-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
ATOC unhappy about splitting fares
- Thread starter yorkie
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
I'm not sure Mr Wakeford even knows why many split ticket combinations are cheaper than just a single ticket.
In the latter part of BR days fares were set by the Business Sectors (InterCity, Network SouthEast and Regional Railways) and pricing by strict distance had given way to selective pricing by route quality and market as long ago as 1968. This continued in privatisation.
Tickets which are unregulated such as Anytime Singles and Returns can be raised in price by however much the TOC setting the fare deems it should. TOCs however rarely agree this rate of increase and thus we are left with some TOCs increasing their unregulated fares at higher rates than others.
Take the example of Penzance to Birmingham
The through fare is set by Arriva Cross Country (previously Virgin Cross Country)
Anytime Return- £210.00
If you split the fare at Cheltenham Spa you get the following
Penzance to Cheltenham Spa (Set by First Great Western)
Anytime Return- £78.40
Cheltenham Spa to Birmingham (Set by Arriva Cross Country although until recently this was set by Central Trains)
Anytime Return- £26.50
If people turn up at the booking office at Penzance they are entitled under the rules of railway retailing to ask for the latter two tickets to be issued on demand. The total is £78.40 + £26.50, which is £104.90. Armed with these two tickets priced by FGW and Cross Country, they can then join the Virgin train at the platform and do the journey for which Arriva Cross Country charges £210.00! They have legitimately saved £105.10 (50%) and this is open to any user. The only criterion is that the train must stop where the tickets join—but as all Arriva Cross Country services call at Cheltenham this is no problem whatsoever!
This is due to the fact First Great Western and its predecessors raised their unregulated fares at much lower rates than Virgin Cross Country and Arriva Cross Country have. This is becoming wide-spread and will get worse because as each year goes by the gap widens as some operators continue to raise fares at a higher rate than others.
Can it be fair that someone not armed with this knowledge is effectively paying £105.10 more than he or she needs to just because of a system that allows one operator to charge more than others to travel in the same train for the same journey? Of course not, but people like Andy Wakeford who pretend to be from an independent body like ATOC but who really, are funded by and represent the TOCs, just make the issue worse by pretending it isn't an issue.
Last edited:
voyagerdude220
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 3,276
Your Penzance example has nothing to do with Virgin anymore!
Cross Country have increased the fares, away from what Virgin orginally set the fare as, before Arriva took over..
Yes, Virgin increased it before Arriva took over, but that's exactly what every other TOC did at the time as well.. :roll:
Cross Country have increased the fares, away from what Virgin orginally set the fare as, before Arriva took over..
Yes, Virgin increased it before Arriva took over, but that's exactly what every other TOC did at the time as well.. :roll:
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
Not sure you understand at all or have read what I have posted. Yes every other TOCs increased their fares as well at the same time but they increased their fares at DIFFERENT rates. When fares are increased at DIFFERENT rates it creates situations where one fare rises higher than another.
Also yes I realise it has nothing to do with Virgin anymore but they did run the franchise for 10 years and thus set the fare for 10 years.
voyagerdude220
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 3,276
I read and fully understood your post.. (i didn't randomly fire off my post without reading yours first..)
My point, is that Arriva Cross Country have sharply increased walk-up fares on their trains, making the problem of differential increases even worse.
A daft argument as Virgin increased it massively over a 10-year period. Yes XC have continued that trend, but that does not make VT blameless. But this is not about blaming VT - or any other individual operator.
The issue is that splitting fares - for any reason - is totally legitimate and is our RIGHT to do that, but the TOCs make it hard for us to do that and rich ATOC spokespeople who never have to pay these fares try to suggest their customers are getting good value if they do not split tickets (wrong) and suggest that customers should not be doing it (also wrong). These people need to be brought down to Earth and forced to appreciate that for the majority of people in this country £210 is NOT good value for Penzance to Birmingham (for example).
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
Arriva Cross Country did increase their unregulated by an average of 11% in January but this was on top of Virgin Cross Country's fare rises at one of the highest rates of all TOCs for 10 years.
