1st Class Upgrade on a Split Ticket

Status
Not open for further replies.

prd101

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2008
Messages
67
Location
York
I plan to make a journey from York to Stourbridge Junction in a few weeks, with a split ticket.

This is an off-peak return from York to Derby and then an off-peak return form Derby to Stourbridge Junction

For the York to Birmingham New Street portion of the journey, I'd like to upgrade to first class as it'll be on a weekend.

Is there any reason why this would need two upgrades, for the two separate tickets, or can I upgrade from York all the way through to Birmingham New Street. Thanks
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Jonfun

Established Member
Joined
16 Mar 2007
Messages
1,254
Location
North West
Yorkie is incorrect on this occasion unfortunately, as you can see from the thread he's linked to. XC policy is that where the passenger has chosen to split their tickets, weekend first is done on each individual ticket.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,707
Location
Redcar
Though I think it's worth pointing out that, as far as I'm aware, XC are the only operator that appear to do this and even then not uniformally as I've had one weekend upgrade whilst holding split tickets on several occasions in the past whilst travelling with XC.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
NRE states:

CrossCountry
Priced at either £5.00, £10.00, £15.00 or £20.00 depending on the journey being made. Available to holders of valid Standard Class tickets on board the train, and subject to space being available in First Class.
(my emphasis)
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
A journey may be made on 2 or more tickets in the NRCoC

Train companies cannot deny your right to make one journey with multiple fares.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,790
Location
Scotland
Train companies cannot deny your right to make one journey with multiple fares.
This isn't about denying rights to make the journey with a combination of tickets, it's about an optional upgrade of accommodation for that journey. As I understand it, this isn't specifically covered by the NRCoC.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
This isn't about denying rights to make the journey with a combination of tickets, it's about an optional upgrade of accommodation for that journey. As I understand it, this isn't specifically covered by the NRCoC.
NRE states that an upgrade is available for the journey. If that information is correct, then a combination of tickets is fine.

NRE is the "definitive source of info for all passenger rail services on the National Rail network in England, Wales and Scotland" apparently.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,790
Location
Scotland
NRE states that an upgrade is available for the journey. If that information is correct, then a combination of tickets is fine.
And it is available for the journey - one payment for each leg.

I agree that XC should allow a single payment to cover both legs, however I can't see anything in the NRCoC that says that they *must* do so.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
And it is available for the journey - one payment for each leg.
The text is clear "Priced at either £5.00, £10.00, £15.00 or £20.00 depending on the journey being made. "

I don't know what you mean by "leg" but that's got nothing to do with the wording, and I think is a term you made up.
I agree that XC should allow a single payment to cover both legs, however I can't see anything in the NRCoC that says that they *must* do so.
I don't recognise the term "leg" as having any relevance here, it's not something I can find reference to anywhere.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,790
Location
Scotland
I don't recognise the term "leg" as having any relevance here, it's not something I can find reference to anywhere.
I would have thought you know exactly what I mean but in case you aren't just being obtuse for the sake of it (very grown up debating tactic) - substitute 'ticket' for 'leg':

"I agree that XC should allow a single payment to cover both tickets, however I can't see anything in the NRCoC that says that they *must* do so."

Better?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
I would have thought you know exactly what I mean but in case you aren't just being obtuse for the sake of it (very grown up debating tactic) - substitute 'ticket' for 'leg':

"I agree that XC should allow a single payment to cover both tickets, however I can't see anything in the NRCoC that says that they *must* do so."

Better?
NRE says that the fare is £5, £10, or £20 depending on the "journey" and that this information is "definitive". Are you arguing against that?

Maybe it's out of date, but until they update it, that's what the rule "definitively" is.

