Route restricted SOR more expensive when the SVR is not.

[robbeech]

There may be many examples of this but I have recently only just spotted this.
My local station Whitwell (WWL) to London Terminals journeys has 2 main ticket types. Via Nottingham or Any Permitted (the latter allows changes at Worksop and Retford and in to King’s Cross or Worksop and Sheffield. There are of course many routes one can choose but these are not relevant here.

I frequently work in London and take advantage of the Super off peak fares. The via Nottingham is just shy of £10 cheaper than the any permitted so I tend to buy that and excess one half where necessary.

However the anytime fare seems to be the other way around. The via Nottingham SOR is £10 more expensive than the any permitted fare which is of course valid via Nottingham.

The important question here is, as we know the more expensive fare is valid on the cheaper routes by default so how would a VTEC guard at Retford see this if using a via Nottingham SOR that’s £10 more expensive than the any permitted. Would they complain at given me a zero excess or is there a strong chance they’d reject the ticket altogether? Unfortunately at £171 and £181 respectively I don’t fancy a trip out to try it like I would on a less expensive journey.

The Any permitted tickets are priced by VTEC and the Via Nottingham understandably by EMT. What do we think is the reasoning behind this overlap in fares? I’m guessing it’s likely just how they have risen independently over the years and one has overtaken the other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most likely that, it does happen sometimes. The effect is that the more expensive routed fare should not be sold.

 

[robbeech]

I might see what the social media teams say (out of interest) . I always find it interesting to see the different responses you get from them. Both TOCs are generally very helpful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some people seem to think that putting a routed fare in that is more expensive than Any Permitted removes that route from Any Permitted, so don't be surprised if they claim that. That is however incorrect - the situation is similar but not the same - namely that a routed fare for a route that is *not* Permitted that is *less* than Any Permitted de-facto brings that route into being Permitted (because it would be a zero-fare excess to correct it).

So if Nottingham was not a Permitted Route, introducing a routed fare for it priced lower than the Any Permitted would mean the Any Permitted would be de-facto valid on it so long as that situation persisted.

However, in this case, as Nottingham is (I'm assuming) a Permitted Route, there is no reason ever to sell the more expensive routed ticket, as its existence does not affect the validity of the Any Permitted ticket.

 

[robbeech]

EMT Twitter have said I must travel on the route it says and not offered any idea of excesses but this is fine. It is half what I expected. I have replied to them and someone else that posted with the following scenario based on these tickets.

If I held a via Nottingham SVR and due to disruption or s chdnge to my travel plans I wanted to excess this to an any permitted SOR (so 2 lots of excessing) then dependent on the excess process and what order things were done would depend on the price paid.
If we excessed to SOR first then did a zero excess to any permitted this would be more expensive than excessing to any permitted then excessing to SOR.
As an aside question, what’s the process when excessing a route in one direction only (half the didference) but ALSO excessing the time restriction (SVR to SOR in this case) asthos could affect the price too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an aside question, what’s the process when excessing a route in one direction only (half the didference) but ALSO excessing the time restriction (SVR to SOR in this case) asthos could affect the price too.

You can't half-excess a time restriction, so you would have to excess to SOR *then* half-excess the route, unless I'm very much mistaken.

 

[yorkie]

The important question here is, as we know the more expensive fare is valid on the cheaper routes by default so how would a VTEC guard at Retford see this if using a via Nottingham SOR that’s £10 more expensive than the any permitted. Would they complain at given me a zero excess or is there a strong chance they’d reject the ticket altogether? Unfortunately at £171 and £181 respectively I don’t fancy a trip out to try it like I would on a less expensive journey.

They can choose to either accept the ticket as it is, or issue an excess fare priced at £0.00.

The Any permitted tickets are priced by VTEC and the Via Nottingham understandably by EMT. What do we think is the reasoning behind this overlap in fares? I’m guessing it’s likely just how they have risen independently over the years and one has overtaken the other.

The EMT set fare is too high.

