the cheap Advances to London because they've all been taken by Plymouth passengers.
For another example: "VT + Connections" Advances from Kent to Birmingham are often available the day before travel and undercut a return to London from the same station if bought the day before travel. Passengers could use the cheap Advances to travel to London without using the London-Birmingham leg at all as the stopping short is undetectable due to the cross-London transfer; but this deprives genuine London-Birmingham passengers of cheap tickets and means empty seats on the VT service which could have been used instead.
Using the stations in the OP, if Plymouth-London passengers started buying Newton Abbot-London Advances instead because they are cheaper (this is just an example and not based on actual prices), this means that people in Newton Abbot can't access the cheap Advances to London because they've all been taken by Plymouth passengers.
For another example: "VT + Connections" Advances from Kent to Birmingham are often available the day before travel and undercut a return to London from the same station if bought the day before travel. Passengers could use the cheap Advances to travel to London without using the London-Birmingham leg at all as the stopping short is undetectable due to the cross-London transfer; but this deprives genuine London-Birmingham passengers of cheap tickets and means empty seats on the VT service which could have been used instead.
Given that it's not officially allowed, then I'd say too bad for the passenger!
blacknight
Member
If the spokesman for FGW is not aware of T&C for AP tickets is there any chance passengers understand them.
How staff enforce these T&C if at first sign of media involvement TOC management distants itself from rules they themselves set.
How staff enforce these T&C if at first sign of media involvement TOC management distants itself from rules they themselves set.
I don't think it's a case of the spokesperson not being aware - just that PR drones standard response to the media is to say sorry and pay off the customer to make the problem go away.
It seemed like the most confusing response though, to state the the station staff were correct, yet they should have not followed the rules. I think PR people at big companies think that we're all stupid or something, and won't notice how inconsistent the responses they give actually are.
It seemed like the most confusing response though, to state the the station staff were correct, yet they should have not followed the rules. I think PR people at big companies think that we're all stupid or something, and won't notice how inconsistent the responses they give actually are.
Can't say I understand the first part of the reply, but many major hotel chains offer B&B rates which are cheaper than room only for the same night(s). I have never seen media reports of someone being charged extra for failing to take the breakfast. If this did actually happen I would expect it to be all over the media.
I think hotel analogies are good ones as you are comparing the purchase of a time limited service. Certainly much better than the supermarket analogies which, for some reason, seem more popular on here.
Empty seats which have been paid for though. Virgin will have done their sums with regards to how much they get from a Kent ticket and how much from a London ticket and will release the optimum number of tickets in each category. They won't be overly concerned as to whether the purchasers actually occupy the seats.
Last edited:
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
Erm....What I think, though it could be a trick question.
You missed the point, or ignored it, I'm not certain which. They are both against the rules (laws in one case but that is semantics) that are in place, regardless of what you believe is reasonable or not.
It's not though is it.
Widespread? I have no idea, but equally there is a fair difference between 'widespread' and a 'small number'.
The difference between Advance fares may be small, but the difference between either of them and a ticket which gives the option of starting points could be quite big.
Is that how it works? Tbh, I just dial in a few numbers on the same device with the same phone operator to contact the same people, potentially at the same time of day and get different charges depending which one I use. All seems rather inconvenient and unreasonable to me, I wish they'd just change the rules so I can have a charge that I deem acceptable.
No reason? The condition means that the passenger has a choice between flexibility and cost, if the passenger wants the choice of departure station they should go with flexibility, not make a saving and then demand the railway allow them to do as they please.
At the time of purchase the passenger makes a choice, flexibility or cost. If he chooses cost he could easily stop someone else choosing cost and thus potentially prevent them from travelling. If, after the train has left the point he is booked to join it, he decides to change his travel plans and the railway lets him without extra charge, the railway could easily be out of pocket (even before we decide what the difference between the fare he paid and the fare he should have paid has been worked out).
They are only unjust if they don't suit and you don't want to pay for a more flexible ticket. Is that cake I smell?.......