I am unsure if you are posting what you think the rule should be, or what you think the rule is in the process of being changed to be, but I am posting what it is stated to be currently.
 

causton

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
5,502
Location
Somewhere between WY372 and MV7
Just to play devil's advocate:

"depending on the journey" is very vague and could mean anything, from the length of the journey, to how many tickets you hold, to what platform it departs from in theory if you take it to extremes!
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
The National Rail website has a disclaimer for errors, what is the wording of the policy according to XC?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
Every other train company offering weekend first is happy to sell Weekend First for the journey that you want to make in weekend first, subject to availability.

Those who don't offer one flat fare for all journeys, offer a zonal based pricing structure depending on where the customer wishes to upgrade.

There has never been any suggestion it is based on individual tickets, or on what platform the train departs from, or the length of journey time, or any other factor.

If XC want to do something different, and not base it on the "journey", and instead require each ticket to be upgraded, then in my opinion that is not the same product as Weekend First, which is a long-standing product which everyone knowledgeable with railway ticketing understands. They should call it something else and be abundantly clear what it is.

If anyone is being "obtuse" it is XC, and perhaps some people apparently supporting XC.
 

Jonfun

Established Member
Joined
16 Mar 2007
Messages
1,254
Location
North West
NRE says that the fare is £5, £10, or £20 depending on the "journey" and that this information is "definitive". Are you arguing against that?

Ultimately, National Rail don't set the policy. XC do. Rightly or wrongly, they choose to charge upgrades per ticket.
Some staff may well sell one upgrade for the whole journey but that isn't correct. If they go round incorrectly selling tickets eventually one day it'll come back to bite them if someone chooses to report it.
It's nothing to do with anyone "supporting" XC. It matters little whether anyone likes or loathes the policy - they have made the commercial decision to set the rule and if you want to buy the ticket you have to accept the conditions with come with it.
 

Merseysider

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Messages
4,789
Location
Birmingham
The only net effect of this will be fewer people upgrading, so less money to XC. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay over the odds for a through ticket just so they don't have to pay twice for a 1st upgrade. They simply won't upgrade, or they'll do it at a ticket office, paying once for the whole journey, meaning someone else gets the commission. Madness.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
13,543
Location
No longer here
NRE says that the fare is £5, £10, or £20 depending on the "journey" and that this information is "definitive". Are you arguing against that?

Maybe it's out of date, but until they update it, that's what the rule "definitively" is.

I am unsure if you are posting what you think the rule should be, or what you think the rule is in the process of being changed to be, but I am posting what it is stated to be currently.

Because XC are offering to upgrade the "journey", and this is "definitive", if someone has a Chester-le-Street to Northampton ticket, should they be upgrading the full "journey"?

There is no single railway-accepted definition of "journey" regardless of what the NRCOC may say - if there was, we wouldn't be seeing TOCs refuse to pay out delay repay on split tickets (and they do so with impunity and there is nothing ATOC can/will do to compel them).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The only net effect of this will be fewer people upgrading, so less money to XC. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay over the odds for a through ticket just so they don't have to pay twice for a 1st upgrade. They simply won't upgrade, or they'll do it at a ticket office, paying once for the whole journey, meaning someone else gets the commission. Madness.

Wouldn't be so sure about that. There are not that many customers with split walk-up tickets on XC where the split occurs on the XC route. A tiny percentage.

(Lots of split advances but these are not upgradeable on XC)
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
Ultimately, National Rail don't set the policy. XC do.
I know, but NRE is the definitive source of info and XC have to respect that. They need to inform NRE that they are offering a different product if they want to do that...
Rightly or wrongly, they choose to charge upgrades per ticket.
It needs to cease using the term "Weekend First" in my opinion, as that's a long-standing ex-BR product based on the journey.
Some staff may well sell one upgrade for the whole journey but that isn't correct.
Staff complying with NRE and consumer law are correct.
If they go round incorrectly selling tickets eventually one day it'll come back to bite them if someone chooses to report it.
Can't see the unions allowing disciplinary action for following published guidance and long-staninf industy standard conditions without a fight.
It's nothing to do with anyone "supporting" XC. It matters little whether anyone likes or loathes the policy - they have made the commercial decision to set the rule and if you want to buy the ticket you have to accept the conditions with come with it.
The conditions you state XC want to impose are not Weened First conditions. If you want to sell a ticket you have to accept the conditions with come with it! If you want to sell something else, go make your own name for it, and make it very clear to customers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Because XC are offering to upgrade the "journey", and this is "definitive", if someone has a Chester-le-Street to Northampton ticket, should they be upgrading the full "journey"?
In this case there is no through Weekend First fare so the customer must be offered a "split"
There is no single railway-accepted definition of "journey" regardless of what the NRCOC may say - if there was, we wouldn't be seeing TOCs refuse to pay out delay repay on split tickets (and they do so with impunity and there is nothing ATOC can/will do to compel them).
In all cases I'm aware of, which were persued, the TOC relented and paid out on the journey.

