Anomoly?

Discussion in 'Fares Advice & Policy' started by devon_metro, 14 Apr 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. me123

    me123 Established Member

    Messages:
    8,520
    Joined:
    9 Jul 2007
    Not saying they did, just that they should have.

    Presuming that most stations have computers available, could they not upload the routeing guide to a disk and send it to TOCs, who should then distribite the disks to all stations? The good thing here is that you have an electronic version on the internet already, and you wouldn't need one disk for each station; they could "share" it amongst a group of local stations, as long as it diesn't need the disk to run of course.

    That could be updated via the web (much in the same way as itunes is every so often) with a new version released every time there's a major update for those stations without internet access.
     
  2. yorkie

    yorkie Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    44,323
    Joined:
    6 Jun 2005
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    The fact that stations have old manuals does not make the manuals valid, and I think everyone accepts that. So there is no excuse to pretend that a 12 year old copy of the RG is valid.

    Yes, it's ATOCs fault that a new copy is not provided, but if someone is capable of seeing the ATOC website and sees that their own copy is woefully up to date and still claims that their 96 copy is more valid than the 2008 copy, then that view needs to be challenged.
     
  3. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    Thank you Tom C for your posts, I can understand you not wanting to take sides.

    Retail manual updates and such are delivered to stations through a publishing company called tso. They, however, do not ever mention the routeing guide, even on the web. This presumably means ATOC does not even tell them.

    When I got the post at this station there was three almost complete VT sections in the RM2!! So any updates do actually need to be put in, or taken out, as the case arises.

    The Fastis ticket machine has updates from Cubic, who, I think, set up RJIS. Atoc swears by RJIS. I don't have RJIS though, so can't say what it says. I may try and get hold of someone I used to know well, that may still have access to it.

    I have had an initial response to my request from Northern, which says "As a rule, if Fastis allows it then it is valid. If it is obviously wrong, as [the] example on the ATOC site, then it requires amending." This implies that Fastis may be wrong, but that I must assume it is right, until it says otherwise, unless I know it to be wrong, which would be unusual, particularly if it is regularly updated.

    I fail to see how a clerk can discard a document which, due to no updates, (s)he considers valid and if the machine which (s)he is using states the same routes. Just because someone has the ability to check a web page doesn't mean that they will check it if there is no apparent reason to do so, particularly, as Tom C states, as no instructions are given to use the online guide.

    Clerks are forbidden from downloading anything to Company equipment that has not been virus checked by the IT department and, in this case, ratified by the pricing policy department of the relevant company. This would mean that by the time the update disc has got round it would probably be out of date anyway.

    How can a 1996 route guide be more valid than a 2008 guide?

    I am being picky here, but:

    Quote from the National Conditions of Carraige (ATOC) as currently displayed on the national rail website (published July 06):

    "13. The route you are entitled to take
    (a) ....
    (iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide
    (details as to how you can obtain this information will be available
    when you buy your ticket)."

    The only information that is "officially" available at the ticket office is the 96 guide (as it has not been withdrawn or updated) and therefore any route must be contained within it, unless we can ignore the binding agreement between customer and railway because it is two years old and has clearly out of date information in it.

    As I say, just being picky.
     
  4. paul1609

    paul1609 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,476
    Joined:
    28 Jan 2006
    Location:
    Wittersham Kent
    I think the reality of these situations are that the TOCs would not defend them in Court.
    On another thread I discussed the purchase of tickets to London St Pancras from Southern Stations and a Thameslink employee suggest that I would be Penalty Fared for using a ticket issued at a Southern Station to London Terminals even though I'd entered St Pancras in the Ticket Vending machine. I think that technically he is right but the reality is that Thameslink and Southern have known about the problems for some time and have not taken any action to correct the errors. Given that this is the case I think it very unlikely they would take me to court when I refused to pay the penaly fare.
     
  5. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    I have seen this problem from the side of the arrival station, but with a passenger from Biggleswade. He had travelled to Kings Cross, gone over to KXTL and been allowed through the barrier by agency staff (contracted by Thameslink) and travelled on to City. There was a block by RPIs that day and it was picked up that he had a season ticket from Biggleswade to London Terminals. He claimed he had stated he was travelling to City when he bought the ticket, they decided to let him go but advised him that next time he bought it, he was to ask for a travelcard.

    In the case of the TVM, there would be little grounds to penalty fare for it as you stated that you pressed St Pancras, but I suspect that if the RPIs actually stopped you, they would ask you to pay the difference and if you refused this would be grounds for possible prosecution, but, in all likelyhood, unless you are a serial offender, they'll probably just take your details and you'll never hear of it.

    Some RPIs are good at their job and get around the stations to find these things out. I remember being on a train home and an RPI came through and stopped a man sat opposite me. He seemed kinda genuine because he said where he was actually going to and from, rather than last stop to next stop. His excuse was terrible however, he claimed when he entered City station he saw the train pull in and ran for it. This RPI had often been to City and knew you could not see the train from the entrance and penalty fared him.
     
  6. Tom C

    Tom C Member

    Messages:
    549
    Joined:
    4 Jul 2005
    May I ask if you have ever worked in revenue before or you are just guessing with your comments??

    If an inspector is presented with a ticket that isn't valid then he has every right to charge a penalty fare and its down to the passenger to appeal against the decision. If you refuse to pay then you will be issued with a MG11 statement where you will be cautioned and questioned and its down to the companies prosecution department to make its decision as to what action is taken. Thats not to say that you have to pay the full penalty fare and that the company will take further action, its what could happen. From experience it is unlikely however that people will just do nothing however and to tell people so gives them the wrong information.
     
  7. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    I used to work at City and knew a lot of the RPIs down there. If they could avoid paperwork they would.

    I didn't mean to imply that PFs would never happen, but that if someone claimed to have pressed the correct button there is no real way of proving there was intent to avoid the fare and the fact that the ticket is very nearly right may sway the RPI to be that bit more leanient. If they had a Bedford to Flitwick ticket and went to London they would be PF'd, no doubt.

    If the passenger was regular, and there would be no reason to think otherwise, they may just have pressed the wrong button and not realised. Common sense is the way forward, or so the RPI manager of the time, a friend of mine, thought.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page