Most Anytime fares rose to ludicrous levels since privatisation but VTEC reduced theirs to a rate that is still too expensive, but less ludicrous than EMT's.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/virgin-trains-east-coast-boss-8755479

We’re going to reduce our standard anytime fares by 10% to make train travel more affordable, as a key things that passengers want is affordable, clean, reliable and fast transport.

In 2007 (NFM95) the fares were £117 via Nottingham and £120 Any Permitted. This means they should be around £161 and £165 today, making EMT's very overpriced indeed.

However EMT are unlikely to reduce the price.

 

[DaiGog]

If this was to be brought to the attention of EMT's pricing team, I'm sure they would look into reducing the price of the routed fare as it makes no sense to have them as they are. They cannot collude with VTEC to set the fare of either product.

No restricted ticket should ever be more expensive than an unrestricted or less restricted one of the same product type.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If this was to be brought to the attention of EMT's pricing team, I'm sure they would look into reducing the price of the routed fare

Or they'd get the Routeing Guide amended so Nottingham was no longer a Permitted Route.

 

[yorkie]

Or they'd get the Routeing Guide amended so Nottingham was no longer a Permitted Route.

Left to their own devices, they probably would

Unfortunately for EMT, the shortest route rule prevents them.

They did get the routeing guide amended for Newark to London. While they may not have needed to collude with East Coast to enable that to happen, the fact is East Coast were quite happy for the change to be made. As for the DfT? They were also happy to reduce passenger rights, because their priority is to reduce the "burden" on taxpayers, so they approved the change

 

[MichaelAMW]

Left to their own devices, they probably would

Unfortunately for EMT, the shortest route rule prevents them.

They did get the routeing guide amended for Newark to London. While they may not have needed to collude with East Coast to enable that to happen, the fact is East Coast were quite happy for the change to be made. As for the DfT? They were also happy to reduce passenger rights, because their priority is to reduce the "burden" on taxpayers, so they approved the change

What is particularly bad about that one, and it's one of those issues where EMT shows itself to be extremely anti-customer at a corporate level, is that the fares via Nottingham are route: East Midlands Trains only, which means they can't be excessed, which means you can't do a journey from Newark which goes one way via the MML and the other via the ECML. For me, this is a prime example of the worst of the franchised arrangements and the lack of protection for the passenger. It seems wrong to me that there is a fare flow with no ticket that is not TOC specific.

In theory, you could get the direct train in the morning with an Any Permitted ticket but I can imagine that you'd get challenged on the way.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Had a quick chat about this to our pricing manager on the train home tonight

 

[robbeech]

It’s worth remembering that the Whitwell London Terminals Via Nottingham is not restricted to a Nottingham to St Pancras journey. It is still valid to Nottingham then to Grantham and onwards to King’s Cross.
As for removing Nottingham as a permitted route, I’m sure some would enjoy that but as Yorkie says, it’s the shortest route and the obvious one for most passengers.
My favourite routeing on the any permitted is Whitwell Worksop Lincoln Peterborough Ely Cambridge Liverpool Street. Might as well make a day of it.

 

[button_boxer]

It’s worth remembering that the Whitwell London Terminals Via Nottingham is not restricted to a Nottingham to St Pancras journey. It is still valid to Nottingham then to Grantham and onwards to King’s Cross.
As for removing Nottingham as a permitted route, I’m sure some would enjoy that but as Yorkie says, it’s the shortest route and the obvious one for most passengers.
My favourite routeing on the any permitted is Whitwell Worksop Lincoln Peterborough Ely Cambridge Liverpool Street. Might as well make a day of it.

Which route via Nottingham is the shortest one? Presumably if Nottingham were removed as a mapped route then you’d lose the option via whichever of Grantham or Leicester is longer even if the other one is covered by the shortest route rule.

 

[robbeech]

Which route via Nottingham is the shortest one? Presumably if Nottingham were removed as a mapped route then you’d lose the option via whichever of Grantham or Leicester is longer even if the other one is covered by the shortest route rule.

Agreed. The two points were separate. Via Leicester is the shortest route.