split ticket problems

[sheff1]

nobody at Euston!

Excellent - exactly as should be the case.

 

[34D]

In a situation like that experienced by the OP, sitting there wondering what is going to happen when you reach your destination makes for an extremely stressful and truly horrible journey.

100% agree. And if BTP had attended, their objective would have been to get an arrest (and hence favourable statistic) not to interpret a written document.

 

[HowMuch?]

What a horrible experience. You seemed pretty calm, I would have been in bits! Glad it ended OK.

I'm used to using splits, but only at an elementary level - where the the first ticket becomes completely used up at the station where the second one starts.

This split was definitely a level up. Especially with the added (but Red Herring) complication of being on a train that didn't stop at the end point of your first ticket. Though I suppose if it had stopped at Lichfield, you would have bought a second ticket that started there, reducing the problem to a level 101 split.

It took me a while to get what you were doing. At first it sounded a bit like the description of a practical exam in PhD SplitTicketing....



You will travel between two stations of your choice (let these be Stations A and D). At Station A, take from your wallet a coupon which permits Break of Journey and is valid to a station somewhere between Station A and Station D (let this be Station C).

Select a train to Station D which does NOT call at Station C but DOES calls at at least one station short of Station C. Let the last stop before passing Station C be Station B.

Go to the window to purchase a ticket valid from Station B to Station D. Let this be Ticket B. If the "man at the window" objects to selling you a ticket which does not start at Station A, extract from your briefcase the 200 pages of "supporting documentation" you always carry with you, and argue the toss as covered in "Teaching Rail Staff Their Job Nicely 101". If you fail to obtain Ticket B, you fail this test immediately. If the discussion becomes heated and you are arrested by BTP you fail the whole course.

Armed with Ticket A, Ticket B, and your bulging briefcase, board the train. At Station B, you will perform a virtual BOJ on Ticket A. That is, without leaving the train, you will cease travelling on Ticket A. You will then be travelling on Ticket B.

At some point in your journey you will show the Guard your tickets, state your destination as Station D, and explain your virtual BOJ (present or future, depending on whether the Guard arrvies before or after Station B).

If the Guard accepts your tickets without question, or after a brief glance at your supporting documentation, you pass this test. If the Guard persuades you to buy another ticket, you fail this test. Again: if you get arrested, you fail the course.

Note If the Guard arrives AFTER Station B (ie post-virtual BOJ) you may need to exercise rather more charm and persuasiveness, possibly depending on how many tickets you show.

Good luck, and see you in court.



Hats off to you for paying the right fare and for sticking to your guns.

 

[John @ home]

I really like your spoof exam question, HowMuch? But there is one detail that is out of date.

extract from your briefcase the 200 pages of "supporting documentation" you always carry with you

200 pages was a good guess for the initial (1996) Routeing Guide. That's 233 pages.

Following Fares Simplification in 2008, the Routeing Guide is now closer to 1,500 pages!

 

[jkdd77]

nobody at Euston!

I could do with a pint now!

Interestingly, this isn't the first time claims by Virgin guards of "you'll be seeing the police at Euston", after falsely claiming a valid ticket was invalid, have proved to be hollow.

A few weeks ago, a poster reported that they made a legitimate BoJ on the return portion of a long-distance SVR; the guard refused to accept the ticket, and threatened him/her with arrest.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56514&highlight=police+++break+of+journey+++euston

 

[neilmc]

You wonder whether TOCs instruct their staff to the effect of:

"We don't like split ticketing because it reduces/diverts our revenue to other TOCs, however a lot of people have just read about it on a website and don't really know what they're doing, so if you can threaten them by saying it's illegal they may back down and you can make them buy a new ticket. But if they sound like they've researched it and make a fuss they may be in the right, but don't worry, we'll back you up and just claim it was an occasional mistake if it gets publicised".

 

[Ferret]

You wonder whether TOCs instruct their staff to the effect of:

"We don't like split ticketing because it reduces/diverts our revenue to other TOCs, however a lot of people have just read about it on a website and don't really know what they're doing, so if you can threaten them by saying it's illegal they may back down and you can make them buy a new ticket. But if they sound like they've researched it and make a fuss they may be in the right, but don't worry, we'll back you up and just claim it was an occasional mistake if it gets publicised".

Mine doesn't!

