Price War between York and Newcastle involving VTEC/TPE/XC

[Starmill]

I think the website must've been having a glitch when you looked at it. When I look for the ticket I see this (see attachment) just below where your image is cropped (my highlighting).

Interesting. So it's there, it's just contradicted by some of the other screens and panels, and it's easy to miss. Ideally if one is purchasing a walk-up that is something other than any permitted there should be a prompt on the screen that says what the route is which must be acknowledged.

 

[hassaanhc]

Basically anywhere within the red (or yellow) box that highlights the price and the time.

This is the thing tho, just as with most online retailers, it gives you a time and a price, it doesnt actually tell you what it is you are getting, unless you specifically press the red "restrictions" tab at the top of the highlighted box.

Annoyingly aswell considering the tickets are open timed returns - in the sense you can travel back at any time but within the relevant conditions - the system insists on you keying in a return time, adding to the confusion

You can select a ticket without choosing any times, by clicking on the price. But it isn't obvious, only found out by randomly deciding to see what happened when I pressed there. (This was when I used the machine at Edinburgh about 2 weeks ago)

 

[Starmill]

The plot thickens even further. Turns out its just random websites that won't sell the XC only fares. The Virgin Trains East Coast and Trainline ones will sell them, but the TransPennine Express one won't. How, exactly, are passengers supposed to have all of the neccesary information and get the best deal when they can not know for sure if any website as well as machine is offering them the full range of tickets it should be? Let alone making it clear what the different options are.

 

[najaB]

The plot thickens even further. Turns out its just random websites that won't sell the XC only fares. The Virgin Trains East Coast and Trainline ones will sell them, but the TransPennine Express one won't.

Very interesting. There doesn't even seem to be a way to force it to offer them. I wonder if it's the usual case that those fares aren't supposed to be sold by TheTrainline but they sell them anyway?

Edit: If you put the £18 fare into your basket at NRE and then attempt to buy it using TPE's website you get the 'No fares have been found for your selected service.' error message.

 

[Joe Paxton]

The plot thickens even further. Turns out its just random websites that won't sell the XC only fares. The Virgin Trains East Coast and Trainline ones will sell them, but the TransPennine Express one won't. How, exactly, are passengers supposed to have all of the neccesary information and get the best deal when they can not know for sure if any website as well as machine is offering them the full range of tickets it should be? Let alone making it clear what the different options are.

I made a similar observation in another thread about how only some booking sites offer SWT's Promo £14 single fare - one thing I really didn't expect to find was that some Trainline-powered sites offered it, and others didn't.

(My understanding - possibly dodgy - is that Trainline-powered sites are essentially run by The Trainline, whilst for WebTIS sites the relevant TOC has much more control as to how the site is configured.)

 

[najaB]

(My understanding - possibly dodgy - is that Trainline-powered sites are essentially run by The Trainline, whilst for WebTIS sites the relevant TOC has much more control as to how the site is configured.)

I was thinking along those lines, but TPE and VTEC both use Mixing Deck, the former doesn't offer the £18 fare but the latter does.

 

[lemonic]

From what I understand, at least on some websites, if a new three-character ticket code gets created (e.g. CDR, SVR, FHR etc.) then those tickets won't appear for sale on the website until someone has manually allowed those tickets to be shown for sale.

I seem to recall that when First Great Western changed their Advance ticket tiers, there were similar issues with Advance tickets in new tiers not appearing for sale on their website at first. There was a thread on this forum at the time.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I was thinking along those lines, but TPE and VTEC both use Mixing Deck, the former doesn't offer the £18 fare but the latter does.

Yes - that backs up my point, which is that (to an extent at least) it is up to the TOC to update their version of WebTIS e.g. to account for special or promotional fares. So TPE haven't done so, and VTEC have.

(If you read the post I link to, what I found strange was that the SWT Promo fares were only available on some but not all of the Trainline-powered sites - that's not what I would have expected.)

It's a messy situation.

 

[najaB]

Yes - that backs up my point, which is that (to an extent at least) it is up to the TOC to update their version of WebTIS e.g. to account for special or promotional fares. So TPE haven't done so, and VTEC have.

Ah, sorry. My poor comprehension at fault there. I thought you were saying it was a Trainline v MixingDeck issue.

 

[furlong]

So are you saying that anyone booking these journeys on XC on the wrong website may be being charged too much for their journey? Report it to the ORR for investigation as a breach of the consumer regulations, and suggest they insist everyone affected is identified and offered a refund. They possess a big stick to get problems like these resolved immediately - prosecution of the TOC - if it appears deliberate or professionally negligent.

