Getting off a stop early on an advance

[hairyhandedfool]

.... Leaving the station (except to get a train from another station and/or under instruction from rail staff and/or if you cannot complete your journey that day) is breaking your journey. So saying you are not allowed to break your journey except to change trains does appear to allow people to leave station premises while changing trains (e.g. some people may use this opportunity for a smoke e.g. Butts )....

So, if I have a connecting train at Doncaster, I can go to Sainsburys in Doncaster because I am changing trains at Doncaster Station? You get that from "Customers may not start, break and resume, or end their journey at any intermediate station except to change to/ from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary"?

....However I think that if someone said they wanted to get an earlier train specifically go to shopping, that's not permitted. But if they happened to have a long connection time and wanted to do some shopping while they're there, that does appear to be permitted....

Oh this gets better, so if my connection is 55 minutes at Doncaster, I can go shopping, but if it is 20 minutes I can't? Or perhaps 55 minutes isn't a sufficiently long connection and I need to tell the train planner I want three hours in Doncaster?

Is that not contradicted by.....

.... Leaving the station (except to get a train from another station and/or under instruction from rail staff and/or if you cannot complete your journey that day) is breaking your journey....

So unless the 'shopping' happens to be on station or railway premises, or trains now depart from Sainsburys, I don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

Of course it's all open to interpretation....

Really? I mean, really really?

 

[yorkie]

This is ridiculous , for example
I book an advance ticket from east Croydon to eastbourne on a 9.30 train for example . I plan to meet my friend at Eastbourne .

I board the train at east Croydon , my friend rings me and says they are in Lewes can I meet them there instead .
Now according to the rules I can't end my journey at Lewes even though I have paid the fare upto Eastbourne and the train I am on stops at Lewes.

Technically, yes, that is correct. And yes, many people do agree it is ridiculous (including the media, there have been negative articles written about the Rail industry about this).

It would be at the discretion of the gateline staff at Lewes whether or not to let you exit the station without further charge, or to charge an excess fare* priced at the difference between the price you paid and the cheapest (Super) Off Peak (Day) Single ticket that have entitled you to travel between East Croydon and Lewes (as per NRCoC).

There is the alternative option of purchasing an additional single ticket from the destination on your ticket to your actual destination (see above post by DaveNewcastle regarding that scenario) and requesting permission to not double-back.

(*And before anyone mentions the Eastleigh Penalty Fare incident with Megatrain, I will pre-empt that by saying that the Penalty Fare was successfully appealed, according to a source within SWT. As we said at the time a PF is not appropriate for finishing short).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, if I have a connecting train at Doncaster, I can go to Sainsburys in Doncaster because I am changing trains at Doncaster Station? You get that from "Customers may not start, break and resume, or end their journey at any intermediate station except to change to/ from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary"?

Well, it is saying you can break your journey (ie, leave the station to do shopping) when you are changing trains, is it not? It may not be intentional but that is what it appears to say!

If break of journey is not permitted when you change trains then they only need to say "Customers may not start, break and resume, or end their journey at any intermediate station", I suspect butts would write a letter of dismay to his MP if he was not allowed to break his journey for a smoke though!

 

[Ferret]

It strikes me as interesting that the Eastleigh PF was appealed successfully. Whatever your (or my) common-sense opinion on this may be, as we all know, so far as the rules are concerned, that was a legitimately issued PF! So, was this tacit admission that the rules are nonsense?!

 

[David Goddard]

You must use the booked train if you have a reservation for it. (In some cases you can persuade the journey planner to put you on a non-reservable train for connections).

I queried this when we went to Glasgow for a weekend the other year.
We had London Terminals - Exhibition Centre Glasgow Advance tickets, and the journey planner automatically booked the GLC-EXG leg on a service about fifteen minutes after the London train's arrival at GLC, and likewise one that got in to GLC about 15 mins before the London train left on the Monday.

