AnkleBoots
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 506
Are there actually any examples of guards penalising someone for breaching the minimum connection times?! I doubt whether they would bother at all unless the passenger annoyed them in some other way.
-
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!
How can people find mininum connection times for interchanging at stations?
- Thread starter trainophile
- 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
What exactly do you mean by penalising them for this?
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,080
Good point - I wouldn't do this with an Advance. As for delay repay, it would be the same as missing any other unadvertised connection, like a +8 at Leeds.
AnkleBoots
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 506
Requiring that they pay more.
I can't think of a scenario where this would happen. What, specifically, did you have in mind?
As splitting is a method of fare avoidance (not evasion)[1] you can't really expect the railway to help you out with it
[1] Similar with taxes - avoidance=legal but takes some skill/time to work out, evasion=illegal.
This really does not apply to a comprehensive range of times when splitting occurs. There are so many cases where through tickets are not valid on the fastest valid travel itineraries. There are sometimes no through fares at all. Some people already have a season ticket that covers part of their journey. How are these people supposed to avoid 'splitting'?
That rather does stretch the definition of splitting though, does it not? I regard splitting as using a combination of tickets instead of the alternative through ticket which would otherwise be suggested by journey planners for the journey being made.
Okay, let's take a specific example: Wolverhampton to London Euston is often faster via Stafford than it is via Birmingham, but Stafford is not a permitted route. If I wish to go via Stafford, I must buy a Wolverhampton-Stafford ticket and a Stafford-Euston ticket. I would call that splitting tickets at Stafford — what would you call that, if not "splitting"?
EDIT: Apparently there is now a "via Stafford" ticket available! But I'd be interested to know what you'd call it if there weren't a via Stafford ticket...
As splitting is a method of fare avoidance (not evasion)[1] you can't really expect the railway to help you out with it
[1] Similar with taxes - avoidance=legal but takes some skill/time to work out, evasion=illegal.
Not really a good comparison. Do the tax authorities specifically tell you you may avoid tax?
The rail industry has codified the use of split tickets in the Conditions of Carriage. When asked for, the rail industry will supply you with split tickets. Try asking the tax authorities with help to avoid taxes.
That would just be using a combination of tickets rather than splitting as there's isn't a through ticket which could be used. I.e. there wasn't a journey to 'split'.
It came up in a recent prosecutions thread, although there were some other issues as well with the situation.
Some were of the view that a person: (1) unable to a buy a ticket at their start point or on their first train; and (2) who rushes to make a connection less than the minimum connection time, might leave themselves open to prosecution for not stopping to buy a ticket at the connecting station. The argument being that as the connection was not official, they would not be delaying a journey by missing it to buy a ticket, so there was an opportunity to buy a ticket at the connecting station.
I don't know if someone has ever paid a penalty fare, purchased an undiscounted ticket, or even been prosecuted in these circumstances, but it's certainly plausible, whether or not it is right.
trainophile
Established Member
An example of when someone might choose to book as a split...
Hereford to Glasgow Central, Weds 29th November, 1st Class, no railcard, depart HFD 0954 arrive GLC 1516 - £202.50
Hereford to Crewe, same date, same Arriva train (no 1st Class available) £12.50 (Advance); Crewe to GLC 1st Class £40 (Advance), total £52.50, saving £150.
This will apply where any leg of a journey does not have 1st Class provision, and you wish to travel 1st on the legs that do.
In response to the poster who queried my use of "a situation beyond their control", I was referring to the delayed train which left them with insufficient time to make a connection that normally would be easily doable had the first train arrived on time.
Hereford to Glasgow Central, Weds 29th November, 1st Class, no railcard, depart HFD 0954 arrive GLC 1516 - £202.50
Hereford to Crewe, same date, same Arriva train (no 1st Class available) £12.50 (Advance); Crewe to GLC 1st Class £40 (Advance), total £52.50, saving £150.
This will apply where any leg of a journey does not have 1st Class provision, and you wish to travel 1st on the legs that do.
In response to the poster who queried my use of "a situation beyond their control", I was referring to the delayed train which left them with insufficient time to make a connection that normally would be easily doable had the first train arrived on time.
But if the minimum STATED connection time is allowed, there is or should be no problem.
In that case, you may want to take the advice posted by sheff1:
I do not understand what point you are making. The question is not necessarily about "cheaper journeys". I do not see how the price paid has anything to do with the question whatsoever.
Is this with a walk-up fare?
The thread is about using a combination of two or more tickets for one journey. There can be many reasons for this, e.g. a passenger may wish to travel from South Milford to Bridlington. Let's not argue about semantics.
A journey can be South Milford to Bridlington. The rail industry imposes a mandatory requirement of using a combination of fares to make this journey. People may choose to call it "splitting"; whatever unofficial terms people chose to use (or not use) are irrelevant to the matter in hand.