As I've said before, the problem is quality of training. When people are left to figure it out for themselves, that's when nonsense like this happens.

To the poster who said he'd be in bits - why? If you're confident you are right, then be prepared to stand your ground without losing the plot. If things get heated, you can always volunteer your details and tell the Guard to submit a TIR - a matter for further investigation. If the Guard then takes you up on the offer, then you may find that the company will go to him and tell him he's wrong and get him to understand what (for example) condition 19 really means!

 

[CompactDstrxion]

Virgin are not fit to operate a flagship franchise if they cannot properly train their staff about split ticketing. Or how to conduct themselves if they are unsure about a passenger's ticket combination.

 

[General Zod]

Is there any likelihood of the TOCs getting together and implementing a blanket ban on split ticketing across the whole of the national network ? I'm sure it must have crossed their minds. Their income streams are obviously being affected and they are also open to many legitimate backdoor exploits Would this be a persuasive enough argument to stop the practice ?

 

[calc7]

Is there any likelihood of the TOCs getting together and implementing a blanket ban on split ticketing across the whole of the national network ? I'm sure it must have crossed their minds. Their income streams are obviously being affected and they are also open to many legitimate backdoor exploits Would this be a persuasive enough argument to stop the practice ?

What would this ban be?
It's much easier to stop 19(c) non-stop changeovers of tickets, but for splits where the train calls at that station, passengers will happily get off, stand on the platform for a second, and get back on if it means saving money. I don't see what further can be done!

 

[Zoe]

What would this ban be?
It's much easier to stop 19(c) non-stop changeovers of tickets, but for splits where the train calls at that station, passengers will happily get off, stand on the platform for a second, and get back on if it means saving money. I don't see what further can be done!

They could ban starting a new journey on the same train you have just alighted from. They would also need to only allow the use of one ticket for a journey in this case or people could argue that they were not starting a new journey.

 

[All Line Rover]

They could ban starting a new journey on the same train you have just alighted from.

They would be a laughing stock if they did that.

With regard to the training, I don't agree that the problem is a lack of it. The vast majority of Virgin TM's are OK/excellent. It's just the one or two (well known) TM's who think they know everything, and will threaten to call the police at the first opportunity (even though nothing ever happens). I've met them before. They are a pain in the backside, and should be out of a job - there are numerous staff in lower roles who would be much better at filling that role.

 

[yorkie]

If everyone who encounters such guards writes polite, but assertive, letters to Virgin Customer Relations, then perhaps they can take action.

Someone who works in the Customer Relations department of a TOC once told me that they are aware of a small number of guards who do not act in the way that they want them to, but they are unable to take action against them unless they get complaints, and therefore welcome constructive complaints when problems occur. Not sure if this is the case with Virgin or not, but it's definitely a good idea to report an incident like this in a constructive way. I'm sure the OP will do a good job of this and I await the outcome with interest.

Let's give Virgin a chance to resolve the matter. I'm confident they will!

 

[moonrakerz]

but for splits where the train calls at that station, passengers will happily get off, stand on the platform for a second, and get back on if it means saving money.

You're not allowed to do that either according to SE Trains :roll::roll:

My daughter asked for two (split journey) tickets at Rochester station; when she was told that she couldn't do that, she jokingly said "I'll get off and back on again".
She was then told that she couldn't do that, she would have to get off and wait for the next train ...........

She then produced a copy of the rules regarding split ticketing (which I had given her ages ago) and was duly sold the tickets she wanted - but with much ill grace as the booking clerk could much manage !!

 

[General Zod]

I would have thought that split ticketing is now such a common method being employed by savvy customers that ticket clerks would themselves be pretty brushed up on such techniques, or at least TOCs would make it their duty to re-train staff. The cynic in me says that perhaps this is not in their best interests.

 

[HowMuch?]

Ferret,

Sorry if I sound too much of a wuss.....

I guess we agree on lots of things

- I understand and am happy to use split ticketing. As Yorkie says, it's ridiculous that a long, direct, journey should be dearer than a roundabout sequence of short journeys. And it's infuriating that to get anything other than a decent price for an impromtu (ie not planned months ahead) journey Mr Public would have to spend literally hours wading through the rules and then testing an infinite combination of tickets. Of course, to us, it's fun, but I'm sure the system wasn't set up with us in mind. This is the kind of fragmentation that we were promised would not happen as a result of privatisation.

