Ambiguity of "Any Permitted"?

Discussion in 'Fares Advice & Policy' started by rdwarr, 6 Mar 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eagle

    Eagle Established Member

    Messages:
    7,106
    Joined:
    20 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
    You've misunderstood me; being as you're just repeating my point. You need to take into account station interchange times.
     
  2. sheff1

    sheff1 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,262
    Joined:
    24 Dec 2009
    Location:
    Sheffield
    This is basically the system in Germany, but the ticketing there is predicated on single tickets. There is no advantage in booking a return ticket as it would merely be twice the cost of the single. On your way back you make your routing choice and buy another single ticket depending on the circumstances prevailing at the time.


    I certainly have misunderstood you. Lets just say we agree.:D
     
    Last edited: 7 Mar 2012
  3. yorkie

    yorkie Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    44,150
    Joined:
    6 Jun 2005
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    That is one thing that would be a genuine simplification: if singles were priced at half of the current cost of returns. However there is no chance of that happening as TOCs make too much money from people buying expensive singles or paying more to return at a later date.
     
  4. IanD

    IanD Established Member

    Messages:
    2,636
    Joined:
    18 Sep 2011
    Location:
    Newport Pagnell
    Any "permitted routes" or "any permitted" routes??
     
  5. MKB

    MKB Member

    Messages:
    464
    Joined:
    15 Oct 2008
    Since we have only 15 characters to play with, how about?:

    Route:
    ANY VALID ROUTE
     
  6. DaveNewcastle

    DaveNewcastle Established Member Fares Advisor

    Messages:
    7,397
    Joined:
    21 Dec 2007
    Location:
    Newcastle (unless I'm out)
    Good try, but I regret that the suggestion of "Route: ANY VALID ROUTE" doesn't help us.

    Why? Because it could only have a meaning, if ever, if the alternative meanings could apply.

    They couldn't.
    (Those meanings would have to include that in some journeys, tickets could be issued stating 'Route' "INCLUDING INVALID ROUTES".)
     
  7. tony_mac

    tony_mac Established Member

    Messages:
    3,594
    Joined:
    25 Feb 2009
    Location:
    Liverpool
    I think 'SEE REVERSE' fits into 15 characters ;)

    Now I see why they have cut down the text about the NRCoC - it's so that they can fit bigger adverts onto the back!

    There isn't.
    From my brief look around, Northern ticket offices have them - their TVMs do not. I have not seen any such notice at a Virgin ticket office or TVM.
    They have many other notices, which would make one difficult to find, but I did spend some time looking (while trying not to spook the ticket office staff!).
     
    Last edited: 8 Mar 2012
  8. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    What happens if, at 0745, the 0830 train is advertised as being 25 minutes late?

    What happens if, on a different day at 0805, the 0830 train is advertised as being 50 minutes late and the 0900 is advertised as being 'stuck behind it'?

    Suppose you have a 'fastest route' involving a 45 minute suggested connection from say Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly which runs only every hour. What happens if you make that connection in 20 minutes and arrive at Piccadilly in time for a quicker train operated by a different TOC and running by a different route?

    In these situations, the shortest route is still the shortest route.

    Then that needs to be reported (makes me wonder about the auditing process they both have).
     
  9. AndyLandy

    AndyLandy Established Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    Joined:
    30 Oct 2011
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    The ticketing and routeing doesn't need to cover these eventualities. That's why we have station masters and guards. I've found that almost invariably, if there are delays or problems, railway staff are always incredibly accommodating and will advise on what you should do. A route which isn't permitted normally could very easily be permitted in extenuating circumstances.
     
  10. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    There needs to be a boundary where the rules say it is not okay. Right now we know that if we are not using a direct train and we are not on the shortest route and we are not on a route that is shown in the Routeing Guide, then, unless there is an easement, we are not on a "permitted route". A delay to one train won't alter that, regardless of how the staff react to the situation.

    If you change that to, or add further routes because of, "the fastest route", then there needs to be a boundary for what is and is not allowed.
     
  11. cuccir

    cuccir Established Member

    Messages:
    3,263
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2009
    Entirely agree. I'd keep the shortest/permitted route rule, but have fastest as an addition. Yes it would need refining, and decisions would have to be made re: delays, late trains, first/last trains of the day. In principle, though, it's a case of making a robust choice and sticking to it

    One answer, which removes most of these questions, is: if in normal running circumstances (ie overlooking engineering works/cancellations/late trains/people interchanging faster than minimum recommended times) a route CAN be the quickest way between two stations, then it is ALWAYS valid, even at times when it is not the quickest. After this, all we need to do is to put in adequate caveats to deal with odd routings that occur overnight or on Sundays, and to maintain that doubling back is not permitted*, and we're away.

    *Except where it is ;)
     
  12. sheff1

    sheff1 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,262
    Joined:
    24 Dec 2009
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Exactly. Routing, of whatever sort, is based on timetabled trains. If there are disturbances to the timetable on any particular day, staff are able to advise and assist.
     