 

[najaB]

So are you saying that anyone booking these journeys on XC on the wrong website may be being charged too much for their journey?

If I try to book the 14:32 York-Newcastle and 19:30 Newcastle - York, I'm offered a £18 return fare on VTEC's website, but only a £39.50 return fare on TPE's.

 

[Haywain]

So are you saying that anyone booking these journeys on XC on the wrong website may be being charged too much for their journey? Report it to the ORR for investigation as a breach of the consumer regulations, and suggest they insist everyone affected is identified and offered a refund. They possess a big stick to get problems like these resolved immediately - prosecution of the TOC - if it appears deliberate or professionally negligent.

A bit of an over-reaction in my opinion. The XC fare was introduced less that a week ago with next to no advance warning to other TOCs. The ticket type is almost certainly enabled but it is probably the route that is not enabled on the TPE website. And if that is causing a problem, I would have thought that pointing it out to TPE would be the obvious starting point, not the ORR. If TPE then fail to rectify the matter, that may be the time for ORR.

 

[furlong]

A bit of an over-reaction in my opinion.

The issue here is that this problem keeps on happening with new fares! (Any delay in enabling new fares in some sales channels is a potential breach of the law unless the slow channels redirect people affected to the other sales channels!) The industry needs to get its act together and eliminate easily-avoidable discrepancies like these, and the ORR appears to be the body with the duty to ensure that that happens.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Would help if they tell us about it too...

You know, the staff on the frontline who actually have to deal with these tickets.....

 

[91103eastcoast]

Would help if they tell us about it too...

You know, the staff on the frontline who actually have to deal with these tickets.....

I felt the sorry for the conductor on the TPE I was on yesterday, two people boarded at York travelling to Newcastle and judging by the conversation between them and the guard one held a VTEC only ticket, whilst the other an XC only ticket, but they protested that the machine had not told them of the restrictions when the guard tried, very politely and calmly, to point out their error.

 

[Merseysider]

I felt the sorry for the conductor on the TPE I was on yesterday, two people boarded at York travelling to Newcastle and judging by the conversation between them and the guard one held a VTEC only ticket, whilst the other an XC only ticket, but they protested that the machine had not told them of the restrictions when the guard tried, very politely and calmly, to point out their error.

Were they charged extra?

Edit: the guard really needs to make announcements between York/Newcastle about these tickets. It's done for Liverpool/Manchester journeys every time on a ritual basis ("If you have a NORTHERN ticket it will NOT be valid and you will need to buy a new ticket, please check the reservation coupon" or some variant thereof)

 

[yorkie]

Were they charged extra?

I hope they were not charged new fares; if they were then I really think it needs to go to the ORR.

Some staff will issue excess fares, which is a fair compromise, but some company policies do not allow for it.

In my job I would not do something that I knew was breaking the law (and charging a new ticket in these circumstances would appear to be a breach of consumer law), so if my employer didn't give me the chance to do a fair compromise, the only option is to let them off.

It's not fair that frontline staff and passengers are put in this difficult position.

But let's be clear: York-Newcastle is just one example out of hundreds.

The problems are that:

• Ticket issuing systems do not always make train company restrictions clear; and
• The rail industry stubbornly refuses to allow train company restricted fares to be excessed, for no good/valid reason whatsoever.

For example a passenger buys a ticket priced by Chiltern for travel from London to Birmingham, and another passenger buys a ticket priced by London Midland for travel from London to Birmingham. Both are walk-up fares. The Chiltern priced ticket will be excessed (ie, the difference charged) while the LM priced ticket will be considered worthless and a whole new ticket will be charged (ie, the customer will have to pay the full amount, with no consideration taken for the amount they already paid).

There is no justification for this, and the fact the likes of Passenger Focus have done nothing about this malpractice is good evidence that a proper watchdog with teeth is desperately needed.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Edit: the guard really needs to make announcements between York/Newcastle about these tickets. It's done for Liverpool/Manchester journeys every time on a ritual basis ("If you have a NORTHERN ticket it will NOT be valid and you will need to buy a new ticket, please check the reservation coupon" or some variant thereof)

We do! I am one of those ritual basis announcers! XD

 

[Joe Paxton]

I hope they were not charged new fares; if they were then I really think it needs to go to the ORR.

Some staff will issue excess fares, which is a fair compromise, but some company policies do not allow for it.

In my job I would not do something that I knew was breaking the law (and charging a new ticket in these circumstances would appear to be a breach of consumer law), so if my employer didn't give me the chance to do a fair compromise, the only option is to let them off.
...

