advance tickets _ proportion of no shows

[Flamingo]

Now if it is blocking a seat, it is causing an inconvenience, and it can be refused.

 

[Caped Crusader]

Had a trawl through the manual and came up with this:

"Seat Reservations – First Great Western
Trains on which accommodation can be reserved are shown in the National Rail Timetable.

The seat reservation charge is £5, except in the following circumstances where reservation is free of charge:



one reservation if reserved at the time of purchasing the ticket;
wheelchair spaces, assisted passengers and their companions;
holders of Rail Rovers.


Reservations are only available to passengers buying or presenting a valid travel ticket. Only one seat reservation per passenger (plus connecting reservation where appropriate) can be made for each journey.

A seat cannot be reserved if no passenger is to occupy it, even if an extra ticket is purchased.

Child Reservations
Where separate accommodation is required for a child under 5, a child rate or flat fare ticket must be held for the journey."

 

[90019]

Rather like someone purchasing two identical meals, intending to eat both and then the buffet car manager coming to take one back because the buffet is short of meals

It's nothing at all like a person buying two meals - beyond the person buying two things for themself, they are totally different.
You're comparing goods to services.

 

[jonty14]

What a lovely attitude...

I agree with you rmt. Attitude like rhe above gives britains railways a bad name. Is a guard allowed to make up hi own rules?

 

[cuccir]

I agree with you rmt. Attitude like rhe above gives britains railways a bad name. Is a guard allowed to make up hi own rules?

I think the attitude that people should be able to somehow claim two seats because they feel more important than others is much much much much worse - in fact such pure selfishness sickens me.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I agree with you rmt. Attitude like rhe above gives britains railways a bad name. Is a guard allowed to make up hi own rules?

NRCOCs give the rules. Flamingo and FGW are only following them. I suspect RMT Driver and you would quickly change your tune if you had to stand from Paddington to Bristol because one person reserved two seats, preventing you from sitting
in one of them.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I think the attitude that people should be able to somehow claim two seats because they feel more important than others is much much much much worse - in fact such pure selfishness sickens me.

Commonsense at last!!

 

[Deerfold]

I think the real question is how many people use and andvance ticket AND sit in thier booked seats.

I will always move if a better seat becomes free.

Anyone that does that is actually breaking the conditions of their ticket. It's surprising how this is very rarely enforced and that no-one has tried excessing anyone sitting in the wrong seat.

So anyone with an advance ticket but not sitting in their seat is breaking the terms of the tickets. If they have two tickets they must be breaking the terms of it and thus invaldating it. If they bounce between seats then at times both are invalid.

I think that sorts out the problem for advance tickets - now how many people are going to buy 2 full fare tickets to try this?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I can see where people are coming from with the two tickets thus two seats thing, but come on. In no way is it reasonable for someone to be taking up two seats when they do not need to and when other people could do with a seat. Even if it isn't technically against the rules, you don't need two seats so I'd hope any guard uses common sense when dealing with a situation like that.

I admit I often put my bag / luggage on the seat next to me. But if the train starts to fill up, or the seat is a reserved one, then I will move my stuff. The problems start coming when you get people who won't move their things, and some people won't even doing it when asked nicely.

In terms of people sitting in a different seat to the one they have reserved and thus "breaking the conditions of their ticket", I think that is just being too fussy. It doesn't really matter unless people are standing and refusing to sit down because a seat is reserved (and I can't see that happening, if there is a seat free, people will sit in it, no matter if it is reserved or not). Plus, what if the persons reserved seat is already taken up? You surely couldn't excess someone because of that as it is not their fault someone else is in their seat and won't move.

 

[Deerfold]

In terms of people sitting in a different seat to the one they have reserved and thus "breaking the conditions of their ticket", I think that is just being too fussy. It doesn't really matter unless people are standing and refusing to sit down because a seat is reserved (and I can't see that happening, if there is a seat free, people will sit in it, no matter if it is reserved or not). Plus, what if the persons reserved seat is already taken up? You surely couldn't excess someone because of that as it is not their fault someone else is in their seat and won't move.

Unlike Zoe, I wasn't suggesting a general application of the rule - I jusst thought it might be useful where people are playing silly buggers (as Zoe has been suggesting).

 

[Zoe]

Back in 2009 I was on a Voyager and the TM was telling everyone to sit in their booked seats. There were some arguments though as the electronic reservation system was not working so people were sitting in seats they did not think were reserved only for the TM to move them.

 

[LexyBoy]

Isn't this why we have first class?

 

[Flamingo]

I agree with you rmt. Attitude like rhe above gives britains railways a bad name. Is a guard allowed to make up hi own rules?