Wouldn't be so sure about that. There are not that many customers with split walk-up tickets on XC where the split occurs on the XC route. A tiny percentage.

(Lots of split advances but these are not upgradeable on XC)
Trainsplit is changing that.

I think XC are afraid of Trainsplit <D
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
There is no single railway-accepted definition of "journey" regardless of what the NRCOC may say . . . .
Regrettably, this is absolutely correct. The term 'journey' is effectively undefined.
What references there are, which might give some comfort to anyone in need of clarity, can be contrasted with other references which will cast doubt over them.

Sadly, no one on this forum, whether employed in the industry or an enthusiastic commentator, can remove this uncertainty. Anyone seeking clarification should avoid the temptation to be persuaded by the opinion of those who also want to believe that their interpretation is the truth. But it remains a clarification which I, and probably all the other commentators on here, would welcome.

For what it's worth, my own view is that if, and only if, the two tickets were bought in the one transaction, and if the point to point travel indicated on each ticket can be combined to form a single and continuous journey (excepting only changes that are necessary to complete that single and continuous journey), and that all the trains used for travel are operated by DfT franchised operators, and that the passenger is travelling on all of that single and continuous journey, and that they are doing so without any unnecessary breaks, then, the two tickets can be said to jointly confirm that a single contract has been formed.
If I am right, then the scope for uncertainty is vastly diminished. [And for the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT implying that any of these factors are, in themselves, determinant of the definition of 'journey'].

But that is just my view, and it has not been tested in law. Against me is the Judgement by Hawkins J in 1979 in GWR v Pocock where he explicity declared that when the passenger arrived at the destination printed on the ticket that "the contract was at an end".
I'm not aware that any of the other points of view have been confirmed in law, (though it would be very helpful to passengers if they have been, and I'd be grateful to learn from those decisions).


NRE is the "definitive source of info for all passenger rail services on the National Rail network in England, Wales and Scotland" apparently.
It certainly does make that claim!
And I still struggle to understand what that claim is telling passengers. It strongly suggests that there are, or may be, other sources which are not definitive. Perhaps even other sources which purport to be definitive., but which NRE wants to dismiss on some unknown grounds or other. We could guess what these other sources may be . . . . perhaps prior industry documents, perhaps internet fora such as this, perhaps independent travel companies, perhaps ticket retaillers (whether approved by RSP or not), perhaps franchised operator's retail divisions. It's very hard to understand how NRE can declare itself to be definitive while operating under, either, the law of England and Wales, or the law of Scotland, where only Parliament has the constitutional power to create law, and only the Judiciary has the authority to interpret and apply it to us citizens and Companies.
 
Last edited:

jkdd77

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
557
Regrettably, this is absolutely correct. The term 'journey' is effectively undefined.
What references there are, which might give some comfort to anyone in need of clarity, can be contrasted with other references which will cast doubt over them.

Sadly, no one on this forum, whether employed in the industry or an enthusiastic commentator, can remove this uncertainty. Anyone seeking clarification should avoid the temptation to be persuaded by the opinion of those who also want to believe that their interpretation is the truth. But it remains a clarification which I, and probably all the other commentators on here, would welcome.