Ah, good old trial by media.
The vast majority do know which station they intend to go from though and those who are unsure of the rules tend to ask before acting.
Does it exist? I have seen no evidence of it and last I checked they didn't have.....
....in the terms and conditions. Now if you are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a policy exists, then I'm sure that, together, the forum can take the lead in making sure TOCs train their staff in such matters and prevent many people from having to buy a 'walk up' ticket ever again.
I rather suspect, however, that if such a policy is in existence it is only available (or only intended to be available) to those in customer service departments whose time would be better spent dealing with genuine complaints rather than those of people who choose not to obey the conditions of the ticket they have bought and have been caught out.
telstarbox
Established Member
Absolutely. But the railway is supposed to be run for the benefit of passengers wishing to get from A to B, not just to make TOCs rich
It's fine for Virgin but Southeastern would be getting mugged off in this case anyway as Virgin will get the lion's share of a Kent-Birmingham ticket, whereas SE would get most* or all of the revenue on a Kent-London Terminals ticket under ORCATS because they are the only operator.
*There are a few FCC flows to take into account too.
Advance tickets serve two purposes for the railway industry. They offer cheaper non-flexible fares on off-peak trains. They also offer a massive PR opportunity, namely the ability to quote "cheap" fares to the media while hiding just how extortionate the "ordinary" fares are compared with the rest of Europe. There is already public outrage at the level of train fares, what do you think the response would be if Advancve fares were removed? i'll give you a clue, there would likely be serious pressure to remove the vast level of public subsidy from the railways as well.
If one or more of the TOCs are daft enough to negate the PR advantages of the existance of Advanced tickets, particularly if doing so contrary to ATOC guidance as has been suggested by at least one poster, then they rightly deserve to be castigated for it.
Nobody is arguing that starting short is not agianst the rules. The point being made is that it shouldn't be.
The rules are fact. They are not in dispute. We've moved on from that and are discussing what the rules should say, ideally.
Well, yes, actually. It is.
Only because said ticket isn't 'a ticket designed to give the option of starting points'. It's because the alternative ticket is fully flexible and gives full control over which train you catch, when you catch it, etc etc. The majority of the travelling public don't even know you can start/stop short anyway. The travelling public reasonably consider flexibility when travelling by train to be a choice of times when they travel.
When he purchased his ticket, he had every intention of boarding a Newton Abbot. Is it really fair and just that we have a set of rules which state that if his circumstances change later, but he still wants to catch that exact same train, he can't hop on at the next stop? This has none of the negative effects taking a different train entirely does.
It is a completely different situation to the train ticket example so I don't know why you persist with it. The reason you pay more for a mobile call to an 0800 number is because your network provider has to pay to terminate the call, whereas your landline provider does not.
It's absolutely nothing like boarding a train you've got a ticket for at the next stop.
So if a passenger simply wants to catch the same train but thinks there is perhaps a 5% chance they might pick it up at the next stop, they should instead purchase a significantly more expensive ticket offering a whole bunch of flexibility they neither want nor need but is priced in order to offer?
Flexible tickets are priced to give a tad more flexibility than just boarding the train you booked at the next stop!
Two scenarios:
a) He boards at Newton Abbot. He pays £30. Railway gets £30.
b) He boards at Exeter St Davids. He pays £30. Railway gets £30.
Scenario b) in favour of Scenario a) does not leave the railway out of pocket. We'll ignore Scenario c), whereby an Advance from Exeter is £40, because this is a stupid scenario anyway and the fact it sometimes exists (Though not often) is another farce.
I suspect this chap knew which station he intended to go from, too. Perhaps he booked months in advance and could think of not a single reason why he wouldnt get on at his home station. Then on the day of his train for whatever reason found himself in Exeter. It's the sort of thing that happens but not frequently enough for anyone to buy a massively more expensive ticket just incase.
Remember - he's not asking for full flexibility here. He's still on the same train he's tied to by virtue of his low priced ticket.
Oh get a grip.