No, the guard does not make up his own rules. The rules say that one passenger, one seat regardless of how many tickets have been purchased.

As a passenger, what gives you the right to decide which rules apply to you and which rules don't (regardless of the inconvenience caused to others)?

 

[yorkie]

Even if it isn't technically against the rules, you don't need two seats ...

Some people do! I am unsure how that situation should be dealt with!

 

[Zoe]

The rules say that one passenger, one seat regardless of how many tickets have been purchased.

No, the rules do not say that. It clearly says THIS ticket and doesn't say anything about not allowing more than one seat to be reserved if you have ANOTHER ticket. From reading above FGW do have a policy of not allowing it but that isn't the same as the rule applying to all trains quoted earlier.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Some people do! I am unsure how that situation should be dealt with!

What people would need two seats, save for the obese where they would be occupying both at the same time!

 

[trainophile]

What people would need two seats, save for the obese where they would be occupying both at the same time!

People travelling with a priceless large musical instrument?

Edit: That's priceless as in valuable, not as in hilarious!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Some people do! I am unsure how that situation should be dealt with!

I understand that, but I was generalising. In the grand scheme of things, very few people would need more than one seat. I'd hazard a guess that a situation where someone does require two seats would be dealt with like a disability (although it technically is not, its a similar kind of idea) and they would be allowed two seats. Athough if they had to pay for the extra seat I have no idea (I am sure there was a thing a while back about people having to pay for extra seats on planes).

 

[sheff1]

As a passenger, what gives you the right to decide which rules apply to you and which rules don't (regardless of the inconvenience caused to others)?

Of course both parties should comply with 'the rules'. The problem is that some of 'the rules' are not in the public domain so therefore the passenger cannot know independently what they are supposed to be complying with.

The extract from the Manual provided by Caped Crusader is 100% clear that a seat cannot be reserved if no passenger is to occupy it, even if an extra ticket is purchased. So, if such rules in the Manual were available to the public, the lengthy exchange about the matter on here would not have been needed as any dissenter could be referred to them. Unfortunately the info in the NRCoC, which is all passengers have to go on, is ambiguous - as clearly demonstrated by the fact that the lengthy exchange did take place.

 

[bb21]

Aren't we just going around recycling old arguments the way this thread is going? It's become a little bit circular. Apart from Caped Crusader's post, I don't think we learned much else in the last few pages that we didn't know from the first one or two.

 

[snail]

No, the rules do not say that. It clearly says THIS ticket and doesn't say anything about not allowing more than one seat to be reserved if you have ANOTHER ticket.

Here's another point for you. Is the same person allowed to make simultaneous journeys with two tickets? If the ticket relates to a journey, then it would follow that only one ticket can be used at a time. There is no question that one ticket = one reservation.

 

[NightatLaira]

People travelling with a priceless large musical instrument?

Edit: That's priceless as in valuable, not as in hilarious!

First of all, I don't think this is a stupid thread

I've seen things like this happen in real life:

A woman with priceless cello causing a huge fuss in first class on the 0550 (doesn't run anymore) Edinburgh to London KX. Woman had cello sprawled across two first class seats, in a table cluster of 4! Initially without 2 additional tickets, offered to purchase additional tickets (jokingly), guard refused saying 'even if you wanted to buy tickets for it I can't let you keep that there, it's a dangerous obstruction and should be in the DVT'. Woman made a huge fuss, saying the cello was worth £15,000, it would get broken, etc, etc, said she'd done this thing 100s of times before and had similar experiences but was always eventually allowed to do it. Guard and woman had considerably heated discussion... went on for ages... guard eventually backed down. Cello stayed on seats all the way to London. The End.

But seriously, whatever your personal views on all of this. If a passenger ever did purchase an additional ticket for something that wasn't a person, and ever did attempt to take the TOC to court over a breach in the sale of goods act after having their 'vacant but paid-for seat' taken from them - I reckon it could go either way with the judges... I know the National Conditions of Carriage say '.... *whatever they say*...' but I've seen barristers pick apart all sorts of things in the past.. Ultimately the National Conditions of Carriage could be held to be ambiguous - and if deemed as such - then with the courts it's anyone's guess what happens next!

