VauxhallandI
Established Member
The price to Stockport was the same as to Manchester Picc.
If I sit in it for the whole journey the fare is £20.
And is of course what 99% of people are quite happy to do.Yes, because that is what you agreed to do.
If I get off a stop before the end it's £20.
Technically yes, but the railway does shoot itself in the foot here. If the fare is exactly the same (eg Weymouth or Upwey) then there really shouldn't be a problem at all. If the shorter distance is cheaper then there also shouldn't really be a problem. If the shorter distance is more expensive (eg Brockenhurst or Southampton) then I'd agree that the customer ought to pay the required fare to get back from where they should have gone.No, because you have not paid for this journey.
If I don't travel at all it's £20.
And this is the bit that multiplies the percieved ridiculousness. If they are so concerned about you not using some of the service, surely they should be even more concerned about you not using it at all? Hence why I don't think any TOC would have a problem with you stopping short if you have bought a ticket to enable you to double back. They've got all the money they were ever going to get and have made you happy by saving you time. I also think the same should apply in reverse too. If you have a valid ticket to make the double back to the start of your advance then you should be able to join the advance service late. Again the railway hasn't lost anything, apart from forcing you to waste however much time that the double back would have taken. And as we've just said, the railway can't force you to travel at all.On the basis that the railway can't actually force you to travel at all, yes.
If I go a stop beyond it's £20 plus the fare between those two stops at the end.
As long as you have the extra ticket before you get to your original destination, of course.That is one way of doing it.
And in this case the seller has determined that the price of stopping short is more than the cost of only going to the destination. The buyer did not take up the option to have flexibility at the time of purchase and went with an inflexible fare. They agreed to that fare for that specific journey, nothing else.
Indeed, I think everyone here knows what the conditions are (though many passengers do not) and we all know that the rail industry chooses not to enforce the conditions in the circumstances described by the OP. There is also a good argument to say the OP was valid by using a combination, and an even stronger argument if the OP had bought the Altrincham ticket from Manchester.Everyone in this thread understands exactly what the rules are. By continuning to repeat what the rules state you are simply demonstrating that you've missed the point people are making.
Nobody is disputing what the terms and conditions say.
Indeed, I think everyone here knows what the conditions are (though many passengers do not) and we all know that the rail industry chooses not to enforce the conditions in the circumstances described by the OP. There is also a good argument to say the OP was valid by using a combination, and an even stronger argument if the OP had bought the Altrincham ticket from Manchester.
It's become a moral argument now, with most of us arguing that the rail industry policy of not charging passengers is a good solution, but with some arguing that the rail industry should not have this policy and should charge people an excess fare.
We've had that moral argument before, and we won't ever have everyone agreeing on it, so I don't really see what more can be gained in this discussion.
I agree, the average person would not think this necessary, but I also agree with DaveNewcastle's logic on that matter.Strangely enough buying a ticket from Manchester to Alty instead of from Stockport would seem incorrect to me. I can see the logic but I doubt even more that joe P would get their head around it.
You mean the other way round: holding a ticket for the line (Stockport-Manchester & back) and not travelling on it? Yeah, I agree, but it makes your case that bit more 'watertight' as you then definitely have a valid combination of tickets for a journey London - Stockport - Manchester - Stockport - Altrincham, and you could approach the guard with that valid combination and ask for advice on where to change trains, and specifically whether or not you are required to do a double-back.Travelling on a line without a ticket for the line
I thought I'd mentioned them, but if not, here they are (from the National Rail website) under "Advance ticket terms and conditions":-Nobody has answered the fact that I looked at my booking confirmation on the train and even followed the link to the terms and nothing is mentioned about the no break in journey clause.
Should it not be there? Have I missed it?
. . .
Break of journey
You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.
A few?I've had a few glasses of wine. I'm totally confused now. Please . . . . .
I've had a few glasses of wine. I'm totally confused now. Please can someone set out precisely what the "most favourable to the passenger" definition is here, and why.
I agree, the average person would not think this necessary, but I also agree with DaveNewcastle's logic on that matter.
You mean the other way round: holding a ticket for the line (Stockport-Manchester & back) and not travelling on it? Yeah, I agree, but it makes your case that bit more 'watertight' as you then definitely have a valid combination of tickets for a journey London - Stockport - Manchester - Stockport - Altrincham, and you could approach the guard with that valid combination and ask for advice on where to change trains, and specifically whether or not you are required to do a double-back.
So far, I'm aware of a small number of people who have done that, and in all known cases the guard authorised the passenger to avoid the double-back.
I am not necessarily saying that it is necessary, nor that you did anything wrong, but for the sake of 20p to solidify your case, it is worth it in my opinion.
If I had known in advance I would have bought the ticket to Stockport at the same price as the Manchester one. Making this whole debate a farce.
advance i would have bought the ticket to stockport at the same price as the manchester one. Making this whole debate a farce.
....To do this I would have had to have known in advance. If I had known in advance I would have bought the ticket to Stockport at the same price as the Manchester one. Making this whole debate a farce....
It's absolutely fine that you don't understand yield management. No-one is expecting you to.
Or you could have bought an Advance to Altrincham and saved some hassle and a couple of pounds.
If the rules were definitively ruled unenforceable, the TOCs would simply increase prices to the disadvantage of those travelling to E so that nobody could benefit from stopping short.
I don't know about the Virgin website, but it is an option at a railway station.
Well it isn't on the TOC's website which is what I use....
....and which also tells me the two tickets were the same price....
.... A fact that seems to be gloriously ignored several times....
The premise that people need to get around to is that a journey from A-E is (in economics) a different product entirely to a journey from A-D, not consuming more of the same product.
The premise that people need to get around to is that a journey from A-E is (in economics) a different product entirely to a journey from A-D, not consuming more of the same product.
Well now you know there are other options available to you.
And........?
I thought that had been covered time and again in this thread, to the point that someone mentioned that everyone in the thread was aware of the rules.
That is what will almost certainly happen, if current pricing is reasonable and fair.
The only two possibilities that I can see if these rules are relaxed and prices don't change is either these are already built into current pricing (i.e. current prices not reasonable nor fair), or that the train companies receive more subsidy, and I can't see the latter happening with this or any incoming government. The former is possible to a certain degree but I doubt the TOCs had accounted for stopping short in full in their pricing.
Be careful what you wish for is the view I always hold. A superficial victory may not actually bring about long-term gains.
Except that premise is entirely incorrect.
If we allow stopping short on Advances, an A to C ToC Y advance shouldnt be any less than an A to B advance. A to C passengers would pay more, with more travelling with ToC X, and A to C passengers might pay a bit less.
Say that advance tickets are priced so that customers from London will pay up to £20 for a ticket to Peterborough, £50 for a ticket to York, but at most £40 for a ticket to Newcastle. The TOC can price tickets accordingly. If stopping short cannot be prevented, then either (1) the TOC will price tickets to Newcastle at £50 to prevent revenue abstraction from people going to York, meaning consumers are unable to get to Newcastle, or (2) the TOC will only get £40 from customers travelling to York, and will require additional government subsidy which falls on taxpayers.