Family and Friends Railcard Question...

[All Line Rover]

If a Family and Friends Railcard has two named cardholders - Mr A and Mrs B - would the following be permitted?

• Mr A is travelling with Child X on one set of tickets
• Mrs B is travelling with Child Y on one set of tickets
• Both sets of tickets are used at the same time, on the same Railcard.

I'm just asking because it would be handy to split an expensive journey down into smaller denominations when using lots of low value e-vouchers. (Don't ask how I got them. )

To summarise, can two sets of tickets be used on one Family Railcard at the same time, providing both adults (one adult on each set of tickets) are the named cardholders?

 

[MikeWh]

The tickets are only valid if accompanied by the railcard, so unless I'm misunderstanding you the answer is no.

 

[Old Timer]

Terms and conditions

Both the First named holder and the Second named holder must sign the Railcard before use to show acceptance of all the Conditions listed in this leaflet. The name of the Second holder must be provided at the time of purchase and may not be added during the period of validity of the Railcard.

The Railcard and tickets bought with it are not transferable and must not be given, loaned, or resold to anyone else. Only the named cardholder(s) can use the Railcard.

Group size: To enable discounted tickets to be used the minimum group is at least one child and one named Railcard holder. The maximum group size is up to four adults (aged 16 years and over) including the named cardholder(s), and four children (aged 5-15 years).

If the named holders travel separately, only one of the holders may use the Railcard.

ALL conditions are relevant.

 

[All Line Rover]

The tickets are only valid if accompanied by the railcard, so unless I'm misunderstanding you the answer is no.

They would all be accompanied by a Railcard. It's just that two sets of tickets would be used on the same Railcard.

E.g. Mr A and Mrs B are the named cardholders.

Mr A holds a Crewe to Manchester return ticket for 1 adult and 1 child
Mrs B holds a Crewe to Manchester return ticket for 1 adult and 1 child

Both groups sit together on the same train at the same time. Do they only need one Railcard?

Condition 4 of the Family Railcard T&C's states: If the named holders travel separately, only one of the holders may use the Railcard. The named holders are travelling on seperate tickets, but a still travelling together and both have the Railcard in their possession, so I'm not sure whether this condition is relevant.

ALL conditions are relevant.

I'm just questioning whether condition 4 is relevant to that particular scenario.

"The maximum group size is up to four adults (aged 16 years and over) including the named cardholder(s), and four children (aged 5-15 years)" and "If the named holders travel separately, only one of the holders may use the Railcard" seem contradictory for a scenario where 2 sets of tickets are being used.

Can a group be made up of different sets of tickets, providing that one named cardholder is in each set?

 

[transportphoto]

I don't get the question, if I am interpreting it correctly:

Mr A holds a family and friends railcard and is the only named holder, he wishes to travel with his child, Mrs B and her child from Crewe to Manchester. Mrs B wishes to buy her tickets separately from Mr A so she buys from the TVM a return for 1 adult and 1 child with the railcard from Crewe to Manchester while Mr A buys his (1 ad and 1 child) from the ticket office.

Even though the two sets of tickets have been bought in separate transactions they travel together showing the tickets with the one railcard to the ticket inspector.

I think that this is valid as there is a named card holder in the group and the four people are travelling together at all times, all holding valid ticket.

TP

 

[MarkyMarkD]

I don't understand why ALR thinks this could possibly NOT be valid?

It is irrelevant how many transactions you buy the tickets in. All that matters is that the individuals travel together.

It would be quite feasible in the example ALR gives for one parent and one child to travel from A to C, whilst the other parent and child just travel from A to B (where the route is A>B>C) as long as the parent still on the train between B and C holds on to the railcard.

There's also no good reason why you couldn't decide that additional people were going to join the party travelling, and hence buy further tickets to add to the original ones.

 

[MikeWh]

They would all be accompanied by a Railcard. It's just that two sets of tickets would be used on the same Railcard.