And there's loads more scenarios where people might offer to buy tickets for things which aren't people:

1. Cat Carriers
2. Art, Models, Sculptures, plants, etc. (seen this before with students)
3. Infectious diseases? (it's possible...)
4. Rich people who genuinely want a space for their laptop bag or whatever. Ok you might hate rich people, but that kind of thing can't be enshrined in law.
5. Celebrities/VIPs - Never seen the PM having someone sit down next to him, even if the train was busy!
6. Musical Instruments that can't be put in storage for whatever reason (already been explained)
7. Luggage that won't fit into the racks or holders for whatever reason; e.g. shotgun cases/rifle cases. (Seen this on the Highland Mainline)
8. And I've personally heard an XC conductor announce that 'he will charge anyone keeping a bag on a seat a ticket for its journey unless it is moved, indicating that on XC at least, you can have a seat for your bag so long as you are prepared to pay for it'.
   
   Ok, let's look at it from the other angle, the angle of the TOC/conductor:
   
   Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not just using this as a figure of speech - I'm fully prepared to accept that I'm completely and totally 100% wrong on this if someone can point me to the actual laws governing this): but apart from the 'National Condition of Carriage' which *could possibily* be read in two different ways on this issue; train conductors don't actually have any other 'real' authority in this area. And by this I mean 'authority over a passenger' in the same sense that the captain of a cruise ship has authority over his passengers because they are bound by the International Maritime Laws of the Sea. All a conductor can do is, argue with the passenger, attempt to get them to remove said item/vacate extra seat, or call the BTP. But even then, I don't think the BTP could do anything unless 'breach of the peace' has occurred - because failure to remove a cello/plant/invisible 6ft bunny rabbit from a seat isn't actually a criminal offence is it? And breaking the National Conditions of Carriage isn't a criminal offence either - it is instead the same as any contract law breach, it is a 'civil offence' - and generally the police do not act in civil offence cases; instead the party of prosecution (the TOC) would have to raise a case in the courts, and call the defence (rich person with two tickets) to trial in a civil offence hearing. Quite how they would do this is an entirely different issue as it would cost a fortune and the TOC would have to 'prove damages'. Failure to act upon the orders of a train conductor/manager/etc isn't a criminal offence in law either (unless I'm wrong), and the police/courts can only act upon laws. So unless the issue is affecting public safety, TOCs actually have no formal authority on this matter. This might even apply to luggage left in vestibules that wasn't blocking an exit. I know that people generally follow the advice/orders of a conductor - but, in reality, this is more to do with goodwill than actual formal authority, and conductors can't really order anyone to do anything other than produce a valid ticket for their journey, technically under the current system. They also cannot order a cello/plant/invisible 6ft bunny rabbit to produce a ticket because it is not a person. And they can only remove said item from its location, if it is unaccompanied and suspected to be a bomb.
   
   You might think I'm being very contrary here and trying to start a argument, but I'm actually trying to highlight a very serious issue: it strikes me that this whole area of ticketing and seating needs to have its confusion cleared up. These instances are actually more common than people realise - and at the end of the day, however 'pompous' or 'unnecessary' you think it might be for someone to buy two tickets when they are only one person, it's a bit like people having 2 swimming pools in their garden... if they've got the money for it, and they want to do it - how can we stop them? I've got 2 cars, maybe you think that is excessive, but I'm sure to someone in the 3rd world having two pairs of shoes is a gratuitous excess.
   

 

[tony_mac]

Failure to act upon the orders of a train conductor/manager/etc isn't a criminal offence in law either (unless I'm wrong)

It is if the reason for the instruction is safety-related (byelaw 12.2).

But, I do think this thread is mostly pointless. If the guard didn't do anything, then other passengers probably would.
If someone tried to insist that others stood for hours just so they could spread out, then I imagine some sort of 'safety-related' incident is reasonably likely.

however 'pompous' or 'unnecessary' you think it might be for someone to buy two tickets when they are only one person, it's a bit like people having 2 swimming pools in their garden

No, it isn't like that at all.

and I wonder what a 'civil offence' is....

 

[NightatLaira]

A civil offence is a legal infringement which isn't criminal act... for instance: not paying your landlord, or... breaking the terms of an agreement of sale (as in the by-laws of the railway which you agree to adhere by when purchasing a rail ticket that is bound by the National Conditions of Carriage).

The problem with by-laws is that they are very difficult to inforce legally, and rely almost entirely upon case law, even when health and safety is involved.

