...If you start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station...
This is defined in NRCoC, and he will not be doing anything that counts as a BOJ.
Yes it is perfectly relevant, I have therein presented the reasoning as to what ticket type we are talking about, and how the price reflects its lack of flexiblity, this does relate to the OP.
But how does it? The OP is not asking to do any of the "flexible" things you suggest! The OP is not asking to take an earlier/later train, nor is the OP asking to break the journey!
Disagree, the OP wished to alight at CLJ, therefore invalidating their Megatrain ticket, fact.
This isn't actually stated anywhere, it's your interpretation and one that I disagree with. If SWT were so sure the ticket had been "invalidated", why did they back down in the recent case as described on The One Show?
Nowhere did I state that I mentioned the literal terms used in the Megatrain T&C's, you seem to be confusing yourself there. I understand the principles of BOJ and how it applies to this situation.
Then I fail to understand how you reached the conclusions, and I ask again where would the customer be deemed to be breaking their journey (bearing in mind the definition)? The only possible answer can be "Feltham"!
No, it is not absurd, it is following the terms of the ticket. Common sense doesn't apply here as you do have to pay more for convenience.
OK, let's go with common sense not applying. If SWT did not apply common sense when they backed down over the recent case described on The One Show, then SWT must have realised the terms were unenforceable and/or that the passenger did not invalidate the terms.
The doubling back IS required because of the two different tickets held, if the passenger decides to break the Megatrain terms then that portion of the journey is invalidated and they are liable to pay the whole single fare again.
Again, this is your interpretation, this is not written down anywhere. Also the NRCoC states an excess should be charged, not a whole single fare. SWT are known for getting things wrong, they've done it before and I can guarantee they'll do it again.
How I read the article was that the person alighting at CLJ were not allowed exit there, until they had already been "fined", and that fine's appeal was rejected, so I can't see how Megatrain or SWT backed down. Therefore if there's any precedent, it will be the precendent of being "fined" for breaking Megatrain terms.
That's not my understanding. Just because someone reports that a "fine" was issued, doesn't mean it was, and certainly doesn't set a precedent that one can be fined. I find it most disturbing and concerning that SWT even think they can get away with this, given that the NRCoC and PF legislation doesn't allow for it, and given that the previous Eastleigh incident actually set a precedent that they should have learnt from, and I also find it extremely concerning that there can be any suggestion of such a precedent being set that someone can be "fined" (whatever definition, correct or otherwise, of "fined" is used!)
Someone who actually watched the program reported that "they backed down", so I am taking that to be true. Are you stating that you know this statement to be incorrect?
Sure, but that doesn't conclude that breaking the Megatrain terms to suit the passenger is permitted, even without PF in the equasion, the full single fare is still payable in such a situation.
Again, remind me, what does the NRCoC say is payable? And also what circumstances is it payable?
All TOC's have staff acting incorrectly from time to time, not just SWT. Whichever rumours about staff on this forum are heard, they hold no weight as actual evidence.
The forum members who witnessed such behaviour are not lying.
I agree with the second part, however this sways from the topic, you told me some of my post was not relevant to the OP, can I therefore suggest that this bit isn't either?
The relevance is that SWT do have a bit of a culture (more than other TOCs, but in line with EMT, who are also owned by Stagecoach) of making things up. EMT & SWT are the TOCs who have the most reports of denial of the rules on matters such as break of journey, "split ticketing", the Routeing Guide, and various other matters. I do not believe this is a co-incidence and it is the culture of the organisations that is a problem.
How is it acting inappropriately, to make the passenger pay more for breaking the terms of their ticket? Maybe the PF was inappropriate, but surely you agree that an excess would have been appropriate to the situation.
If the passenger carries out the acts necessary for a BOJ to have occurred, then the company could carry out the correct excess. In the case of Eastleigh, SWT made up their own rules and did not follow NRCoC. In the case of the OP, there is no BOJ at Clapham Jn.
Common sense cannot be applied, I said this earlier. The Megatrain ticket is totally inflexible, the terms must be followed to make it valid on the journey. Alighting early has rightly been penalised on Megatrain tickets, otherwise there might be an increase in passengers using Megatrain tickets incorrectly, abusing their terms and whitholding revenue from TOC's when they should have purchased more flexible tickets for their itinary.
I've already answered this above. Bit if the OP holds Salisbury - London and London - Feltham tickets, the revenue to the company is the same whether he doubles back between Clapham Jn and London or not.
Again, sound advice. However bare in mind that the Guard will probably be a commercial one, and therefore will have good knowledge of Megatrain terms, so I would be shocked if he recommended breaking the Megatrain terms by alighting at CLJ
Well, if so, then my shock would remain, but would be firmly directed at SWT and not the staff member in question.
Exactly, the Megatrain part of the journey is direct to Waterloo, the change at Clapham Junction is only to suit the OP and save them money!
But, as we've already discussed, you can't use that argument if the OP purchases a London - Feltham ticket, and I will repeat my advise to the OP that if he wishes to make his case more sound or has any concerns about the debate surrounding the purchase of a Clapham Jn - Feltham ticket being considered to deprive SWT of revenue between Waterloo and Clapham Jn, then he should purchase a Waterloo to Feltham ticket. All this has been said before, I'd rather not repeat it. This is all a repetition of previous threads such as the ones involving Norwich!
Incorrect, remember that if the passenger alights at Clapham Jn, they invalidate their Megatrain ticket because of breaking the terms of it. The Megatrain ticket is to Waterloo, therefore the combined ticket that the OP should hold, should be a Waterloo to Feltham ticket.
Well, I don't quite agree with that, but I do agree that if the OP purchases a Wateroo to Feltham ticket then there can be no argument that there is any loss to the company whatsoever.
This is not relevant to the OP, who would be on a fast Class 159 service from Salisbury to Waterloo, which does indeed go direct from CLJ to WAT. The stations inbetween are only served by slower stopping services.
I think John interpreted the OP's question as to the Waterloo to Feltham journey. Queenstown Road would be skipped by most trains between Feltham and Waterloo, but some do call there.
And hasn't it been numerously reported on here that SWT do not have
any CTAs?
/QUOTE]
That is my understanding. I couldn't get a good enough view of the PF notices on Stations Made Easy ( [stn]CLJ[/stn])and it will be a while before I'm back at [stn]CLJ[/stn] (I was there a couple of weeks ago).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I meant woking-feltham via Clapham.
I don't think it's necessary, but would be entirely valid IMO.