E.g. Mr A and Mrs B are the named cardholders.

Mr A holds a Crewe to Manchester return ticket for 1 adult and 1 child
Mrs B holds a Crewe to Manchester return ticket for 1 adult and 1 child

Both groups sit together on the same train at the same time. Do they only need one Railcard?

Condition 4 of the Family Railcard T&C's states: If the named holders travel separately, only one of the holders may use the Railcard. The named holders are travelling on seperate tickets, but a still travelling together and both have the Railcard in their possession, so I'm not sure whether this condition is relevant.

Ah, well that is just a group of two adults and two children. Usually all the tickets would be separate anyway, you don't get one ticket with a number of adults and a number of children printed on the ticket. The adult tickets would have FAM printed on them and the child would have CHFAM in reversed type.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be quite feasible in the example ALR gives for one parent and one child to travel from A to C, whilst the other parent and child just travel from A to B (where the route is A>B>C) as long as the parent still on the train between B and C holds on to the railcard.

There's also no good reason why you couldn't decide that additional people were going to join the party travelling, and hence buy further tickets to add to the original ones.

There is one potential good reason. If the people joining or alighting early have to go through a manned barrier then they might have problems if the railcard is still on the train.

 

[All Line Rover]

So it is valid then.

In the example I gave there was a named cardholder on each set of tickets - I didn't think of a scenario where there was a named cardholder on only 1 set!

Thanks for the clarification - I just wanted to make sure.

Another good example is where one adult and one child (dad - who is the named cardholder - and me) bought Advance tickets. Then at the last minute, another adult and child decided to come along (mum - who is the other named cardholder - and my younger brother), so they bought Off-Peak tickets. We could use just one Railcard for all of the tickets. Great!

 

[blakey1152]

So it is valid then.

In the example I gave there was a named cardholder on each set of tickets - I didn't think of a scenario where there was a named cardholder on only 1 set!

Thanks for the clarification - I just wanted to make sure.

Another good example is where one adult and one child (dad - who is the named cardholder - and me) bought Advance tickets. Then at the last minute, another adult and child decided to come along (mum - who is the other named cardholder - and my younger brother), so they bought Off-Peak tickets. We could use just one Railcard for all of the tickets. Great!

I just realised that your using two different ticket types although looking at the Family and Friends railcard terms and conditions I can't see why it wouldn't be valid however it does of course mean that the 2 people with the off-peak tickets are therefore restricting themselves to the exact same trains as that of the Advance ticket holders!

Chris

 

[MikeWh]

So it is valid then.

In the example I gave there was a named cardholder on each set of tickets - I didn't think of a scenario where there was a named cardholder on only 1 set!

Thanks for the clarification - I just wanted to make sure.

I do think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The railcard can be signed by two people (which would usually be partners) to allow flexibility within the family group. Obviously a lot of the time both partners will be in the group and this isn't a problem. As long as the group has no more than 4 adults, no more than 4 children, at least one child and at least one signatory, it doesn't matter who else is in it.

Another good example is where one adult and one child (dad - who is the named cardholder - and me) bought Advance tickets. Then at the last minute, another adult and child decided to come along (mum - who is the other named cardholder - and my younger brother), so they bought Off-Peak tickets. We could use just one Railcard for all of the tickets. Great!

I agree, as long as the group stayed together. The off-peak tickets wouldn't need to include one of the named cardholders either, so you could substitute your Aunt in place of Mum.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

OK, I see the barrier problem. And the fact that some would say that until you are off railway premises you really need to have the tickets and the railcard on your person.

If the whole party got off the train at "B" in my example, escorted the pair leaving the journey to the barrier, and then half of the party joined a later train from B to C, that would be fine I guess.

I've said before that it's rather unreasonable that you don't get two F&F railcards as two people are supposed to be able to use them - but others have disagreed! This sort of scenario is exactly one where it would be fair to be able to do what I am suggesting, but hard to avoid risk of problems in practice with just one card.