Genuine question - what is your basis for thinking it is likely to be a breach of consumer law?

I'm also a bit confused over the 'excess-ablity' of TOC-only tickets - some say it cannot be done, but it seemingly is sometimes done. Is this a 'genuine' excess ticket, or for settlement purposes is the original TOC-only ticket untouched so said TOC keeps the monet, with the 'other' TOC (that the passenger travels on, mistakenly... or perhaps not) just taking the excess amount?

 

[furlong]

I'm also a bit confused over the 'excess-ablity' of TOC-only tickets - some say it cannot be done, but it seemingly is sometimes done. Is this a 'genuine' excess ticket, or for settlement purposes is the original TOC-only ticket untouched so said TOC keeps the monet, with the 'other' TOC (that the passenger travels on, mistakenly... or perhaps not) just taking the excess amount?

How the money is divided up is irrelevant to the passenger, although the shortcomings of industry systems might go some way towards explaining why TOCs appear reluctant to issue these excesses.

The whole area is covered by the (complicated) Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, but these problems (and many others) were not envisaged when it was written at the time of privatisation. Meanwhile custom and practice has continued to advance but the powers that be have failed to provide appropriate ongoing review and update of this document IMHO.

“Dedicated Fare” means a Fare which entitles the Purchaser to use the trains of a single Operator only.

“Excess Fare” means a variation in the Rights and Restrictions applicable to a Fare which has the effect of converting that Fare into another Fare.

“Flow” means the Permitted Route or group of Permitted Routes from one Station to another and, where relevant, via any other Station(s) and/or within a particular geographical area or areas, as specified in the Fares manuals used by the Operators at the date of this Agreement or, as the case may be, as introduced pursuant to Clause 4-7 below. Where the Permitted Route(s) between two Stations require(s) a passenger to travel via somewhere, such Permitted Route(s) constitute a different Flow from the Permitted Route(s) between the same Stations which require a passenger to travel via somewhere else or which do not require him to travel via any particular place.

6-6 RAIL PRODUCTS THAT MAY BE SOLD
...
(4) Excess Fares
(a) An Operator may Sell any Excess Fare that gives the Purchaser of it the rights described in paragraph (b) below and those rights are the same as the rights that arise under a Permanent Fare or a Temporary Fare which that Operator is entitled to Sell. However, before it does so it must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Purchaser already holds a valid Fare for the same Flow or (in the case of an Excess Fare which falls within paragraph (b)(v) below) part of that Flow.
(b) An Excess Fare may only be Sold if it entitles the Purchaser of it to:-
...
(ii) travel at a different time or on a different day than he would otherwise be entitled to travel;
...

6-10 AMOUNT THAT MAY BE CHARGED
...
(2) Excess Fares
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) below, an Excess Fare may only be Sold for an amount equal to the difference between:-
(i) the Price of the Fare whose Rights and Restrictions are the same as those to which the Purchaser is entitled following the Sale of the Excess Fare, less any discount to which he would have been entitled by virtue of being a Child or presenting a Discount Card if he had Purchased that Fare; and
(ii) the amount (including any VAT) which was paid for the Fare that the Purchaser has already Purchased.

You can make an argument that many of the excesses we are discussing allow the passenger to travel at a different time than they otherwise could, but the problem lies with the word "may" - there's no requirement in the TSA to sell any particular excess - that requirement comes from elsewhere, for example the Conditions of Travel 13.4 and 16.5 (or possibly, in some cases, consumer law). Put this alongside, for example,

6-30 THE IMPARTIALITY OBLIGATION
...
(3) Requirement to offer a full range of Fares
(a) If an Operator offers a Fare for Sale at a Ticket Office at a Station at which it is the Lead Retailer or on a train or at an Internet Site or at a Telephone Sales Office or at a Site that is an Impartial Point of Sale, it must also offer for Sale all Fares relating to that Flow which have similar Rights and Restrictions, including those which entitle the Purchaser to use other Operators' trains.

but you can argue that an Excess Fare is not itself defined as a Fare, merely a variation applied to a Fare, so what this all means is you probably have to change the TSA or Conditions of Travel, or apply consumer pressure to bring about this change.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

but you can argue that an Excess Fare is not itself defined as a Fare, merely a variation applied to a fare.

Which is why TOC specific ticket cannot be excessed. You see an RSP (rail settlement plan) fare is proportionally shared between all the TOCs on that route, based on frequency and number of seats iirc, so any excess upgrades that shared fare and is also shared as a result.

