Getting off a stop early on an advance

[All Line Rover]

"Alcohol is not served to customers under 18 except at breakfast." A classic!

All of these phrases are easy to pick apart, but the meanings are quite obvious.

 

[WelshBluebird]

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

Ok. I will explain the logic. Point out where I go wrong.
The restrictions say you cannot break your journey unless it is to change trains.
Which means that you can break your journey to change trains.
Now, changing trains is not a break of journey
So the restrictions say you can break your journey in order to do something you do not need to break your journey to do.
But they still say you can break the journey at that point.

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

But it is written.
Poorly, sloppily and not meant. But it is still written.

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!

I have no idea at all where you get that analogy from as it really has no connections or similarities to what we are talking about.

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"?

Putting words into someones mouth is bad practice when you are discussing something.

Precisely.

So where is this mystical break of journey you are allowed then? Since you don't need it to change trains (as changing trains is not a break of journey).

"Alcohol is not served to customers under 18 except at breakfast." A classic!

All of these phrases are easy to pick apart, but the meanings are quite obvious.

But if you can pick about these phrases to come out with alternative meanings, then it shouldn't matter what the obvious meaning is.

As I said, this is done in law a hell of a lot. Laws are written with a specific intent, but end up being used by police forces as much as possible beyond the intent of the law (as long as they stay within its wording). The actual intended and obvious meaning isn't the only thing that matters. Other meanings also matter.

Now, I am not suggesting anyone actually uses this. Or that you would be able to convince staff of it. But I do find it a bit amusing that the railway companies use every technicality they can to catch people, yet when people try to use every technicality possible to catch out the railway companies somehow they are apparently wrong.

 

[snail]

Ok. I will explain the logic. Point out where I go wrong.
The restrictions say you cannot break your journey unless it is to change trains.
Which means that you can break your journey to change trains.
Now, changing trains is not a break of journey
So the restrictions say you can break your journey in order to do something you do not need to break your journey to do.
But they still say you can break the journey at that point.

Exactly so. It is allowing you to do something you can do anyway. But that doesn't give an implied right to do anything else, like shopping or leaving the station for any other reason than changing trains.

There are ambiguities elsewhere, one obvious one is the requirement to have at least one child of 5-15 years to qualify for Friends and Family Railcard discount. But the T&Cs later go on to allow the purchase of a ticket for an under 5 if they are the only child in the party.

It's things like this which make English a wonderful language!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Exactly so. It is allowing you to do something you can do anyway. But that doesn't give an implied right to do anything else, like shopping or leaving the station for any other reason than changing trains.

So then you just use the reason that you are changing trains. I don't know why someone would need to exit the station to change trains at that station, but the restrictions give you the right to do that!

 

[yorkie]

It's things like this which make English a wonderful language!

I disagree. I believe it is poor English.

If you say a break of journey is not permitted except.... then it would seem reasonable for there to be an exception to apply. But, if there is no exception, why say "except"?!

If there is a lengthy wait at a station, I would be extremely surprised if staff did not allow a passenger to leave railway premises while they wait. I'm not aware of anyone being refused this, and I'm sure butts would be letting us know if he ever was! (although I am not keen on smoking, I would help him draft a letter if anyone was ever refused that).

Perhaps the rules are not meant to allow an exception, but in reality that exception, whether allowed or not, does appear to be granted.

 

[snail]

I disagree. I believe it is poor English.

Which is the point I'm making. We have a language that allows every nuance to be expressed, but for that to work the reader must be able to understand what is being written or said. I'm not trying to defend the wording, I agree that it is very poor English in that it does not communicate what (I think) it means clearly and concisely. But it's at the same time interesting to see how many different perceptions of the meaning are being extracted. And how poor some posters are at doing it.

 

[trainophile]

If the wording was something like "For the purposes of these T&Cs, a 'journey' means travel between the start and end stations shown on your ticket. You may not break your journey when travelling on an Advance ticket" would that remove the possibility of misinterpretation?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Ok. I will explain the logic. Point out where I go wrong.
The restrictions say you cannot break your journey unless it is to change trains.
Which means that you can break your journey to change trains.
Now, changing trains is not a break of journey
So the restrictions say you can break your journey in order to do something you do not need to break your journey to do.
But they still say you can break the journey at that point....

For you logic to be true, the sole purpose of breaking your journey would have to be to change trains. To do anything else would not be to change trains, but rather to persue another purpose, which the conditions state is not permitted.

....But it is written.
Poorly, sloppily and not meant. But it is still written....

Where?

....I have no idea at all where you get that analogy from as it really has no connections or similarities to what we are talking about....

You are turning a simple sentence with only one logical interpretation into something that it is not, I merely did the same with another example.

....Putting words into someones mouth is bad practice when you are discussing something....

It was a question, there was no 'putting words in someones mouth'. If you cannot answer it, just say so.

....So where is this mystical break of journey you are allowed then? Since you don't need it to change trains (as changing trains is not a break of journey)....

As you yourself point out, the exception is not really an exception at all as you can change trains anyway.

 

[TUC]

I know that you, as a general principle, chose to finish a journey on an advance ticket short of a destination station. However is there any flexibility on that when it makes no difference to the fare that would have been due?

