1) The clerk actually suggested that I should buy a through "Saver" which "would be more expensive, but which would avoid the possibility of having to buy a second ticket". Given this apparent mis-direction (whether intentional or through lack of training, I can't say), is there any realistic prospect of splitting ever being promoted by the ToCs - especially as in this case the "splitting" was recommended by the NR site.
2) What precautions ought I take to demonstrate, if required, to the XC staff that the first train was indeed late at Wolverhampton and hence a later train was needed. An endorsed ticket from the guard on the first service/station staff at Wolverhampton? a photo of the train indicator at Wolverhampton? - or will the XC staff know automatically?
In view of Calc7's comments, I intend carrying the exert from The Manual, the print-out from the NR site and the booking print-outs to show that the tickets were bought at the same time. I realise that I've made a substantially saving by buying Advance tickets but does it really have to be so stressful?!
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.
I've given up calling them for ticketing issues. To say that they are not interested is an understatement.
I agree with hairyhandedfool. 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.
Without getting into the previous issue, yes they do exist, and yes they do meet the requirements.Also, if we take a zone 1-4 paper day travelcard (do they still exist?) and a boundary zone 4 to anytown ticket, then I suggest these two tickets as a combination would meet the requirements of the 'zonal tickets' part of NRCOC clause 19.
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.
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.
I'd be interested to know if this comment is based upon actual experience of a similar circumstance without any other aggravating factors or if it's just spurious rhetoric?
It was quite a statement wasnt it. I cant say I have ever seen a member of the BTP arrest someone when one of my guys has called them with an issue surrounding a ticket - normally they call them cos said person is getting arsey and the presence of the BTP ensures he gives his details and calms down. The only time ive seen them arrest someone after being called for a ticket issue is when the fella smacked me in the face.
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!
No wonder this comment has thus far been ignored. Talk about dramatic. Just because a very niche area of ticketing isn't fully understood by all staff, Virgin are not fit to run a franchise?
This type of attitude is a perfect example of why enthusiasts are derised as irritating knowitalls as sadly, it's an attitude that's put into practice in reality.
I think you are setting up a straw man : Does anyone say that they would expect someone to always be able to recall ALL the details of anything?
In fact many discussions on this forum imply that the regulations confict internally, or are ambiguously worded, often enough to believe that a 'definitive' understanding of these regulations may be impossible. No-one believing this would expect any one person to understand them completely nor any two people always to agree on them.
The rules are created by the industry (defined broadly) not the customers. Is it unreasonable to say that the industry would be hypocritical if their attitude was really that the rules were too complicated for anyone other than a "troublemaking knowitall" to understand, let alone their own staff?
And doubly hypocritical if they were to say at the same time that the rules are so simple that any passenger, however infrequent, should be able to absorb a complete understanding of them during the process of buying a ticket. And that therefore any passenger has only themselves to blame if they find to their horror that they are treated as a criminal if they act at any time as though they didn't know the rules.
I think what people are arguing about is not whether everyone can understand the rules, but, given that doubt is not uncommon, how should staff on trains be expected to treat a passenger when doubt inevitably arises?
I gather (please correct me if I am misrepresenting you) that you believe that if train staff find that they do not understand (or cannot fault) a passenger's explanation as to why they are on that train with that ticket then it is reasonable to deal with the passenger as a possible faredodger.
Perhaps those arguing against this feel that the industry is out of step with other customer-facing businesses. That such companies usually require their staff to treat a customer who cannot be proven to be in the wrong as... right. That responsible companies take care to FIND OUT how well their procedures are working and how well their staff are performing, and do not wash their hands of responsibility for bad "one off" events. And that once any company felt that they were losing money or customers because a small number of staff were unable to understand, explain, and reasonably apply a set of regulations, they would take steps to find better regulations, trainers, or staff - not better customers.
So you agree that a company is unfit to run a franchise because one numpty TM didn't know the rules and took the wrong attitude towards verifying them? I don't see how changing the colour of one's uniform will alter the personality trait of a stubborn person.
My point is that the railway company cannot be held responsible for an individual's personality traits. The company can provide limitless training but at the end of the day, humans will forget minute details and will lapse from time to time with following the proper procedure, especially if they're naturally stubborn and hot headed.
One thing that gets me is Virgin and London Midland TMs regularly making announcements in the early morning that anyone in possession of an off-peak ticket doesn't have a valid ticket and should get off the train or they will have to buy an Anytime Single.
When my own Off-Peak ticket is checked and I point out to them that their announcement might have unfairly intimidated some passengers with valid Off-Peak tickets into getting off the train, they are never remotely bothered.