  13. MarkyMarkD

    MarkyMarkD Member

    Messages:
    504
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2009
    Location:
    Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
    I posted this earlier but it didn't appear because I am away from home in a hotel with an abysmal wifi connection!

    I don't think it is necessary to revise the NRCOC wording to allow "fastest route" instead of "shortest route". Instead, the allowed routeing guide routes - or maps - ought to always permit the fastest route.

    I think the problem with the present routeing guide is that it seeks to "get away" with far too few maps, whereas a greater number of maps, but more discernment of which map is truly appropriate to a particular journey, will produce the best outcome for the vast majority of customers.

    As others have posted, generally speaking the ability for a ticket from A to Z to allow travel via A, B, C, Z and also A, B, D, M, N, Z is rather less important than providing for every reasonable route between A and Z being permitted.

    As things stand, the status quo favours the rare few who understand the routeing guide, at the expense of the vast majority who do not.
     
  14. sheff1

    sheff1 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,262
    Joined:
    24 Dec 2009
    Location:
    Sheffield
    I would argue the complete opposite. The 1997 version of the RG contained 26 maps, the current version has 125. I know which one was easier to use (and needed far less 'easements').

    It is this proliferation which, in my view, leads to :

     
    Last edited: 9 Mar 2012
  15. 34D

    34D Established Member

    Messages:
    6,030
    Joined:
    9 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Indeed. Converseley if he bought the more expensive route (via London in this case) his ticket would be valid on the cheaper route aswell (please will someone validate for me that this is correct in most circumstances).
     
  16. AndyLandy

    AndyLandy Established Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    Joined:
    30 Oct 2011
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    At the very least, you would be able to excess a "+London" ticket to a "Not London" one for no charge. I've excessed tickets both ways round travelling between Southampton and Crewe.
     
  17. bb21

    bb21 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    23,557
    Joined:
    4 Feb 2010
    This is correct, officially, however sometimes guards don't really want to faff about with the hassle of paperwork associated with the issue of a zero-excess.
     
  18. AndyLandy

    AndyLandy Established Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    Joined:
    30 Oct 2011
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    In this instance, a "Not London" fare is set by CrossCountry and the "+London" one is set by Virgin. I'd have thought there'd be a revenue incentive for a guard on XC to issue a zero-excess re-routing? Or does it not work like that? :)
     
  19. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    The excess fare has no value so no revenue is given for it, hence some guards don't bother
     
  20. AndyLandy

    AndyLandy Established Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    Joined:
    30 Oct 2011
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    Sorry, I mean that by excessing from London to Not London, I'm not paying any extra, but presumably ORCATS would allocate the existing ticket fare to XC instead of VT?
     
  21. MarkyMarkD

    MarkyMarkD Member

    Messages:
    504
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2009
    Location:
    Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
    I think HHF knew that - but the guard wouldn't earn any commission by selling it because there is no net fare payable by the passenger.
     
  22. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    I am of the understanding that the ORCATs revenue from the original ticket would be untouched and the revenue from a zero fare excess would be zero. Maybe someone else knows better.
     
  23. DaveNewcastle

    DaveNewcastle Established Member Fares Advisor

    Messages:
    7,397
    Joined:
    21 Dec 2007
    Location:
    Newcastle (unless I'm out)
    That is my understanding too. But the ORCATS model of disribution is something of a secret, so I do not really know.

    However, this question raises the broader suggestion that somehow the issue of an excess can affect how the revenue from the original ticket is distributed, and that was not a process which I understood could be applied.
     
  24. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    The only thing that links an excess to another ticket is a five digit number that could potentially come from any ticket machine in the country and with the only clue being the reason for the excess (which isn't very descriptive) I'm not sure how easy it would be to re-distribute the original money anyway.
     
  25. yorkie

    yorkie Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    44,150
    Joined:
    6 Jun 2005
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    My understanding is that, when an excess is issued, the revenue for the original ticket is not re-allocated. It would be difficult to see how the revenue could be re-allocated anyway. But it is important to remember that revenue never determines validity. It is a limitation of the software & procedures used by the rail industry that this revenue is not re-allocated.

    If single tickets were priced at half the cost of return tickets, there would be much less need for excess fares to be issued. However the TOCs choose not to make that change, for various reasons (that have been discussed elsewhere and are beyond the scope of this thread).

    Today two forum members attempted to obtain straightforward excess fares at a major London terminal. One was issued immediately and correctly by a knowledgeable member of staff, but a few ticket windows along, and the discussion lasted over 10 minutes as the member of staff did not know how to issue it, but even when instructions from a colleague were forthcoming the transaction was ultimately refused (so a complaint will be made to the TOC concerned). The customer chose to travel via a different route as he had run out of time to 'shop around' and ask at the other counter.

    Obtaining excesses is often a lottery. In some cases the customer must (attempt) to purchase the excess before boarding, in other cases that is not necessary, depending on the reason for/type of excess.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page