My daughter has an Advance ticket from Norwich to Liverpool Lime Street. However she is actually headed to Liverpool Airport and so getting off one stop early at Liverpool South Parkway would give a simpler transfer and a shorter journey to the airport. The fare to Liverpool South Parkway is the same as to Liverpool Lime Street. Therefore would there be any difficulties with her getting off there instead?

 

[sonic2009]

Breaking your journey short on an Advance ticket is prohibited, regardless of whether the ticket is the same price.

Also at Liverpool South Parkway, there are ticket barriers in place which would also become a problem.

If your daughter is travelling to the Airport, you may wish to consider the bus from Liverpool Lime Street to Liverpool Airport http://www.arrivabus.co.uk/serviceInformation.aspx?id=2910

 

[yorkie]

I will change a couple of words from what I posted 2 days ago so it applies to this journey:

It would be at the discretion of the gateline staff at Liverpool South Parkway [[stn]LPY[/stn]] whether or not to let her exit the station without further charge, or to charge an excess fare priced at the difference between the price she paid and the cheapest Off Peak Single ticket that have entitled her to travel between Norwich and Liverpool South Parkway (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.

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.

This rule can be applied, though it very rarely is applied, and any TOC applying it does risk negative media attention. A member of staff at a TOC near me informed me that it is their TOCs policy not to enforce it. I do not know what Merseyrail's policy is, so I cannot answer the question with a yes or no answer.

 

[t0ffeeman]

Reminds me of... "This page has been intentionally left blank". Well it would be if TPHBILB wasn't written on it!

 

[All Line Rover]

Reminds me of... "This page has been intentionally left blank". Well it would be if TPHBILB wasn't written on it!

This is completely unrelated to the thread, but that statement is justified. In examinations, it reassures students that the page has not been left blank simply because of a printing error.

 

[David Goddard]

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.

Does it have to be from the station where the Advance ended? If you just need a valid ticket to exit the station then why not buy a single from Hunts Cross to Liverpool South Parkway? The gateline doesn't know whether you alighted from an EMT 158, a LM 350 or a Northern Sprinter.

 

[mralexn]

Now i know the rules on this, you cant do it.
But let me ask anyway.

I have a return from chapeltown (sheffield) to dawlish warren. I was going to go to a campsite in dawlish warren, i now want to go to one in starcross, so i would be getting off a stop early, but not on the reserved part of my journey it would be on the unreserved last leg on fgw local train. Where do i stand? or do i just go for an extra walk or fork out for a taxi.

you will be fine!, there are no ticket gates or even a ticket office at Starcross

 

[yorkie]

David Goddard - It's not the same scenario. Buying a ticket that allows the double back, and then asking permission from the guard to avoid the double back, ensures you are covered either way regardless of the answer (ie, you either double back or you avoid the double back with permission having paid the correct fare).

What you describe is merely a mechanism to get through barriers and does not address the actual issue.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Does it have to be from the station where the Advance ended? If you just need a valid ticket to exit the station then why not buy a single from Hunts Cross to Liverpool South Parkway? The gateline doesn't know whether you alighted from an EMT 158, a LM 350 or a Northern Sprinter.

Legally speaking, the combination of tickets would have to cover the entire journey, so from where the Advance ticket ends (or beyond if valid for break of journey). If an individual chooses to risk a ticket combination that would not cover the entire journey, that is their choice, but they risk a minimum of an additional fare to be paid with the potential for much worse.

 

[34D]

At Doncaster though, it could be debatable whether the Sainsburys is inside the station premises or not: it is inside the bus station premises, the rail and bus stations adjoin (one does not need to walk outside to go between them) and some 'trains' listed on the Doncaster live departure board go from the bus station.

In fact the whole lot is called the Transport Interchange.

 

[trainophile]

Does it have to be from the station where the Advance ended? If you just need a valid ticket to exit the station then why not buy a single from Hunts Cross to Liverpool South Parkway? The gateline doesn't know whether you alighted from an EMT 158, a LM 350 or a Northern Sprinter.

There are two sets of gates at South Parkway. The Hunts Cross (Merseyrail northern line) set only serves the Hunts Cross to Southport and vice versa route. All other arrivals and departures are via the other set of gates. Unless the gates are programmed to treat all tickets the same, they might reject a Hunts Cross to LPY ticket if trying to exit from the inter city platforms.

Runcorn to LPY is £2.60 .

 

[yorkie]

There are two sets of gates at South Parkway...

...both of which lead to platforms that are served by Hunts Cross services, but I am not comfortable with the suggestion as described above.

Runcorn to LPY is £2.60 .

Which is debatable whether it's valid or not (though it is a much better suggestion than the previous one which is extremely dubious). I'm not arguing either way in this post and the debate has been done to death previously, but at £2.75 a Liverpool Lime St to Liverpool South Parkway would allow the double-back and means the 'correct fare' has indisputably been paid, and the guard could be asked for permission to avoid the double-back. To be honest I expect the guard would be surprised to be asked and I would be surprised if the answer was 'no' but it would mean that you would be covered. If the answer was 'no' then you'd do the double back.