- I dislike the fact that in order to clear the way to take a small number of fare dodgers to court TOCs have done away with "any reasonable" routes (basically, "so long as each leg takes you closer to your destination, you're fine") and replaced them with "any permitted" routes - a legalistic minefield of rules, subclauses with unclear combinations of "ands" and "ors", maps, and hastily written "easements". And doomed from credit from the start by a bland statement that everyone wants to take the shortest route home, regardless of time taken. All of which would be incomprehensible to 99% of passengers if they even knew it existed ("well it says 'subject to NCoC' on theticket"). It'sdoubtful whether these rules cut faredodging anyway. The typical fare dodger was a ticketless kid hiding in the loo on an InterCity, or a ticketless commuter crammed on a short-distance train with little chance of a ticket inspection - rather than someone stretching "reasonableness" to travel 50 miles on a 20 mile ticket. In fact simply replacing "reasonable" with "permitted" on tickets has probably made overriding worse (well it says "any route is permitted" dunnit?).

- I find it infuriating TOCS (and fanboys, or trolls, on here) say that every Mr Joe Passenger must expect to get in trouble if they don't read hundreds of pages of stuff before buying a ticket. And that while Mr Public should ask the ticket seller if they are in any doubt, they can't of course expect the TM (or this forum) to believe them when they tell him they are doing exactly what they were told.

- Topping the "Adding insult to injury" stakes, though, is when the TOCs say that no-one really needs to pay through the nose for train tickets because there are wonderfully good value tickets available to all. Because when I DO say "OK, I'll check the fares and read all the rules and see if I can afford a leisure trip and put money in the till" that TOCs and their fans and some staff then complain that in applying THEIR rules I am "getting away with it" and "giving TMs too much work".

- I despair every time I read that if a first-time passenger makes a mistake then their trip to court (and career-threatening fraud prosecution) is entitrely warranted by their ignorance ; but that full-time professional staff (the ticket seller who gave them the wrong info or the guard who wrongly accused them of fraud, or the communications manager who gives out duff gen when interviewed by a newspaper, or the website manager who lets information get out of date) can't possibly be expected to know all those petty details.

- I assume that you too find it maddening that enforcement of these rules (in what is still by some of us thought of as a public utility) is being transferred to specialist staff, and even external companies, whose efforts can only be monitored by counting the Penalties extracted and Prosecutions launched, and who therefore have a vested interest in shooting first and asking questions later ("I'm not listening, I've got more tickets to check, here's a bit of paper, get a lawyer to tell your story to the judge <adds tick to five-bar gate>").

Did I go into rant mode ? Not at you, Ferret - I'm on your side.

But where we DO differ is that perhaps I'm just all mouth and no trousers.

I hate bullying, and I'm confident that supported by the good peple on here I can work out what the rules mean. BUT some of the stories on here (like this one) DO worry me. I wouldn't get on a train without being 100% certain my tickets were valid. But when confronted by an equally-certain TM who is paid to understand the rules and is backed up by police, would I start to feel my 100% certainty is misplaced? What if this TM is right in denying my interpretation of clause 3.7.8.9.c ? What if "A and B or C" really does, despite any common sense interpretation of the words and layout, mean "(A and B) or C" not "A and (B or C)". What if even though I KNOW the TM is wrong he tells me that I will be arrested at Euston if I don't do what he says?

So, finally back to the point... Well, if threatened with the police waiting for me in that London, I would definitely have NOT enjoyed the journey. I THINK (it's never happened, touch wood) that for me the police threat is the point at which I would back down. I guess that in the OP's shoes I would have bought a ticket, and (I hope) asked the TM to write down exactly on what grounds he was rejecting my BOJ-allowed Liverpool-Lichfield ticket as valid to Stafford.

That's why I congratulated the OP on his determination. He (and you) are simply braver than me.

PS

t's only just occurred to me that the TM was happy with the principle of splitting. He accepted the OP had a ticket onward FROM Stafford, and explicitly asked him to buy a (retrospective) ticket TO Stafford.

The only problem, therefore, was with the BOJ, even though the OP HAD to BOJ at Stafford (or change trains) because the train didn't call at Lichfield. To the TM, this BOJ somehow made the first ticket ineligible for combining with the second one. Or perhaps he didn't really grasp that the OP WAS doing a BOJ.

