Local Connections and Advance Tickets

[aileron346]

Is it usual for local connections into long distance Advance ticket reservations to themselves have this-train-only restrictions? I haven’t experienced this until today when unable to access the barrier at Birmingham International until x minutes before the local train on my itinerary. This to go a few stops along the line for the reserved leg from Birmingham New Street.

I’ve often planned to get to a large station early, to reduce the risk of missing the connection, allow extra transfer time and maybe eat etc. Instead, bizarrely I’m held back at the local station unable to sensibly increase the connection time. It must raise the risk of a late running local service causing a missed long distance connection.

Can this be correct? If yes, What’s the logic of it? Thanks...

 

[JonathanH]

Can this be correct? If yes, What’s the logic of it? Thanks...

Yes, it is correct.

Any train which is reservable will be shown as a reservable connection on a "& connections" ticket.

Two reasons for this
a) the local operator may wish to offer advance purchase tickets on their own services
b) the local operator may wish to limit the number of "& connections" tickets on their services by restricting the quotas.

You may be able to specify a longer connection at the time of making your booking if you are worried about making the connection.

In the instance you refer to, the local trains between Birmingham International and Birmingham New Street are themselves the London Northwestern Railway services from Euston or to Liverpool on which the operator wants to offer their own Advance Purchase tickets.

 

[yorkie]

Is it usual for local connections into long distance Advance ticket reservations to themselves have this-train-only restrictions? I haven’t experienced this until today when unable to access the barrier at Birmingham International until x minutes before the local train on my itinerary. This to go a few stops along the line for the reserved leg from Birmingham New Street.

It's increasingly becoming the case these days.

I’ve often planned to get to a large station early, to reduce the risk of missing the connection, allow extra transfer time and maybe eat etc. Instead, bizarrely I’m held back at the local station unable to sensibly increase the connection time. It must raise the risk of a late running local service causing a missed long distance connection.

Some staff at some companies would rather you were delayed, and put in a delay repay claim, than maximise your chances of making your booked service and arriving on time

Can this be correct? If yes, What’s the logic of it? Thanks...

There is no 'logic' behind the scenario you describe, as such.

However the reason it happens is because these trains actually operate longer distances eg. London to Liverpool calling at dozens of stations en-route, and therefore some people will be using Advance fares for travel only on those trains, which in turn means that the entire train becomes "reservable" for the purpose of Advance fare places, which includes where the train is merely used for a short hop connection onto an actual 'Inter City' type train, though there are no actual seat reservations.

If you want to allow more time to change trains at Birmingham New Street, you can book through a website that allows extra time to be specified when making the connection.

 

[Dr Day]

There is no 'logic' behind the scenario you describe, as such.

The logic, from the TOC commercial perspective, is to ensure they get paid for carrying 'their' passenger, at a price they can control to maximise overall revenue on any given train and don't carry someone for free. The easiest way of enforcing that is to have a train specific ticket for each leg of the journey. As mentioned above, this can often be on a 'reservable' train, with the additional consequence that in order to get a cheap ticket for the overall journey, you need to have availability within the cheap quota for both legs (in essence).

Hence a Nantwich-London trip may, if it isn't split, end up being more expensive simply because the Nantwich-Crewe leg quota on a Cardiff-Manchester service is sold out, despite plenty of availability on the main Crewe-London leg. If the Nantwich-Crewe leg is on a non-reservable Shrewsbury-Crewe service, the problem doesn't arise. As 'regional' TOCs increasingly actively managing their revenue, rather than rely on the national revenue allocation system, more and more 'local' trains are becoming reservable. There are some benefits in potentially cheaper Advance tickets on more routes, but the downside is loss of flexibility.

It will be interesting to see how potential changes to who takes the revenue risk post-Williams review pan out, and whether these kind of issues can be minimised with a wider objective of increasing patronage on the railway as a whole, rather than individual TOCs grabbing revenue off each other.

 

[yorkie]

The logic, from the TOC commercial perspective, is to ensure they get paid for carrying 'their' passenger, at a price they can control to maximise overall revenue on any given train and don't carry someone for free. The easiest way of enforcing that is to have a train specific ticket for each leg of the journey. As mentioned above, this can often be on a 'reservable' train, with the additional consequence that in order to get a cheap ticket for the overall journey, you need to have availability within the cheap quota for both legs (in essence).

I'm not so sure; I have heard several TOCs say that they don't mind which train customers use for the 'connection'. I've had it on good authority from more than one TPE Guard that this is the case where the TPE leg is the connection for a longer distance journey on, say, LNER.

Hence a Nantwich-London trip may, if it isn't split, end up being more expensive simply because the Nantwich-Crewe leg quota on a Cardiff-Manchester service is sold out, despite plenty of availability on the main Crewe-London leg.

My understanding is that if there is no availability of "& connection" quota on the Nantwich to Crewe leg, the customer will only be offered a through fare for the journey. Hence the increasing importance for passengers to use an accredited ticket splitting site, to safeguard against being effectively 'overcharged' due to this phenomenon.

If the Nantwich-Crewe leg is on a non-reservable Shrewsbury-Crewe service, the problem doesn't arise. As 'regional' TOCs increasingly actively managing their revenue, rather than rely on the national revenue allocation system, more and more 'local' trains are becoming reservable. There are some benefits in potentially cheaper Advance tickets on more routes, but the downside is loss of flexibility.

Agreed.

It will be interesting to see how potential changes to who takes the revenue risk post-Williams review pan out, and whether these kind of issues can be minimised with a wider objective of increasing patronage on the railway as a whole, rather than individual TOCs grabbing revenue off each other.

Indeed! I am a bit worried that the price for many journeys could go up though.

 

[trainophile]

The most annoying example I encounter (or used to, until I changed my route because of it) is at Crewe. Arriving off a northbound TfW on platform 6 at xx28, a LNWR for Liverpool due on platform 11 at xx33, but my through Advance putting me on the xx57, which is also LNWR.

Nine times out of ten I was permitted to board the earlier one but occasionally was refused, which lead to me being hesitant to ask in future, and ultimately deciding I couldn't be bothered with the hassle and ridiculous waiting around.

 

[Haywain]

The most annoying example I encounter (or used to, until I changed my route because of it) is at Crewe. Arriving off a northbound TfW on platform 6 at xx28, a LNWR for Liverpool due on platform 11 at xx33, but my through Advance putting me on the xx57, which is also LNWR.

Nine times out of ten I was permitted to board the earlier one but occasionally was refused, which lead to me being hesitant to ask in future, and ultimately deciding I couldn't be bothered with the hassle and ridiculous waiting around.

But that is a completely different case - it's because the minimum connection time for Crewe is 10 minutes, so you won't get offered a shorter connection time.

 

[trainophile]

Same principle though, through ticket dictating local connection where another one may be more suitable.

 

[trainophile]

Can't remember which station, but I'm sure I saw recently on BRTimes a station with 5 minutes connection time, with the exception of about four routes which were 4 minutes. That should be applied to other large stations where adjacent platforms are commonly used for connections on major routes. Crewe is a prime example.

 

[yorkie]

Can't remember which station, but I'm sure I saw recently on BRTimes a station with 5 minutes connection time, with the exception of about four routes which were 4 minutes. That should be applied to other large stations where adjacent platforms are commonly used for connections on major routes. Crewe is a prime example.

This is possible by TOC but not by "route"; it is not possible to do this for booked cross platform interchanges such as your example of TfW to WMT at Crewe as this involves multiple TOCs.