For a number of reasons, we wanted to use a later train to EXG on Friday, and an earlier one back on the Monday morning:
-Time to watch the trains at GLC.
-Too tight a connection on the return leg.
-We had a lot of luggage

I phoned ScotRail's customer services and they said that we could use any service on the Low Level lines for the GLC-EXG legs. We had a ticket check in each direction and all was fine, however as we were only told verbally remained anxious in case there was a problem. Was armed with "London train arrived late" for the Friday, but didnt have anything in reserve for Monday morning.

 

[yorkie]

I queried this when we went to Glasgow for a weekend the other year.
We had London Terminals - Exhibition Centre Glasgow Advance tickets, and the journey planner automatically booked the GLC-EXG leg on a service about fifteen minutes after the London train's arrival at GLC, and likewise one that got in to GLC about 15 mins before the London train left on the Monday.

These trains are not reserveable so it's not an issue. You may take any "appropriate" connecting train as described in the T&Cs and clarified in the Advance Fares FAQs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It strikes me as interesting that the Eastleigh PF was appealed successfully. Whatever your (or my) common-sense opinion on this may be, as we all know, so far as the rules are concerned, that was a legitimately issued PF! So, was this tacit admission that the rules are nonsense?!

No, a PF cannot be issued for finishing short. (Megatrain can try to claim otherwise, but it's in the NRCoC and there is no "finishing short" tickbox on a Penalty Fare Notice)

If you start, break and resume, or end your journey at an intermediate station
when you are not entitled to do so, you will be liable to pay an excess fare. This
excess fare will be the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold
and the price of the lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that
would have entitled you to start, break and resume, or end your journey at that
station on the service(s) you have used

 

[David Goddard]

Thanks yorkie.

I queried it at the time because they had printed times from Central to Exhibition Centre and return on our tickets.

Taken literally:

If the ‘Route’ also states ‘and Connections’, travel is allowed on appropriate connecting trains where shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary

came across that we were tied to those journeys.

Will remember this next time we do the trip!

 

[Butts]

Technically, yes, that is correct. And yes, many people do agree it is ridiculous (including the media, there have been negative articles written about the Rail industry about this).

It would be at the discretion of the gateline staff at Lewes whether or not to let you exit the station without further charge, or to charge an excess fare* priced at the difference between the price you paid and the cheapest (Super) Off Peak (Day) Single ticket that have entitled you to travel between East Croydon and Lewes (as per NRCoC).

There is the alternative option of purchasing an additional single ticket from the destination on your ticket to your actual destination (see above post by DaveNewcastle regarding that scenario) and requesting permission to not double-back.

(*And before anyone mentions the Eastleigh Penalty Fare incident with Megatrain, I will pre-empt that by saying that the Penalty Fare was successfully appealed, according to a source within SWT. As we said at the time a PF is not appropriate for finishing short).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, it is saying you can break your journey (ie, leave the station to do shopping) when you are changing trains, is it not? It may not be intentional but that is what it appears to say!

If break of journey is not permitted when you change trains then they only need to say "Customers may not start, break and resume, or end their journey at any intermediate station", I suspect butts would write a letter of dismay to his MP if he was not allowed to break his journey for a smoke though!

A lot of my Advanced Firsts involve only one booked train in the middle section of my journey - hence I am free to join any service to connect with it,and may arrive in good time hence requiring a station exit to have a smoke.

If i was not allowed this privilege I would not undertake the journeys

 

[David Goddard]

(edited earlier message)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Well, it is saying you can break your journey (ie, leave the station to do shopping) when you are changing trains, is it not? It may not be intentional but that is what it appears to say!....

I think you need your eyes testing (that's about the most polite way of expressing what I think of that).

....If break of journey is not permitted when you change trains then they only need to say "Customers may not start, break and resume, or end their journey at any intermediate station"....