It's impossible to believe that the TM's training didn't deal with the factors here separately:
- If the train doesn't stop at a ticket's destination, the passenger must change trains (or if allowed, do a BOJ) at an earlier station (covered on Day 1, presumably);
- A BOJ is allowed on such and such tickets ;
- A passenger can combine any types of ticket if the train stops where they join ;
- Combining tickets at a station does not require the passenger to alight there.

I guess the TM simply could not separate in his head the COMBINATION of factors

- The first ticket had an endpoint where the train didn't stop ...
- ... and therefore remained part-used beyond Stafford ...
- ... where the OP did a both BOJ
- ... and a non-alighting ticket split ...
- ... even though a BOJ usually means leaving the station.

I suspect that the key issue was the unusual concept of a Break Of Journey that didn't involve leaving the train, let alone the station.

 

[paul1609]

Isn't expected that the ability to use split tickets will be curtailed following a change to the NCOC?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Yes, that is exactly my understanding.
I believe there was some dissent, though, with some TOCs seeking the complete removal of the right to combine tickets, and so a compromise proposal is to retain the ability to combine tickets but that the option to use services which don't stop at the point where tickets 'join' (as applies to season tickets) will be removed in the near future.

 

[Bungle73]

Why can't they just keep things as they are?

Yes, that is exactly my understanding.
I believe there was some dissent, though, with some TOCs seeking the complete removal of the right to combine tickets, and so a compromise proposal is to retain the ability to combine tickets but that the option to use services which don't stop at the point where tickets 'join' (as applies to season tickets) will be removed in the near future.

How would that work in relation to Travelcards and Boundary Zone extension tickets?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't recall having seen any actual text of the agreed compromise proposal, so I will not give the impression that this reply is definitive; but I will say that my understanding is that the proposal is to continue to permit Seasons and Travelcards in all combination with other tickets that are permitted at present, but, that in all cases of travel with combinations of tickets, the train must stop at the point where they 'join'.

I appreciate that this leads to further questions such as combinations which include an overlap and I'm not sure that these have been resolved with any clarity and unless I see some documentation, I'll say no more.

 

[Bungle73]

But with a Travelcard/Boundary Zone ticket combo, in a lot of cases, the "join" is between stations.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The 'Boundary Zone' fares are extensions (or an excess if you prefer) of a travelcard and are not considered separate tickets for the purposes of condition 19.

 

[LexyBoy]

I'm very disappointed if this is going ahead, it's penalising those who are already contributing the most to the industry. Plus of course it means I'll have to pay again to cover the route my season covers if I want flexibility.

When was this agreed and what public consultation occurred? Because I have a letter from the office of Norman Baker from a couple of months ago stating that on changes were planned to Condition 19, for what it's worth (probably not the server space it's written on).

But with a Travelcard/Boundary Zone ticket combo, in a lot of cases, the "join" is between stations.

Not many people know about them anyway IME so they could probably get away with scrapping -sorry, simplifying- them. Everyone I know with Travelcards just buy tickets from London Terminals to wherever they're going.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Agreed? No.

When was this agreed and what public consultation occurred?

The changes to 4 Conditions in the NRCoC which were drafted by ATOC in December were not agreed. The DfT would not accept the full impact of the proposals and a compromise was 'agreed' only in the sense that the 'compromise' was what the DfT said that they might, at that time, accept.

The consequence was that ATOC had to re-consider whether the 'compromise' would be acceptable to TOCs. At this moment, I do not know the outcome. To my knowledge, no change has been agreed, and no proposals have been successfully negotiated by both the TOCs and the DfT that is ready to be put forward for consultation. No doubt there will be a few more rounds of negotiation before any sort of concord is reached. At that time, and not before, we could all look forward to an opportunity to respond to consultation.

I think you have read too much into what I and paul1609 have posted. But what you can be sure of is this: TOCs and their Association are minded to amend the NRCoC.

 

[tony_mac]

My thanks to everyone for all the support, it is much appreciated.

It's a bit ironic really, I have done some odd routes or splitting without issue, but I wasn't even deliberately splitting tickets here.