A TOC specific ticket is 100% apportioned to that named TOC so any excess applied to that ticket would still be RSP apportioned as the excess would be to the appropriate RSP fare, however the original TOC is still benefitting from the original fare plus the portion of the excess. The TOC actually carrying the fare gains nothing from this and only a small part of the RSP excess. There is no way of apportioning the fare to the actual carrier as there is currently no way of identifying who the actual carrier was therefore selling a new RSP ticket as opposed to excessing means they gain a higher proportion and a higher figure of income as a result.

Hope that makes sense...

 

[yorkie]

Which is why TOC specific ticket cannot be excessed. You see an RSP (rail settlement plan) fare is proportionally shared between all the TOCs on that route, based on frequency and number of seats iirc, so any excess upgrades that shared fare and is also shared as a result.

A TOC specific ticket is 100% apportioned to that named TOC so any excess applied to that ticket would still be RSP apportioned as the excess would be to the appropriate RSP fare, however the original TOC is still benefitting from the original fare plus the portion of the excess. The TOC actually carrying the fare gains nothing from this and only a small part of the RSP excess. There is no way of apportioning the fare to the actual carrier as there is currently no way of identifying who the actual carrier was therefore selling a new RSP ticket as opposed to excessing means they gain a higher proportion and a higher figure of income as a result.

Hope that makes sense...

It can't be the true reason, and doesn't really make sense. See:

For example a passenger buys a ticket priced by Chiltern for travel from London to Birmingham, and another passenger buys a ticket priced by London Midland for travel from London to Birmingham. Both are walk-up fares. The Chiltern priced ticket will be excessed (ie, the difference charged) while the LM priced ticket will be considered worthless and a whole new ticket will be charged (ie, the customer will have to pay the full amount, with no consideration taken for the amount they already paid).

There is no justification for this, and the fact the likes of Passenger Focus have done nothing about this malpractice is good evidence that a proper watchdog with teeth is desperately needed.

I'll give another example:

A York to Leeds passenger holds a route: via Harrogate fare. 100% of the fare goes to Northern. Yet they can excess their ticket by just paying half the difference (for a one-way excess on a return ticket) to use TPE or XC. None of the original money goes to TPE or XC.

If there was a rule that said if the original ticket goes 100% to another TOC, it can't be excessed, then loads of fares would not be 'excess-able'. Yet they are!

If your bosses are fobbing you off, go and use the above examples to tell them they need to stop putting you in a ridiculous situation of asking people to buy a new ticket. It should be an excess fare, and nothing more than that.

I would refuse to charge people new tickets in the meantime; to do so when the restrictions have not been made clear is a breach of consumer law. Even excess fares may not be lawful but at least they'll be for smaller amounts.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/5552/guidance_on_our_consumer_law_role_310310.pdf

Misleading omissions
60.
Regulation 6 prohibits misleading omissions. Practices may be
misleading by failing to give consumers the information they need to make an
informed choice. This occurs when practices omit or hide material information,
or provide it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner, and
the average consumer takes, or is likely to take, a different decision as a
result.

 

[furlong]

Which is why TOC specific ticket cannot be excessed.

Of course, there's no technical reason why some of the money paid for the original ticket being excessed can't be reapportioned. (There can be similar problems with some 'change of route' excesses.)

Passenger flexibility to mitigate against the complexity of the fares system should take precedence IMHO - and if that ends up unfair to some TOCs in the short term then the TSA should be updated and the industry systems should be changed, for example, to treat an "unfair" excess as a refund of the dedicated fare plus a fresh sale of the replacement ticket, to correct the apportionments.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It can't be the true reason, and doesn't really make sense.

It doesn't make sense, but I think it is the true reason.

It's been discussed on here before that, if you have a ticket restricted to a TOC, then the TOC restriction still remains in place even if you excess the fare to a different ticket. Because the initial ticket has the TOC restriction, it can't be excessed away.

Chiltern Railways specifically set their ticket as VIA HIGH WYCOMBE to avoid this problem.

In this case, though, there isn't a way of putting a TOC restriction in as a route restriction. So it has to be a TOC restriction.

As these are walk-up tickets the passenger can ask for a refund if they've not used the ticket. Which is fine if they're stopped on the first leg. Not so good if they're stopped on the return.

It isn't a new problem though. I used to commute Newcastle-Durham on XC ONLY day returns because they were cheaper than a season ticket and, because of when I started and finished work, 9/10 I was on an XC train anyway. But TPE and NXEC/EC guards used to have their work cut out with Durham students "misunderstanding" the restriction.

 

[furlong]

It's been discussed on here before that, if you have a ticket restricted to a TOC, then the TOC restriction still remains in place even if you excess the fare to a different ticket. Because the initial ticket has the TOC restriction, it can't be excessed away.