I disagree. The original question was in respect to people choosing to split their journey:
In the example you mention, there was no choice and no choosing.
The original question applies to any journey where a connection is being made, and the passenger is choosing to purchase a combination of two or more tickets for the one journey by making two separate queries of a booking engine, to and from the change point.
The question applies equally to a journey such as:
1543 Appleby - Leeds (arr 1738)
1749 Leeds - Middlesbrough (1914)
1749 Leeds - Middlesbrough (1914)
The TOC's websites require customers to do:
1641 Appleby - Carlisle (arr 1728)
1838 Carlisle - Newcastle (arr 2017)
2030 Newcastle - Middlesbrough (arr 2148)
The fare charged by the TOCs for the longer journey via Carlisle/Newcastle is £33.10.1838 Carlisle - Newcastle (arr 2017)
2030 Newcastle - Middlesbrough (arr 2148)
Passengers can take sheff1's advice highlighted by me in bold above, and book through an accredited website that offers a combination of fares for one journey (colloquially known as a "split ticket" website; the informal language used not important) and pay £36.70 for the faster journey on flexible tickets, or pay £24.40 for fixed time tickets and be issued one booking reference , one itinerary and all relevant fares in one transaction.
Or they can do as trainophile says and put two journey queries into their basket using a TOC website, and pay £11.50 for the Appleby to Leeds ticket followed by £12.90 for the Leeds to Middlesbrough ticket, and as trainophile says, passengers need to manually verify that the 11 minute connection in Leeds is a valid connection, which it is.
People have posted advice on where to verify that the connection is a valid one, and people have posted advice on how to avoid the requirement to manually check by booking through a website that will book all required fares for you.
For South Milford to Bridlington, passengers could choose to purchase a combination of fares, or if they do not choose that, I would imagine the Guard would make that suggestion anyway. I do not see the relevance of "choice" or the argument over the informal term "splitting"; none of that matters!
Last edited:
Which is exactly the point I made - if there isn't a through ticket then it's not split ticketing. In order to split something, it has to exist in the first place!
This is taking pedantry to a new level.
The informal term "splitting" is unimportant; the reasons for "splitting" are many and varied and are irrelevant to answering the question.
You can have your own definition of this informal term if you wish, but it makes absolutely no difference to the question and the answer!
Others describe it thus:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/split-cheap-train-tickets/
http://www.raileasy.co.uk/home/split-ticketing
Last edited:
AnkleBoots
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 506
Would someone with easy access to the data care to paste in the main stations' connection times here?
It's not pedantry. Where someone chooses to split their journey they may find that they have to fight for their rights when things go wrong. Which is much less likely to be the case where there is no through ticket.
Here you go: http://www.brtimes.com/#!stations
I don't agree with this statement.
However I do agree that if a passenger uses an accredited "ticket splitting" website, they may find being able to produce one itinerary showing their throughout journey - which is clear evidence of a contract for a journey using the fares held - is beneficial if they are unfortunate enough to encounter any staff who incorrectly attempt to deny any passenger rights, in the event of delays resulting in a missed connection.
Any such incidents are very rare, but having clear evidence can increase the likelihood that journeys are stress-free.
This potential benefit is in addition to other clearly tangible benefits, such as not having to manually look up valid interchange times, as that responsibility is handled by the retailer.
Unlike the NRCoC, the National Rail Conditions of Travel don't make any reference to minimum connection times anyway - they just tell you that you must allow 'sufficient time' - and that 'train times shown at www.nationalrail.co.uk or on any journey plan provided by a Train Company or Licenced Retailer will allow sufficient time for making your change of trains.'
I also don't think that it's right, but you know it's true. How many times have we seen posters saying that a TOC has only paid Delay Repay on one part of a split-ticket journey?
Where there is no through ticket the TOC can't fall back on a 'You choose to split, therefore...' excuse.
If a first line customer support agent with minimal training says that, simply challenging them and escalating the matter if necessary, pointing out NRCoT Condition 14, usually produces the correct result.
There is a through fare for Appleby to Middlesbrough; if you think that the company may incorrectly refuse to honour the combination of fares to/from Leeds as one journey because it was not a through fare, you can't guarantee that the company may (incorrectly) state the passenger should have delayed their journey and made additional changes by travelling via Carlisle and Newcastle, can you?
If anyone claims that a passenger cannot use two or more tickets for one journey, you simply refer them to Condition 14 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel.
I do not understand what point you are making. The question is not necessarily about "cheaper journeys". I do not see how the price paid has anything to do with the question whatsoever.
You`re correct. It was only in reference to some of the above points about a form of fare evasion.
You`re correct. It was only in reference to some of the above points about a form of fare evasion.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status