For what it's worth, my own view is that if, and only if, the two tickets were bought in the one transaction, and if the point to point travel indicated on each ticket can be combined to form a single and continuous journey (excepting only changes that are necessary to complete that single and continuous journey), and that all the trains used for travel are operated by DfT franchised operators, and the passenger is travelling on all of that single and continuous journey, and doing so without any unnecessary breaks, then the two tickets can be said to jointly confirm that a single contract has been formed.
If I am right, then the scope for uncertainty is vastly diminished. [And for the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT implying that any of these factors are, in themselves, determinant of the definition of 'journey'].

But that is just my view, and it has not been tested in law. Against me is the Judgement by Hawkins J in 1979 in GWR v Pocock where he explicity declared that when the passenger arrived at the destination printed on the ticket that "the contract was at an end".
I'm not aware that any of the other points of view have been confirmed in law, (though it would be very helpful to pasengers if they have been, and I'd be grateful to learn from those decisions).

I don't agree that the phrase "journey" is undefined.

The plain wording of NRCoC Condition 19 makes clear that this is indeed a single journey. The NRCoC forms part of the contract for travel, and cannot be simply dismissed by TOCs because they find it inconvenient.

You have often referred to the case law from London & North Western Railway Co. vs Hinchcliffe [1903] 2 KB 32, where a passenger used (cheaper) A -> intermediate station B and B -> C tickets to travel from A -> C, and was held to have made a single journey from A -> C without having paid the correct fare.

Furthermore, the rail industry has acknowledged that two tickets may be combined for a single journey in the case of 'split advances', and acknowledged that this is a single journey.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
Regrettably, this is absolutely correct. The term 'journey' is effectively undefined.
What references there are, which might give some comfort to anyone in need of clarity, can be contrasted with other references which will cast doubt over them.

Sadly, no one on this forum, whether employed in the industry or an enthusiastic commentator, can remove this uncertainty. Anyone seeking clarification should avoid the temptation to be persuaded by the opinion of those who also want to believe that their interpretation is the truth. But it remains a clarification which I, and probably all the other commentators on here, would welcome.

For what it's worth, my own view is that if, and only if, the two tickets were bought in the one transaction, and if the point to point travel indicated on each ticket can be combined to form a single and continuous journey (excepting only changes that are necessary to complete that single and continuous journey), and that all the trains used for travel are operated by DfT franchised operators, and that the passenger is travelling on all of that single and continuous journey, and that they are doing so without any unnecessary breaks, then, the two tickets can be said to jointly confirm that a single contract has been formed.
If I am right, then the scope for uncertainty is vastly diminished. [And for the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT implying that any of these factors are, in themselves, determinant of the definition of 'journey'].
While I don't think that people should have to do any of that to form one journey, I do agree that anyone in a position to do so, does purchase tickets in the manner you describe in order to strengthen their case in any argument that may potentially ensue.

An example of a benefit of purchasing tickets through Trainsplit is that you get one itinerary which makes it very clear that your contract is for a journey, which may also help strengthen a case in the event of any argument.
But that is just my view, and it has not been tested in law. Against me is the Judgement by Hawkins J in 1979 in GWR v Pocock where he explicity declared that when the passenger arrived at the destination printed on the ticket that "the contract was at an end".
I'm not aware that any of the other points of view have been confirmed in law, (though it would be very helpful to passengers if they have been, and I'd be grateful to learn from those decisions).
I suspect that back then, there wasn't anything in the contract which stated that the customer may use two or more tickets to make one journey, as is the case now.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
16,944
Location
Manchester
I've been enjoying reading this, because I recently made a journey from Birmingham to Penzance with more than one ticket, and there was no ticket check in First Class during that 5 1/2 hour journey, so the weekend upgrade was free :D :D :D

As to the question of Standard Advance not being valid with Weekend First, this seems to me to be more often ignored than it is followed. Perhaps this is because in general, XC First Class is not well loaded and in general their Standard Class is very well loaded, and because people have a tendency to try to get away with it regardless of what day of the week it is. Once people are sat there, if they're willing to pay the £15 it's a choice between chucking them out and taking it.