Unless they simply wished to confirm that changing trains is allowed at the stations noted on the passenger's ticket or travel itinerary. I really don't see how it can be interpreted any other way.

....I suspect butts would write a letter of dismay to his MP if he was not allowed to break his journey for a smoke though!

I think we all know what the legal situation is regarding smoking.

 

[yorkie]

I think you need your eyes testing (that's about the most polite way of expressing what I think of that).

Well, obviously not, given there's at least two of us (Lexyboy and I) arguing that is what it could be interpreted as saying.

 

[Skymonster]

Well, changing trains is not a break of journey. Leaving the station (except to get a train from another station and/or under instruction from rail staff and/or if you cannot complete your journey that day) is breaking your journey. So saying you are not allowed to break your journey except to change trains does appear to allow people to leave station premises while changing trains

Yorkie, I think you're playing with words a bit here. If it were to say "You are not allowed to break your journey except WHILST changing trains" I think it would be clear cut that you could walk out during a change. But it doesn't. "You are not allowed to break your journey except TO change trains" I think makes it clear that the break is in fact the change of trains even though another definition says that changing trains isn't a break.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well, obviously not, given there's at least two of us (Lexyboy and I) arguing that is what it could be interpreted as saying.

Then you both need your eyes testing.

 

[WelshBluebird]

From what I can tell, Yorkies argument is based on the fact the wording is pretty much that a break of journey is not allowed unless you are changing trains.
Now, we know changing trains does not qualify as a break of journey. So that wording suggests that if you are changing trains at a station, you can break your journey there.

That may not be what is intended (it is just poor wording), and it is opposed by the fact elsewhere the restrictions say that you cannot finish your journey short. But in a case like this, where terms and conditions are contradictory, the law says the result must be whatever benefits the customer more.

 

[Ferret]

No, a PF cannot be issued for finishing short. (Megatrain can try to claim otherwise, but it's in the NRCoC and there is no "finishing short" tickbox on a Penalty Fare Notice)

A PF can be issued for no valid ticket held, as you well know! And if you hold a megatrain ticket for something other than the journey that was actually made, then this fits the criteria of no ticket held. So, I ask again, is this tacit admission that the conditions of Advances/Megatrain tickets regarding finishing short are unenforceable?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....But in a case like this, where terms and conditions are contradictory, the law says the result must be whatever benefits the customer more.

What is contradictory?

 

[snail]

Well, it is saying you can break your journey (ie, leave the station to do shopping) when you are changing trains, is it not? It may not be intentional but that is what it appears to say!

I'm with HHF and his optician here. The phrase "except to change trains" is not the same as "when you are changing trains". If the latter was meant, that's what it should say.

Using 'Except' and 'to' together makes this an exception being made, as in "were it not for [changing trains]", "but for [changing trains]". It is an not a permitting clause allowing additional actions to the one of changing trains.

If you have sufficient time to do something in the period between trains, railway staff may permit you (or in the case of overnights, require you) to leave the station but that brings in a different authority to that in the T&C.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

A PF can be issued for no valid ticket held, as you well know! And if you hold a megatrain ticket for something other than the journey that was actually made, then this fits the criteria of no ticket held. So, I ask again, is this tacit admission that the conditions of Advances/Megatrain tickets regarding finishing short are unenforceable?

I believe Yorkie is refering to Condition 16, which states that if you break your journey on a ticket where it is not permitted you should be given an excess to the cheapest available valid fare that does allow it, which means a Penalty Fare should not be issued.

However, condition 4 in combination with Condition 22 states that if you do not show a valid ticket for your entire journey you may be liable for a Penalty Fare.

Regardless of which, a condition of the Advance ticket is that the ticket has no value after the departure time of the first reserved train, so any excess to the cheapest available valid fare that allows break of journey would have the fare paid as zero.

 

[MikeWh]

What is contradictory?

Well to most semi-intelligent beings saying:

• You must not break your journey except to change trains
• Changing trains is not a break of journey

Is just a little contradictory.