I just had a spare return portion valid for part of the journey, so I did what I think any normal person would do, and bought a new ticket for the rest of the journey.
I think that, if splitting tickets does get outlawed, it's going to cause a lot of trouble to genuine passengers who have a change of plans.

 

[island]

The 'Boundary Zone' fares are extensions (or an excess if you prefer) of a travelcard and are not considered separate tickets for the purposes of condition 19.

Is that written somewhere or is it just your understanding?

 

[John @ home]

The 'Boundary Zone' fares are extensions (or an excess if you prefer) of a travelcard and are not considered separate tickets for the purposes of condition 19.

Is that written somewhere or is it just your understanding?

I agree with hairyhandedfool.

The Manual -> London -> London Area Travelcards -> Travelcard ticket extension to National Rail stations

Holders of any Day Travelcard or Travelcard Season ticket can purchase single or return extension fare tickets for travel to or from a range of National Rail stations.

Ticket holders may wish to travel to a station outside the London Fare Zones area, or to a station in the area but farther out than the zones in which the ticket is valid. A ticket for the extra fare should be issued from the appropriate Boundary Zone.

Tickets should be issued to/from the outermost Boundary Zone of the Travelcard held and must not be valid for travel after the date of expiry of the Travelcard held. Day Travelcard holders can only purchase a Day Single or Day Return (Peak, Off-Peak or Super Off-Peak as appropriate) Excess Fare.

Travelcard extension fares should only be issued in conjunction with a valid Travelcard for journeys to or from stations outside the zones covered by the ticket held. Passengers must keep Travelcards ready to present for inspection together with their Boundary Zone extension fare ticket.

Extension fare tickets should be issued using the special ‘Boundary Zone’ locations, between the Boundary Zones and stations shown in your TIS or the Fares Finder. Passengers travelling to or from stations not shown in your TIS or the Fares Finder should be issued a point-to-point ticket for either –

• The last station in the outermost zone covered by their Travelcard (travel will then be subject to the National Conditions of Carriage, Clause 17 (combination of tickets)), or
• London Terminals, the individual London station, or other named station as appropriate.

It is evident that a Boundary Zone ticket is not valid without the accompanying valid Travelcard, so it is more accurately described as an "Excess Fare" in the third paragraph than a "ticket" in the first.

The reference to "National Conditions of Carriage, Clause 17" has not been updated to reflect the inclusion of "Rail" in the title in 2000 and the re-numbering of the rules on combination of tickets to Condition 19 in 2006.

 

[Skymonster]

I guess we agree on lots of things

- I understand and am happy to use split ticketing. As Yorkie says, it's ridiculous that a long, direct, journey should be dearer than a roundabout sequence of short journeys. And it's infuriating that to get anything other than a decent price for an impromtu (ie not planned months ahead) journey Mr Public would have to spend literally hours wading through the rules and then testing an infinite combination of tickets. Of course, to us, it's fun, but I'm sure the system wasn't set up with us in mind. This is the kind of fragmentation that we were promised would not happen as a result of privatisation.

- I dislike the fact that in order to clear the way to take a small number of fare dodgers to court TOCs have done away with "any reasonable" routes (basically, "so long as each leg takes you closer to your destination, you're fine") and replaced them with "any permitted" routes - a legalistic minefield of rules, subclauses with unclear combinations of "ands" and "ors", maps, and hastily written "easements". And doomed from credit from the start by a bland statement that everyone wants to take the shortest route home, regardless of time taken. All of which would be incomprehensible to 99% of passengers if they even knew it existed ("well it says 'subject to NCoC' on theticket"). It'sdoubtful whether these rules cut faredodging anyway. The typical fare dodger was a ticketless kid hiding in the loo on an InterCity, or a ticketless commuter crammed on a short-distance train with little chance of a ticket inspection - rather than someone stretching "reasonableness" to travel 50 miles on a 20 mile ticket. In fact simply replacing "reasonable" with "permitted" on tickets has probably made overriding worse (well it says "any route is permitted" dunnit?).

- I find it infuriating TOCS (and fanboys, or trolls, on here) say that every Mr Joe Passenger must expect to get in trouble if they don't read hundreds of pages of stuff before buying a ticket. And that while Mr Public should ask the ticket seller if they are in any doubt, they can't of course expect the TM (or this forum) to believe them when they tell him they are doing exactly what they were told.