In my view, XC weekend catering is so scarce and so poorly stocked that weekend upgrades only make for good value on very long journeys - when you're likely to have the option of booking First Advances or using a more sophisticated operator anyway :p
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,790
Location
Scotland
I am unsure if you are posting what you think the rule should be, or what you think the rule is in the process of being changed to be, but I am posting what it is stated to be currently.
I am saying that Weekend First (or whatever TOCs choose to call it) isn't, as far as I can tell, defined in the NRCoC. So references to condition 19 are interesting but not definitive as far as I can see.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,140
Location
Yorkshire
I am saying that Weekend First (or whatever TOCs choose to call it) isn't, as far as I can tell, defined in the NRCoC.
It's a longstanding product that has always been priced according to journey, and the conditions stated in NRE confirm that.

If XC want to do something else, with different conditions, they need to update NRE and call the product something different.
So references to condition 19 are interesting but not definitive as far as I can see.
Condition 19 merely clarifies that a customer may use two or more tickets for one journey. If you accept that, and also accept that the terms state that Weekend First is priced by journey (not by ticket), then I don't see what there is to argue about.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
The plain wording of NRCoC Condition 19 makes clear that this is indeed a single journey.
I wish it did. But it doesn't.
People drafting documents and applying them are very careful to choose between mandatory terms such as 'must', 'shall', 'will', etc. and conditional terms such as 'may', 'can', 'could', etc. It is not a mistake to use a conditional for a mandatory nor vice versa.
Condition 19 merely clarifies that a customer may use two or more tickets for one journey.
Quoted to clarify, but with my bold.

Furthermore, the rail industry has acknowledged that two tickets may be combined for a single journey in the case of 'split advances', and acknowledged that this is a single journey.
It has. I agree. And I wish it was a more reliable 'acknowledgement. But sadly it isn't.
You, me, and I guess all other rail passengers using a combination of tickets for travel want to believe that it is a single "journey". But if all we have to support our view is a published condition which says that they 'may' be, is not an adequately solid basis to advise prd101 that there is no uncertainty over the definition of 'journey' when seeking to upgrade to First Class on the two legs of their journey.

Unfortunately, it is uncertain.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
16,944
Location
Manchester
Hm. So the argument here is that if it is stated that one may do something, there remains at least some legal possibility that one may not, in fact, do that.

I make no further comment on the actual issue of weekend upgrades, but it does rather sound as though some of us are being led to believe things about law by someone who is very adept at giving the impression that they are more knowledgeable than others in this area, when in fact this may be just that: an impression.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
13,543
Location
No longer here
I don't agree that the phrase "journey" is undefined.

The plain wording of NRCoC Condition 19 makes clear that this is indeed a single journey. The NRCoC forms part of the contract for travel, and cannot be simply dismissed by TOCs because they find it inconvenient.

You have often referred to the case law from London & North Western Railway Co. vs Hinchcliffe [1903] 2 KB 32, where a passenger used (cheaper) A -> intermediate station B and B -> C tickets to travel from A -> C, and was held to have made a single journey from A -> C without having paid the correct fare.

Furthermore, the rail industry has acknowledged that two tickets may be combined for a single journey in the case of 'split advances', and acknowledged that this is a single journey.

Could you point us to where the concept of a journey is actually defined in the NRCoC? Because it isn't. All it says is that you *may* use more than one ticket to make a journey - but it doesn't define what a journey is, where it begins, or ends, or what its essential features might be.
 

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
Does XC's policy anywhere define journey? Why would we believe it imports the NRCoC definition?

I imagine that, as with many aspects of railway ticketing: in a courtroom common sense would be applied, but this isn't the sort of thing that would ever result in litigation, so the guards are free to decide for themselves. Most will decide they'd rather have the commission than send the passenger back to standard (c.f. standard advances)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top