 

[Ferret]

I believe Yorkie is refering to Condition 16, which states that if you break your journey on a ticket where it is not permitted you should be given an excess to the cheapest available valid fare that does allow it, which means a Penalty Fare should not be issued.

However, condition 4 in combination with Condition 22 states that if you do show a valid ticket for your entire journey you may be liable for a Penalty Fare.

Regardless of which, a condition of the Advance ticket is that the ticket has no value after the departure time of the first reserved train, so any excess to the cheapest available valid fare that allows break of journey would have the fare paid as zero.

And this is what I'm getting at. There are contradictory rules in force here - a PF for failing to show a valid ticket is legitimate, but yet what Yorkie refers to suggests that the PF was not legitimate. Hence my question - which I will repeat - are the rules regarding finishing short on such 'cheapo' tickets unenforceable?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well to most semi-intelligent beings saying:

• You must not break your journey except to change trains
• Changing trains is not a break of journey

Is just a little contradictory.

contradictory
adj.

1. Involving, of the nature of, or being a contradiction. See Synonyms at opposite.

2. Given to contradicting.

Either of two propositions related in such a way that it is impossible for both to be true or both to be false.

contradictory
adj

1. inconsistent; incompatible

2. given to argument and contention a contradictory person

3. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic (of a pair of statements) unable both to be true or both to be false under the same circumstances

Changing trains is an exception to the rule > Changing trains is allowed
Changing trains is not a break of journey > Changing trains is allowed

Where is the contradiction?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And this is what I'm getting at. There are contradictory rules in force here - a PF for failing to show a valid ticket is legitimate, but yet what Yorkie refers to suggests that the PF was not legitimate. Hence my question - which I will repeat - are the rules regarding finishing short on such 'cheapo' tickets unenforceable?

I would see it as depending on the circumstances on which the rules are to be enforced. In the case of the people at Eastleigh, I personally think, by the rules, the PF was correct, they did not produce for inspection a valid ticket for the entire journey being made (Condition 22), however, the RPIs may have tried issuing it for the break of journey (Condition 16).

 

[Ferret]

I would see it as depending on the circumstances on which the rules are to be enforced. In the case of the people at Eastleigh, I personally think, by the rules, the PF was correct, they did not produce for inspection a valid ticket for the entire journey being made (Condition 22), however, the RPIs may have tried issuing it for the break of journey (Condition 16).

I suspect they issued the PF having paid attention to the conditions of the ticket concerned, meaning that no valid ticket was presented for inspection. Of course, then we're into Byelaw 18 territory or a PF, at the discretion of the revenue protection staff! Hence why I suggest that it's unsatisfactory.....

 

[MikeWh]

Changing trains is an exception to the rule > Changing trains is allowed
Changing trains is not a break of journey > Changing trains is allowed

Where is the contradiction?

Well, changing trains is not an exception to the rule.

Condition 16 clearly states:

For the purposes of this Condition and Condition 11, you will be treated as breaking your
journey if you leave a Train Company’s or Rail Service Company’s stations after you start
your journey other than:
(i) to join a train at another station, or
(ii) to stay in overnight accommodation when you cannot reasonably
complete your journey within one day, or
(iii) to follow any instructions given by a member of a Train Company’s staff.

From that, it is clear that if you do not leave the station then you are not breaking your journey. Therefore, if you change between two trains at the same station it is not a break of journey; plus if you need to walk between two stations to facilitate a connection then that isn't a break of journey either. I trust that we are in agreement so far?

Then the terms of the ticket say:

BREAK OF JOURNEY:
Customers may not start,
break and resume, or end their
journey at any intermediate
station except to change to/
from connecting trains as
shown on the ticket(s) or
other valid travel itinerary.

Now with the definition of breaking a journey from the NRCoC, it could read:

Customers may not break their journey at any intermediate station except to not break their journey.