- Topping the "Adding insult to injury" stakes, though, is when the TOCs say that no-one really needs to pay through the nose for train tickets because there are wonderfully good value tickets available to all. Because when I DO say "OK, I'll check the fares and read all the rules and see if I can afford a leisure trip and put money in the till" that TOCs and their fans and some staff then complain that in applying THEIR rules I am "getting away with it" and "giving TMs too much work".

- I despair every time I read that if a first-time passenger makes a mistake then their trip to court (and career-threatening fraud prosecution) is entitrely warranted by their ignorance ; but that full-time professional staff (the ticket seller who gave them the wrong info or the guard who wrongly accused them of fraud, or the communications manager who gives out duff gen when interviewed by a newspaper, or the website manager who lets information get out of date) can't possibly be expected to know all those petty details.

- I assume that you too find it maddening that enforcement of these rules (in what is still by some of us thought of as a public utility) is being transferred to specialist staff, and even external companies, whose efforts can only be monitored by counting the Penalties extracted and Prosecutions launched, and who therefore have a vested interest in shooting first and asking questions later ("I'm not listening, I've got more tickets to check, here's a bit of paper, get a lawyer to tell your story to the judge <adds tick to five-bar gate>").

.

An excelent post and one the industry would do well to read, to understand the sorts of frustrations it engenders in some passengers. I'd like to add the following:

- It frustrates me that different TOCs in this supposedly joined up railway behave in different ways - an misguided or erroneous act that would simply result in a passenger being asked to pay the appropriate fare on one TOC might result in a penalty or even threat of prosecution on another

- It annoys me intensely that passengers have to resort to tactics such as splits and stopping short, that are potentially open to misinterpretation by staff ignorant of the rules, simply to get the best fare for their journey - in many other industries failing to give the consumer the "best" price for the product they wish to purchase and concealing cheaper alternative would have them investigated and potentially named and shamed by trading standards

Of course, the industry won't change things things without being forced to do so because:

1. It affects only a limited proportion of travellers - the majority don't get engaged in these issues and are even blissfully unaware of them - until of course they do something slightly more sophisticated than a simple return and then risk getting tripped up
2. Change and simplification would lose the industry much of money it collects from penalties, fines and repurchased tickets

TOCs want to cut out ticketing options such as splits - and whilst they may argue that this would simplify things, the driving motivation and result will be a larger revenue take, not simplification. ATOC therefore clearly have no motivation to resolve the issues highlighted in howmuch's post, nor do I see DFT having the willingness to tackle them. IMHO the way the industry currently behaves towards some passengers who innocently make mistakes or who are like the OP subject to staff ignorant of the rules is broadly equivalent to that of the car-clamping industry. And the problems that industry created only started to get resolved when public awareness of what they were doing was raised sufficiently. The only way some of these issues might start to be resolved in the rail is with a similar very comprehensive exposé and humiliation of the industry in the media that really grabs the attention of politicians. For that to happen, enough people (and some "high profile" people) have to get caught out and start to make much more of a fuss of it than simply writing to the TOC to complain about how they were treated.

Andy

 

[martinB]

I've been lurking here for a long while - and as a "customer" find lots of interesting issues...

I'm travelling from Oxenholme to Southampton on May 5th and used the National Rail site (and then the retailers) to buy two Advance tickets, splitting at Wolverhampton. 10 mins allowed, 7 mins interchange at Wolverhampton. Went to pick up the tickets from the machine. So far so good.

I then checked with the counter clerk that there would be no problem with getting the next train from Wolverhampton should the first be delayed. His response, abbreviated, "your booked train is notorious for being delayed, by buying two tickets you have assumed the risk of missing the second train and XC could well you make you buy a new ticket. However, it is bank holiday and they have allowed extra time, so you might be OK".

From my reading of the various threads (and the extract from The Manual) about split ticketing, he is wrong - or I have missed something?

Thanks

 

[DaveNewcastle]

From my reading of the various threads (and the extract from The Manual) about split ticketing, he is wrong - or I have missed something?

He is wrong.
(with a few provisos which you have probably already found).
Its not at all uncommon for some staff to be untrained in some of the more arcane ticketing possibilities, but it is dissapointing that something as straightforward as travel on 2 connecting services is not fully understood.