I disagree. Any company should take responsibility for the actions of its staff, if an employee's personality traits are resulting in them not delivering the service the company requires them to deliver then this should be addressed via Performance Management. Ultimately if the employee does not bring their behaviour into line with the company's expectation then the company should consider the employee's dismissal.
If an operator is not conducting effective performance management then thats probably not grounds for them not to be suitable to operate a franchise. However I would question whether broader difficulties resulting from this lack of management would cause far wider damage to the business.
Not to mention that using an invalid off-peak ticket means an excess, not a new ticket!
Not sure which part of the London Midland network was being referred to, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of erroneously used Off Peak tickets in the morning peak are going to be the return portions of an OPR or SVR. Many flows where SVRs are available don't have a corresponding SOR and so the "excess fare" is automatically going to be a new ticket.
No it's not. An SVR used at an invalid time with no SOR for the flow is to be excessed to double the SDS (discounted where applicable, or sell a new undiscounted SDS where cheaper). I believe this is in the EC excess instructions.
Agreed and I am sure Virgin Customer Services will resolve this matterLots of passion on this debate, but can I draw peoples attention to a few things:
1) the Virgin TM was clearly in the wrong. There is no fifth column or ulterior purpose in either Virgin Trains or ATOC or anyone else pushing these sorts of errors. It shouldn't have happened and is as frustrating to those in the industry who know the rules as to those outside it.
Some TOC employees deny this, but you are right!2) "Any Reasonable" was replaced by "Any Permitted" by British Rail at the behest of the Government in the run up to privatisation. The TOCs have no choice but to comply with it. Please don't exacerbate the rosy view of good old BR/nasty TOCs - let's stick to facts
Well, that causes anomalies for sure. While such anomalies can be amusing and/or daft, ultimately you're right, the system is at fault. And any changes to the system may not benefit customers so I am not keen for any change unless certain guarantees are made. But I know such guarantees would not be forthcoming.3) The current foul-up with split ticketing is caused by the Government's requirement that every through journey must be through priced by a specific TOC, whilst preventing them discussing these prices with other TOCs who run services and set fares on part of the route because it contravenes competition legislation.
Agreed. But, presumably, the industry will have no concerns if someone does create a system that is designed to quote for such split fares, providing it only suggests valid tickets? (I note that there are plans for the data to be made 'open' but the DfT has concerns to ensure that the data is used appropriately).4) None of the industry systems are able to or designed to cope with quoting split fares, it is not some evil conspiracy.
It is probably best that the system doesn't change much, because any new system is unlikely to result in anything other than fare rises, given the policies that have been in place under both the previous Labour Government and also the current Government.5) Sorting the situation out properly requires the Government and DfT to rethink what they want and require of TOCs in regards to fares and fares regulation. In true Sir Humphrey style they have embarked on a Fares and Ticketing review to put off making any decisions for as long as possible.
I have no issue with this, but some more mystery shopping that deals with some of these issues could help to ensure that customers are correctly accepted when using routes & combinations that are permitted but may look a little 'odd'.6) in the meantime, everyone will just have to muddle along.
That's excellentBTW in the light of the 'Fares & Ticketing Review' there will be no changes to the NRCoC with regard to split ticketing for the forseeable future (or probably forever, as it is now such a political hot potato)
My point is that the railway company cannot be held responsible for an individual's personality traits.
Agreed. But, presumably, the industry will have no concerns if someone does create a system that is designed to quote for such split fares, providing it only suggests valid tickets? (I note that there are plans for the data to be made 'open' but the DfT has concerns to ensure that the data is used appropriately).
5) Sorting the situation out properly requires the Government and DfT to rethink what they want and require of TOCs in regards to fares and fares regulation. In true Sir Humphrey style they have embarked on a Fares and Ticketing review to put off making any decisions for as long as possible.
I'm sure that remark is made with tongue in cheek, but it is also a reasonable assessment of just how little is likely to change in the meantime (while we wait for a national electronic ticketing / smart-card system).6) in the meantime, everyone will just have to muddle along.
But its not the only outcome that's possible. With effective and responsive Regulation, the industry could do a lot better than 'muddle along'. It could, for example, provide front line training, investment in customer service that raises the profile of Rail travel from something that millions of people* put up with to something people are proud of.
Other consumer-facing privatised industries have managed!
*people: passengers and staff alike.
I'd be interested to know if this comment is based upon actual experience of a similar circumstance without any other aggravating factors or if it's just spurious rhetoric?