A classic case from my own personal experience: (I used to be a lifeguard), we had these 14-15yo kids one day who were running a muck, breaking every rule in the pool, running, swearing, dive bombing in the shallow end, you name it! I and my colleagues had been blowing our whistles for half an hour, we'd already removed everyone else from the pool and refunded them, (health and safety), we were shouting, trying every trick in the book to try and get these fools to leave the pool, they wouldn't. [It is absolutely forbidden for a lifeguard to touch a child unless they're drowning.] Eventually we called the police. The police turned up. Said they couldn't do anything because technically there wasn't a criminal offence occurring because, we (the pool) had let them into our building, and even though they were breaking our 'by-laws', by-laws' aren't enforceable by the police because they are 'particulars to contract law', or in other words: 'breaking the rules of the swimming pool' was a 'civil offence', and all we could do was to carry on trying to get them to leave and then attempt to take them to court later on by launching a civil case over loss of earnings. Like that's going to happen... (they're under 18, probably no money, etc, etc).

It was ridiculous! But this is the kind of pickle you can end up with legally when you're arguing over something which is essentially a breach of contract, which breaking the National Conditions of Carriage is.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Breaking a byelaw is a criminal offence. The power to make them is handed down to public corporations and local authorities. Rules are not all byelaws but all byelaws are rules.

On the railway the byelaws are binding to anyone on railway property regardless of the purchase of a ticket, and are very different from the conditions of carriage.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Breaking a byelaw is a criminal offence. The power to make them is handed down to public corporations and local authorities. Rules are not all byelaws but all byelaws are rules.

On the railway the byelaws are binding to anyone on railway property regardless of the purchase of a ticket, and are very different from the conditions of carriage.

Exactly so and the National Railway Byelaws (2005) are in the main dealt with as a summary matter at a Magistrates Court hearing.

The majority carry potentially hefty fines. There are one or two odd ones with little or no penalty, but most are strict liability matters that if convicted carry a record of conviction by the court.

That's not the same as a recordable offence, but is a conviction nonetheless.

 

[NightatLaira]

Exactly so and the National Railway Byelaws (2005) are in the main dealt with as a summary matter at a Magistrates Court hearing.

The majority carry potentially hefty fines. There are one or two odd ones with little or no penalty, but most are strict liability matters that if convicted carry a record of conviction by the court.

That's not the same as a recordable offence, but is a conviction nonetheless.

Yes, but buying a ticket for an item that is not a human is not against any byelaws... you can check them all here:, and that is what this issue about.

There is also no byelaw that I can see about 'disobeying the instructions of a conductor'... Personally, I can't see how you could be prosecuted for failing to remove an item from a seat, whether you've bought a ticket for it or not. A magistrate would just throw any such case out of court.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
EDIT: Unless it is in breach of health and safety (i.e. blocking a fire escape) which a laptop bag would not be in breach of if placed on a seat. This is covered in section 12(1) and 12(2). See here

 

[tony_mac]

if the guard believes that it's a safety matter, then that is all it needs to have you removed, it doesn't matter if everyone else thinks it is perfectly safe.

There is also 'interfering with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.'
Merseyrail have frequently got prosecutions for passengers having their feet on the frame near the seats on this ground. (although I don't imagine any of them had decent representation).

 

[Flamingo]

I have come across this situation on busy trains where people have tried to keep bags on seats when there were more passengers on board than there were seats. Some of them have argued that the luggage was "valuable" in some way, some have argued that they had both seat reservations as their friend has not turned up, therefore they were entitled to the seat, regardless that it was needed by other paying passengers.

The end result in every case has been that the seat became available for other passengers. In some cases two seats became available as the passenger followed their luggage onto the platform, as it was removed from the train for causing an obstruction. I have never had to answer a complaint about this, as my managers have always agreed that I made the right decision.

Why should a fare-paying passenger have to stand because another passenger is selfish enough to think that they are entitled to two seats for a spurious reason?

The railway by-laws cover the situation perfectly well. If anybody wants to argue by-laws with the guard on the train, well, the guards decision, in that circumstance, is final. BTP do not have any power to over-ride the guard, or do control or any other managers who may happen to be travelling. Passengers can whinge on about it to customer services afterwards until the cows come home, but that is after the fact. (The situation is covered by FOITTM - The last three stand for I'm The Train Manager, work out the rest - it was taught to us in training)

Sorry if that upsets anybody, but that is the de-facto situation.

Passengers requiring two seats for a good reason (medical/disability/obese) is an entirly different situation, and I have always tried to deal with this professionally and sympathetically, sometimes by suggesting that the passenger re-locates to another seat where they might be more comfortable, sometimes by agreeing that they need two seats, and accommodating them accordingly. In these circumstances I wouldn't dream of charging somebody for two seats, and indeed, I don't think I would have any grounds on which to do so. The T&C do not allow for two tickets to be charged in this situation, any more than they allow for two tickets meaning two seats for one passenger is OK.

 

[saj]

Yes, also covered in CoC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Damn, bet me to it!

what if you had paid for the child's seat and had a valid ticket ?