Whilst I agree that that simplification isn't saying that you can break a journey when changing trains, I hope that you can see that it is at best an incredibly poorly worded statement and at worst verging on a contradiction. Perhaps it should simply say:

BREAK OF JOURNEY:
Customers may not start,
break and resume, or end their
journey at any intermediate
station using the definition quoted in NRCoC 16.

 

[LexyBoy]

What japes.

One might read that break of journey is not allowed at your destination, as it's not mentioned in the ticket terms, so how does one leave? (don't reply to that!)

@hhf, I don't think anyone here really thinks BoJ is allowed under these circumstances, but it's a popular hobby here to pick apart dodgy (to some of us, I'm with MikeWh) wording. Obviously the contradiction jars a bit to some but not others, although it's clear enough what is meant.

If it were me I'd just remove the line about changing, I don't believe anyone would think "break of journey is not allowed" means they can't change trains (as I indicated earlier with the absurd alternative).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . but it's a popular hobby here to pick apart dodgy wording.

That is exactly how I've interpreted this thread.

. . . it's clear enough what is meant.

And that is how I understand the Conditions of an Advance.

 

[WelshBluebird]

What is contradictory?

From what I can tell the wording is something to the effect of "You are not allowed to break your journey unless it is to change trains". Now, changing trains is not a break of journey, so to me at least that wording suggests that if you are changing trains, you are also allowed to break your journey.

Of course, it is near enough sure to just be sloppy wording, but if the wording allows a different interpretation then that is the problem of the person who wrote it, not the person trying to take advantage of it. The contradiction then comes when you add the above (that seems to suggest you can break your journey) to the fact you are told you cannot.

Of course, all of this is interpretation of the wording, which is where the problem comes in and which is why we have different opinions on what is meant.

A quick aside - you also see things like this in law. Where a law is written in such a way that it ends up being used for things that are way outside its intended use.

I'm with HHF and his optician here. The phrase "except to change trains" is not the same as "when you are changing trains". If the latter was meant, that's what it should say.

Using 'Except' and 'to' together makes this an exception being made, as in "were it not for [changing trains]", "but for [changing trains]". It is an not a permitting clause allowing additional actions to the one of changing trains.

But changing trains is not a break of journey. So there isn't an exception at all.

 

[maniacmartin]

I agree the wording is contradictory and the advance ticket terms could be expressed more clearly. However, "except to change trains" (and not "except when changing trains") implies to me that you may only break the journey for the explicit reason of changing trains, so can't just have a BoJ in the NRCoC sense of the term.

 

[yorkie]

But merely changing trains is not a break of journey.

As for PFs, as I said before a PF cannot be issued for this. A PF cannot simply be issued because a ticket is "invalid" there has to be a specific reason why it is invalid and some reasons do incur a PF and some reasons do not.

Here is a quote from experienced and knowledgeable RPI who is trained to issue PFs (when discussing whether or not a PF can be issued for being off-route or not valid due to ticket type):-

( There is no option for "finishing short when not permitted" because NRCoC says an excess applies.)

A penalty fare cannot be issued against any ticket which is invalid due being off route (i.e Not London) or due a restriction on the ticket type. An excess fare should be issued in all cases. You may issue a penalty fare if you have no ticket at all, you are travelling out of class, travelling beyond the validity of the ticket, travelling on a child ticket when you are not a child or you cannot supply a supporting document (i.e railcards)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well, changing trains is not an exception to the rule.

Condition 16 clearly states:

For the purposes of this Condition and Condition 11, you will be treated as breaking your
journey if you leave a Train Company’s or Rail Service Company’s stations after you start
your journey other than:
(i) to join a train at another station, or
(ii) to stay in overnight accommodation when you cannot reasonably
complete your journey within one day, or
(iii) to follow any instructions given by a member of a Train Company’s staff.