They can save a bit more by splitting the Didcot to London fare at Reading:
Didcot - Reading OffPeak Day Single £4.90 (the 08:00 from Bristol is the first train from Didcot on which this fare is available)
Reading - Paddington Anytime Day Single £18.00
saving a further £1.10
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
That only works if you travel Off Peak though. The comparison they were giving was a direct comparison as neither the Anytime Day Single or the Anytime Single has any restrictions.
I don't understand though, how people are assuming that everyone wants the fares lowered?? Obviously most people do - but how do they assume this from one or two people talking on the TV saying they want it to happen? You can't generalise from one or two people...
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
I think that everyone (except those in mental institutions) would rather lower fares however if the general consequences, like reduced investment in new carriages/lines, of those lower fares outweigh the personal benefits you gain then people may think twice.
Dennis
Established Member
I think ATOC are getting worried that the general public are finally realising that splitting can save them a lot of money, hence spending less (but presumably increasing passenger numbers).
Some ATOC joker (possibly AW, didn't catch the start) was on the BBC news channel earlier today and I nearly choked on my lunch when he intimated that splitting tickets constituted misuse of the ticketing system.
Some ATOC joker (possibly AW, didn't catch the start) was on the BBC news channel earlier today and I nearly choked on my lunch when he intimated that splitting tickets constituted misuse of the ticketing system.
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
A similar example involving Diddyland...
Reading to Bristol Temple Meads, Anytime ticket: £106.00
Reading to Diddyland, Anytime: £7.80
Diddyland to Bristol Templemeads, Anytime: £42.60
So total cost £50.40. Less than half the cost of buying a full ticket.
For those travelling on an annual season ticket...
Reading to Bristol Temple Meads: £6,964.00
Reading to Diddyland: £1428.00
Diddyland to Bristol: £4700.00
Not quite so impressive, but still offers a £836.00 saving.
Just have to make sure the service stops at Diddyland.
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
I suppose it depends where in Bristol you are travelling but if you use that combination on a season ticket basis you are then restricted from using most of the service between Bristol Parkway and Reading as they do not call at Didcot Parkway and you are combining two season tickets. If you are going to Temple Meads this would be an efficient way to save though.
Techniquest
Veteran Member
Mr. Wakewood needs to wake up and smell the coffee quite frankly. I would rant on and on and on at him, but I'm not got the patience to do so right now. Maybe a job for tomorrow...
Splitting fares is not illegal (as people on other forums have reported being told at more than one location), but I know for fact it's in the NCoC. Anyone know which bit is relevant for this, as I threw out my NCoC some time ago and they're a bi-atch to find these days (used to find them on display in Advanced Travel Offices all over the network). If I ever get accused of it being illegal, I'd like to know so I can quote them the relevant number.
Anyway, I'll treat you all with a massive rant on this subject tomorrow...
Splitting fares is not illegal (as people on other forums have reported being told at more than one location), but I know for fact it's in the NCoC. Anyone know which bit is relevant for this, as I threw out my NCoC some time ago and they're a bi-atch to find these days (used to find them on display in Advanced Travel Offices all over the network). If I ever get accused of it being illegal, I'd like to know so I can quote them the relevant number.
Anyway, I'll treat you all with a massive rant on this subject tomorrow...
FWIW, they can be found in PDF form on the national rail website - http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/nrcc/
Last edited:
devon_metro
Established Member
Off peak there are two trains per hour that stop at Didcot in the direction of Bristol. xx30 Paddington - Bristol Temple Meads, xx15 Paddington - Cardiff. Its not really that convenient. I guess we can blame sectorisation and the wonderful BR for this. West of Didcot was counted as "intercity" so you paid more, whilst Didcot was part of NSE.
87015
Established Member
No. The Didcot-Bristol is cheaper than you'd expect because it was a new/reduced fair introduced for the Thames/GW (Can't remember) Oxford-Bristol turbo service rather than an inherited fare structure from BR.
Most of the problems stem from the way the original CDRs were changed/withdrawn for longer distance journeys. I'm told that many years ago you could get the equivalent of a CDR for any length journey. But a while back longer distance CDRs were changed to SuperSavers, at the same price but valid for 1 month although not on Fridays (and some summer Saturdays) but then the SSRs were either withdrawn completely or increased at a rate higher than CDRs. Yet for shorter journeys many CDRs remain good value. Hence splitting is cheaper.