 

[MikeWh]

The option of two named card holders is so that partners could each use the card alone without having to purchase two cards. You are not getting unrestricted use by two people, just the ability for either partner to be the lead traveller.

 

[AlterEgo]

So it is valid then.

In the example I gave there was a named cardholder on each set of tickets - I didn't think of a scenario where there was a named cardholder on only 1 set!

Thanks for the clarification - I just wanted to make sure.

Another good example is where one adult and one child (dad - who is the named cardholder - and me) bought Advance tickets. Then at the last minute, another adult and child decided to come along (mum - who is the other named cardholder - and my younger brother), so they bought Off-Peak tickets. We could use just one Railcard for all of the tickets. Great!

Quite.

Indeed, in your original example, only one adult actually needs to be the named cardholder, as it's just a party of four.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

The option of two named card holders is so that partners could each use the card alone without having to purchase two cards. You are not getting unrestricted use by two people, just the ability for either partner to be the lead traveller.

I know that, but the current arrangement stops the two halves of the family using the card independently, on different days, unless they physically hand over the card. They could be in different parts of the UK and transferring the card could be impossible, but it still isn't unreasonable for them to want to do this.

 

[Old Timer]

I know that, but the current arrangement stops the two halves of the family using the card independently, on different days, unless they physically hand over the card. They could be in different parts of the UK and transferring the card could be impossible, but it still isn't unreasonable for them to want to do this.

And then you would end up with potentially both parties able to use the railcard to its maximum, thus potentially losing revenue and being unfair to everyone else.

 

[snail]

And then you would end up with potentially both parties able to use the railcard to its maximum, thus potentially losing revenue and being unfair to everyone else.

So you are saying that it is wrong for two named people to use the card independently because it abstracts revenue? If that was ATOC's reasoning they wouldn't allow two adults to be named. It is simultaneous use that they are prohibiting by issuing only one card.

 

[Old Timer]

So you are saying that it is wrong for two named people to use the card independently because it abstracts revenue? If that was ATOC's reasoning they wouldn't allow two adults to be named. It is simultaneous use that they are prohibiting by issuing only one card.

No, re-read my post again.

If BOTH parties had a Railcard then BOTH could use it to the maximum permitted number of people, ie, twice what the limit is now.

You can almost predict the questions on here now.

"I have a card and so does my Mrs, if we both travel with the maximum number of people, are we likely to get picked up, etc, etc.."

 

[MikeWh]

So you are saying that it is wrong for two named people to use the card independently because it abstracts revenue? If that was ATOC's reasoning they wouldn't allow two adults to be named. It is simultaneous use that they are prohibiting by issuing only one card.

That doesn't follow at all. You could say that the current card discriminates against families with 5 or more kids. The line has to be drawn somewhere. They have decided that the card (like all railcards) must have an authorised holder (or else you could just share it amongst all your friends). They have decided that the maximum number of kids is 4. They have recognised that while dad takes his kids to football, mum might prefer to go shopping; while when dad has to work in half term, mum might want to take the kids out for the day. They might feel that the number of journeys with one of the partners on their own would not justify purchase of another card and might therefore result in those journeys being made by car. They therefore agreed that two people can be named as the authorised holder. It's still just one card though, so only one card is issued.

Just like a family of 5 kids might have to pay full price for one of them, if husband and wife go to different places for a period they may have to weigh up which partner will get the most use of the card.

 

[OwlMan]

I know that, but the current arrangement stops the two halves of the family using the card independently, on different days, unless they physically hand over the card. They could be in different parts of the UK and transferring the card could be impossible, but it still isn't unreasonable for them to want to do this.

If they want two cards they can buy two cards on in each name - its their choice if they want to buy one card or two cards.

Peter

 

[snail]

If they want two cards they can buy two cards on in each name - its their choice if they want to buy one card or two cards.

Or 'lose' one and get a replacement for a fiver.