People buy an Advance ticket knowing they must use that train. If you start short, you use that train.
People buy a flexibile walkon fare so they have flexibility to change to a different train at a different time should they need to, or when they dont know which train they wish to use in advance.
Starting short doesn't change this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well not really, because a Newton Abbot to London Advance is not valid on a train from Plymouth and won't get you through the gateline?
The only reason issues might arise is as a result of the broken fare structure where travelling further on the *same* train is sometimes cheaper. This is fairly dumb however you try and dress it up as rational. This is not THAT common an occurance and generally speaking the Advance tickets are sensibly priced and the further you travel the more you pay. Therefore invariably anyone who buys an Advance and later starts short has usually paid more than they would have had they bought the advance from the station they boarded at.
I appreciate it raises issues around &Connections tickets, but this is a slightly seperate issue anyway because unlike the example being discussed here you never actually board the train you booked originally. This isn't the case with the current example.
My bottom line is that an Advance ticket should tie you to that particular train you book only. No other trains. If you get on later or even get off earlier then fair enough - but only on that train. You've booked that seat from A to D and you've paid for it. Which points between A and D you choose to occupy it should be your concern. This still denies the passenger of almost all flexibility in return for a cheaper fare, true to the spirit of the Advance. It still allows yield management on certain trains. Infact it still does everything an Advance does now, with the exception of generating ridiculous news stories and silly petty arguments every so often.
Last edited:
You seem to have missed the post on the previous page about a potential loss in revenue from a Penzance to Exeter booking (by booking from Newton Abbot, the seat would no longer have been available but would have been if he'd booked from Exeter). It's not simply the cast that it makes no difference where you book from. I would expect Penzance to Exeter is a more popular journey than Penzance to Newton Abbot.
I didn't miss it, I just don't consider it relevent. Because had he used his ticket 'correctly' then you still wouldn't be able to book an Advance from Penzance to Exeter in his seat. The ticket was booked, the seat taken away, weeks or months before the incident. It's gone. It's a sunk cost in this debate. It's not coming back whatever his subsequent decision was. He's bought and paid for that seat from Newton Abbot to Paddington. All the what if's in the world wont change this.
He clearly beleived at the time he would board at NA therefore he was always going to purchase this ticket. It's not like then buying a walkon single from Exeter instead magically kicked a time machine into operation that went back 4 weeks and opened up a seat to Exeter on that train from Penzance, is it?
I fully support rules that would penalise this passenger had he decided to get a later train or an earlier train. But rules which penalise him just for getting on a stop later serve only to give the media opportunities to take pot shots at silly ticketing rules. Rules without the support of the public will always be problematic. Most rules have the support of the public - because they are sensible, rational and just. You don't see media storms about people who bought a cheap Advance for a lunchtime train and try to use it in the evening peak, do you? Because most people would consider it fair that such a passenger would be charged for a new ticket.
Last edited:
It is relevant, his contract was for travel from Newton Abbot to Paddington and by doing that he's potentially removing the revenue from a journey from Cornwall. He went against the contract and boarded at Exeter. Isn't it only fair that FGW get some compensation for the potential loss in revenue that would not have occurred if his contract had been from Exeter?
He's not 'removing revenue'. He's 'generating revenue' by purchasing the product. He's paid them. They've got the money now.
No. Loss of chance, which this would be called, is not recoverable in the law of tort, therefore any such claim would not be succesful. There is no way to prove this would actually have happened, therefore there is no claim to be satisfied.
At the point at which he sits beside the A380 and decides whether to drive to Newton Abbot or Exeter, clutching his Advance Single from Newton Abbot to Exeter, there are no consequences for the train company arising from the decision he makes. Neither of the decisions he could make at that point would have any effect on the revenue of the TOC. Neither would cause additional gain or additional loss at the point at which he made a decision to 'go against the contract' or not.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
It does indeed exist, and I will endeavour to find the reference.
The Advance Fares FAQs make specific reference to exercising discretion and common sense in any case.
- Status