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
Well seeing as I was discussing Season Ticket Holders (as opposed to Off-Peak travellers who have an even cheaper fare splitting at Didcot and Reading) I was focussing on the peak hours of travel where there is gaps of an hour sometimes between services between Bristol Parkway and Didcot!
The comparison the article was giving was between the 'through' fare and 'split' fare for travel on the 08:00 from Temple Meads to Paddington. The 08:00 is 'off peak' for travel between Didcot and Reading.
If they meant something else they should have picked an example train to show that (or not given any specific train).
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
Even so the combination of tickets splitting at Reading and Didcot is not a direct comparison with the through ticket as it reduces the flexibility the through ticket gives you. I do realise you slightly reduce the flexiblity by not purchasing through tickets and splitting at Reading but that isn't a timing restriction just a routeing restriction (via SWT)
Last edited:
I can't believe anyone would say this, particularly someone who works for ATOC. How can you say that split ticketing is not being used as intended; it's clearly stated in the NRCoC that you can do any journey by splitting tickets at any intermediate station.
The rules are far too complex on this in my opinion, but the simplest rule is that for a journey A to B via C, you can travel with tickets for A to C and C to B, and the rest is irrelevant. I hope he looks back on this and realises that what he's said is pretty silly to say the least.
Of course, this situation shouldn't be arising; splitting tickets should be the same price as the through ticket, but if we say that they'll probably send all the fares through the roof.
The rules are far too complex on this in my opinion, but the simplest rule is that for a journey A to B via C, you can travel with tickets for A to C and C to B, and the rest is irrelevant. I hope he looks back on this and realises that what he's said is pretty silly to say the least.
Of course, this situation shouldn't be arising; splitting tickets should be the same price as the through ticket, but if we say that they'll probably send all the fares through the roof.
Failed Unit
Established Member
I know many examples exist but years ago the 07:00 London - Newcastle was highlighted. I am sure that under BR a saver was allowed on this service but not anymore.
Anytime return = £266,
Combo
London - Peterborough any-time = £87
Peterborough - Newcaster "off-peak" but valid anytime = £84
Total cost = £171
£95 saved, the only price to pay is to ensure your return journey stops at Peterborough.
In the old days before the barriers you could use the 0700 service to Berwick and just get off at Newcastle which would have cost £167, however this is not legal and if you get caught at Newcastle you would be excessed. I know this is not how they intend the system to work, but if you are going to save that kind of money what do they expect. In my example I would even take the 0635 and get of at Peterborough and have a coffee to save £95
Anytime return = £266,
Combo
London - Peterborough any-time = £87
Peterborough - Newcaster "off-peak" but valid anytime = £84
Total cost = £171
£95 saved, the only price to pay is to ensure your return journey stops at Peterborough.
In the old days before the barriers you could use the 0700 service to Berwick and just get off at Newcastle which would have cost £167, however this is not legal and if you get caught at Newcastle you would be excessed. I know this is not how they intend the system to work, but if you are going to save that kind of money what do they expect. In my example I would even take the 0635 and get of at Peterborough and have a coffee to save £95
The ECML fares situation is a lot more complex than that, and to give a full answer would probably require a dedicated topic! But basically the 0700 NCL-KGX is not a 'peak' train and SVRs were originally valid on it, and are valid on it now. The problem is that SVRs are hideously expensive on that route due to stealth rises. SSRs are the true "Savers" and are not valid, but you are correct that splitting at PBO can be a good deal - and even more so if travelling at times when the fast FCC services run and the FCC only ticket then becomes worth it.
metrocammel
Member
If you read between the lines, it appears Mr. Wakewood, and ATOC in general regard this as a 'loophole', rather than a condition. I'm sure if there are any more 'fare simplifications' they will attempt to block this loophole. They have already imposed draconian restrictions on tickets that have traditionally been very flexible for business usage- so what is to stop them imposing a restriction along the lines you must alight from the train / station if you wish to split tickets (or similar?) They would have to think carefully about the wording, however I'm sure they could spoil ticket splitting somehow!
paul1609
Established Member
In all fairmess I have to agree with Mr Wakewood on that one. No ticket retailer should be forced to sell a combination of tickets they should only be required to sell tickets priced from that station or that general area. I can see that there are genuine reasons why someone would be combining tickets but these should be limited to trains that stop at the station full stop.