I have never found anything to support that view: the TSA seems to be quite clear that when you excess a fare, it is converted completely into the new fare, not a hybrid or a made-up fare, so the TOC-only restriction disappears - there is no fare with the TOC restriction into which it can be converted.

But other than the cases covered by the CoT, TOCs seem to be under no obligation to issue these excesses and where they feel they receive insufficient money for them they simply, as a matter of policy, opt not to sell them.

 

[TUC]

How has it led to to 'staff assaults, arrests and public disorder?!

 

[TUC]

It will get worse (better?) when TPE extend from Newcastle to Edinburgh.

Better surely!

 

[yorkie]

It doesn't make sense, but I think it is the true reason.

It's been discussed on here before that, if you have a ticket restricted to a TOC, then the TOC restriction still remains in place even if you excess the fare to a different ticket. Because the initial ticket has the TOC restriction, it can't be excessed away.

Chiltern Railways specifically set their ticket as VIA HIGH WYCOMBE to avoid this problem.

In this case, though, there isn't a way of putting a TOC restriction in as a route restriction. So it has to be a TOC restriction.

As these are walk-up tickets the passenger can ask for a refund if they've not used the ticket. Which is fine if they're stopped on the first leg. Not so good if they're stopped on the return.

It isn't a new problem though. I used to commute Newcastle-Durham on XC ONLY day returns because they were cheaper than a season ticket and, because of when I started and finished work, 9/10 I was on an XC train anyway. But TPE and NXEC/EC guards used to have their work cut out with Durham students "misunderstanding" the restriction.

None of this explains why a "Route High Wycombe" ticket should be excessed yet a "Route LM Only" ticket should not.

Revenue has absolutely nothing to do with validity; VTEC probably get next to nothing from the sale of a London to Huntington ticket and absolutely nothing from the sale of a Huntington to Peterborough Season ticket, yet the combination is valid on VTEC services from London to Peterborough.

... the TSA seems to be quite clear that when you excess a fare, it is converted completely into the new fare, not a hybrid or a made-up fare, so the TOC-only restriction disappears - there is no fare with the TOC restriction into which it can be converted....

True. The TSA is definitive and train Companies are obliged to honour it.

“Excess Fare” means a variation in the Rights and Restrictions applicable to a Fare which has the impact of converting that Fare into another Fare”

How has it led to to 'staff assaults, arrests and public disorder?!

I guess some people will (quite rightly) consider it unreasonable to be requested to buy a brand new ticket at a ludicrous cost. Depending on how the person who is attempting to extract money is wording the request, and depending on how the person who is being ripped-off words their reaction, I could imagine things could have the potential to escalate.

While the vast majority of Guards and passengers alike on this route are reasonable people, I can certainly imagine one or two Guards acting in a provocative manner, and I can equally certainly imagine some passengers not reacting well to it.

But the cause is not the fares themselves, but the lack of adequate information when tickets are sold, and the ludicrous and unjustifiable excess fare rules that don't allow excesses to be issued, causing unreasonable (and potentially unlawful) demands to be made, compounded in some cases by poor attitude from one side and/or the other.

I would absolutely and utterly reject any price increases that result from any disputes, but train companies are putting their staff in difficult positions (and sometimes with inadequate conflict avoidance training) by having ludicrous, unfair and unjust procedures and policies in place.

 

[ainsworth74]

How has it led to to 'staff assaults, arrests and public disorder?!

Lots of passengers on weekends (and weekdays sometimes) tend to travel from the North East to York to get incredibly drunk. So very drunk passengers being charged a very expensive brand new fare could very easily lead to at least verbal abuse of staff and seeing as the BTP tend to be an increasingly visible presence (along with TOC contracted security staff) I can easily see it leading to arrests.

 

[Tetchytyke]

None of this explains why a "Route High Wycombe" ticket should be excessed yet a "Route LM Only" ticket should not.

The ROUTE HIGH WYCOMBE ticket doesn't have a TOC restriction. You can use any TOC that takes you via High Wycombe. The ROUTE LM ONLY does have a TOC restriction.

The Manual (and I presume iKB) is clear that you cannot sell an excess for a TOC-specific ticket. It has to be a new ticket.

http://nfm16.nationalrail.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/tm_excess_fare/769.html#XS_TOCTOC

You might not agree with the logic (I certainly don't), but the answer is in black and white. The new ticket doesn't have to be the ANY PERMITTED ticket, though; a TPE guard could sell a new TPE-Only ticket.