From that, it is clear that if you do not leave the station then you are not breaking your journey. Therefore, if you change between two trains at the same station it is not a break of journey; plus if you need to walk between two stations to facilitate a connection then that isn't a break of journey either. I trust that we are in agreement so far?....

Yes, so far we are in agreement.

....Then the terms of the ticket say:

BREAK OF JOURNEY:
Customers may not start,
break and resume, or end their
journey at any intermediate
station except to change to/
from connecting trains as
shown on the ticket(s) or
other valid travel itinerary.

Now with the definition of breaking a journey from the NRCoC, it could read:

Customers may not break their journey at any intermediate station except to not break their journey.

Whilst I agree that that simplification isn't saying that you can break a journey when changing trains, I hope that you can see that it is at best an incredibly poorly worded statement and at worst verging on a contradiction. Perhaps it should simply say:

BREAK OF JOURNEY:
Customers may not start,
break and resume, or end their
journey at any intermediate
station using the definition quoted in NRCoC 16.

Well, I have listed a definition of contradictory in a previous post and I don't see a contradiction in the conditions.

The conditions do not say "Customers may not break their journey at any intermediate station except to not break their journey", it says that you can do something that you are allowed to do. So I'm perplexed as to why some people, including a so called (and presumably self-titled) 'fares advisor', think that:

a) It is a contradiction; and/or

b) It extends the allowance of the passenger beyond changing trains.

....@hhf, I don't think anyone here really thinks BoJ is allowed under these circumstances, but it's a popular hobby here to pick apart dodgy (to some of us, I'm with MikeWh) wording. Obviously the contradiction jars a bit to some but not others, although it's clear enough what is meant....

But in order to pick apart some dodgy wording, it would have to be dodgy in the first place, it is not dodgy, it is unnecessary at worst.

....If it were me I'd just remove the line about changing, I don't believe anyone would think "break of journey is not allowed" means they can't change trains (as I indicated earlier with the absurd alternative).

Clearly someone thinks it is necessary or it wouldn't be there.

From what I can tell the wording is something to the effect of "You are not allowed to break your journey unless it is to change trains". Now, changing trains is not a break of journey, so to me at least that wording suggests that if you are changing trains, you are also allowed to break your journey....

How do you come to that conclusion? Is there a new definition of the word "to" that I am not aware of?

....Of course, it is near enough sure to just be sloppy wording, but if the wording allows a different interpretation then that is the problem of the person who wrote it, not the person trying to take advantage of it....

But people, seemingly including you, are insisting that they can take advantage of something that is NOT written.

....The contradiction then comes when you add the above (that seems to suggest you can break your journey) to the fact you are told you cannot....

What?????? Okay, so, lets assume a different scenario, I see a sign on a footway that says "Cyclists Dismount" (Cycling on a footway is against the law), what you are saying is that if I logically presume that, as cycling on a footway is illegal, the sign allows me to cycle down the footway, it is contradictory? That's genius!

....Of course, all of this is interpretation of the wording, which is where the problem comes in and which is why we have different opinions on what is meant....

Interpretation of words that are not present you mean. The words that are present are quite clear, there can be only one interpretation of them.

....A quick aside - you also see things like this in law. Where a law is written in such a way that it ends up being used for things that are way outside its intended use....

So you are saying, in law, "to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary." could mean "to do whatever you want"?

....But changing trains is not a break of journey. So there isn't an exception at all.

Precisely.

 

[maniacmartin]

I think you are being a bit harsh on WelshBluebird here, and the counterexample of ""Cyclists Dismount" (Cycling on a footway is against the law)" is not analogous. There is a logical reasoning from the terms that ends up with the conclusion that BoJ is permitted in this case (although I personally don't think it wise to use this interpretation)

 

[LexyBoy]

You must not smoke inside public buildings except outside.

It is illegal to sell alcohol to under 18s except for those aged 18 or over.

Children aged over 5 require a valid travel ticket, except for newborns.

And so on.