There should be a nationwide rule on off peak tickets that they are not available before 9,30 full stop.
The problem is that many journeys in the regions are unrealistically cheap because they have traditionally enjoyed an obscene subsidy from the Govt.
I say obscene because the subsidy is provided by tax payers in areas such as my home town where the tax payers actually enjoy a lower standard of living than those in the regions they are subsidising. Its unfair and should end-full stop.
While I do see the argument that very high fares are a bad thing, and the ticket system at times seems bizzare - I believe there are 100 million combinations across the network. This all comes back to whether we want the railway to operate as a business or as a public service.
If you want it to act as a business, then expect the railway, like any other business to price its services using market forces - based on flows, elasticity and so on. All business do this, an example is the 6 packs of coke not for resale bought from supermarkets.
Remember cheap only works on volume, and where there is a finite resource expect that price to rise where there is demand. Economics 101.
If you want to run it as a service, expect to pay subsidy. As we can see from the post above, its something that some people don't like paying, then propose network reduction. This may also lead to more trains running around with thin air and/or overcrowded as simple, basic fares are not a flexible way to handle demand.
Finally a lot of people say 'bad customer service' (not a criticism, an observation) when a business is not run the way they want it run as, in this case I can see there are good reasons not to offer 100 million ticket combinations at machines designed to aid passenger flow. Even though, as a passenger, it doesn't work in my favour price wise. In the real world these things must be balanced out and passengers would only complain of long queues or overcrowded trains if the fares are too cheap compared to the available seats. There is an argument to say, we should expand network capacity, but again, this comes back to people that don't want to pay for public investment in the railways or finite resources/business cases.
As enthusiasts in my view we should be looking at things from a whole, and trying to work out why things are done rather than just levelling criticism because it sounds good.
If you want it to act as a business, then expect the railway, like any other business to price its services using market forces - based on flows, elasticity and so on. All business do this, an example is the 6 packs of coke not for resale bought from supermarkets.
Remember cheap only works on volume, and where there is a finite resource expect that price to rise where there is demand. Economics 101.
If you want to run it as a service, expect to pay subsidy. As we can see from the post above, its something that some people don't like paying, then propose network reduction. This may also lead to more trains running around with thin air and/or overcrowded as simple, basic fares are not a flexible way to handle demand.
Finally a lot of people say 'bad customer service' (not a criticism, an observation) when a business is not run the way they want it run as, in this case I can see there are good reasons not to offer 100 million ticket combinations at machines designed to aid passenger flow. Even though, as a passenger, it doesn't work in my favour price wise. In the real world these things must be balanced out and passengers would only complain of long queues or overcrowded trains if the fares are too cheap compared to the available seats. There is an argument to say, we should expand network capacity, but again, this comes back to people that don't want to pay for public investment in the railways or finite resources/business cases.
As enthusiasts in my view we should be looking at things from a whole, and trying to work out why things are done rather than just levelling criticism because it sounds good.
Last edited:
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
This is an interesting point. ATOC have absolutely no power in changes to the NRCOC. The DfT are the body with this power, although I am unsure in the procedures needed for them to change the conditions. Obviously the NRCOC is your contract with the TOCs and it is the minimum standard both the passenger and the TOC must live up to. I don't know if the conditions can be changed easily in a way that would remove some of your rights. The last change undertaken in 2006 merely clarified some ambiguous points under the direction of the OFT.
The problem with this is that 0930 does not suit all locations as a time when off peak tickets should become valid. There are many circumstances where even under the current system various stations have easements allowing you to travel on earlier trains than the restriction code states. If we were to simplify all restriction codes it would leave an ungodly amount of easements in my opinion and probably outcry where previously unrestricted Off Peak Returns become restricted etc.
- Status