Super Off-Peak validity early Monday morning

[Kite159]

I noticed something similar when searching for London - Crewe. The last train showing as valid with a (West Midlands only) super off-peak return for Sunday was the 20:16 direct service.

Wheres there is a later option available with the 21:31 to Northampton, changing onto the 22:14 Birmingham - Euston service, but as that gets in at 00:43 so isn't shown due to the journey planner midnight cutoff (This was on TPE)

 

[Paul Kelly]

Wheres there is a later option available with the 21:31 to Northampton, changing onto the 22:14 Birmingham - Euston service, but as that gets in at 00:43 so isn't shown due to the journey planner midnight cutoff (This was on TPE)

There is no "midnight cut-off" - there was just a specific issue in the OP with time restrictions applying to departures after midnight on certain restriction codes. Your example I can make appear on the TPE site OK using a via point of Berkhamsted (see screenshot):

 

[Kite159]

There is no "midnight cut-off" - there was just a specific issue in the OP with time restrictions applying to departures after midnight on certain restriction codes. Your example I can make appear on the TPE site OK using a via point of Berkhamsted (see screenshot):
View attachment 64174

It wasn't showing on the regular booking engine (not the mixing deck layout), although that service gets overtaken at rugby by a Virgin so won't necessarily show it by default.

 

[Paul Kelly]

It wasn't showing on the regular booking engine (not the mixing deck layout), although that service gets overtaken at rugby by a Virgin so won't necessarily show it by default.

Yes indeed; I couldn't see how to get it to add a via point so I had to switch to the old layout in order to prove my point

 

[Wolfie]

Indeed it would. Swings and roudabouts. In my view, to block the journey you mention would be more reasonable than to block people from departing from Stoke-on-Trent, Ledbury or Ridgmont at those times. It would make Super Off Peak tickets barred for nearly the whole afternoon for some journeys to infrequently served stations, though.

The actual solution would be to re-write the restriction codes based on each route and direction. But that would take a significant amount of work that they are probably not going to do.

I can't see that any 'solution' which penalises connections at the expense of through journies would be accepted. Lots of people in response would demand more through journies to their station..

 

[Starmill]

I can't see that any 'solution' which penalises connections at the expense of through journies would be accepted. Lots of people in response would demand more through journies to their station..

Nearly everybody who travels currently will think that the connections are 'penalised' as you put it anyway, as that's what their retail system tells them!

 

[Silverdale]

Nearly everybody who travels currently will think that the connections are 'penalised' as you put it anyway, as that's what their retail system tells them!

The problem which currently exists with journey planners offering the LNW fares, is that they can't implement the easement relating to connecting services. Whatever its other benefits might be, your suggestion isn't a solution to that problem.

The consequence isn't only that some customers will purchase a more expensive ticket than they need (or decide not to travel by train at all), but that LNW won't get the expected custom for the fares they have priced. That could lead to the fares being increased, or even withdrawn and the market for slower, but cheaper travel won't be served as well as it could be.

If a train company wants to serve a particular part of a market it share with other operators, it should be allowed to differentiate its fares to allow them to do it. Representing that differentiation in restrictions placed on the use of those fares. If 'the system', for whatever reason, can't implement those restrictions, market pricing can't work in the way it should.

 

[Starmill]

Quite. But those are all commercial issues for West Midlands Trains to navigate themselves. It seems they have managed it to the level that they see as appropriate. But still, people complain.

There is a consumer (or potentially competition) issue with regard to overcharging also, to which solutions do exist, but are not implemented. We must assume deliberately.

 

[Starmill]

it should be allowed to differentiate its fares to allow them to do it. Representing that differentiation in restrictions placed on the use of those fares.

I would argue that this creates a horribly inefficient system and damages passengers rights. In the ideal case simplicity, this practice would be banned entirely, and government regulation would step in to bring down interavailable fares where they're currently set too high. There may be a place for these fares where stringent conditions related to defferentiation are met, though, and these could be approved by the regulator.

Quite why everyone thinks of on-rail competition as a nirvana is beyond me.

 

[Silverdale]

There is a consumer (or potentially competition) issue with regard to overcharging also, to which solutions do exist, but are not implemented. We must assume deliberately.

I also find it strange that what would appear to be a straightforward software/data fix hasn't been implemented, but can you explain what those existing solutions are?

Quite why everyone thinks of on-rail competition as a nirvana is beyond me.

I don't think that, but I do think that the LNW specific fares on the Southern WCML/W.Mids offer an attractive option for those who are happy with the longer journey times and a different spec of vehicle. I use them and would be somewhat miffed if I had to pay more, either in fares or through taxes, to get where I need to be, just because by having fewer fare options the structure would be simpler.

What conditions do you think the regulator should apply to such differentiation?

 

[Haywain]

What conditions do you think the regulator should apply to such differentiation?

Who is this regulator you mention?

 

[Starmill]

I also find it strange that what would appear to be a straightforward software/data fix hasn't been implemented, but can you explain what those existing solutions are?

I have already explained this. To change the prices, terms and range of tickets so that they are more technically similar to other products on sale, which do not face these software issues.

 

[Silverdale]

I have already explained this. To change the prices, terms and range of tickets so that they are more technically similar to other products on sale, which do not face these software issues.

So you think limitations of a particular data/software implementation should dictate how some fares can be differentiated from others?

What if a particular software issue prevents a fare you think should exist, existing?

 

[rdwarr]

I raised the issue with GN's Twitter team, asking that they pass it on to ge it sorted out. The response was:

Hi Richard, this is because you will be looking at tickets for Monday morning. These tickets can only be used on a Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays.

So it's a bit more than a software error.

 

[Silverdale]

What did you actually ask the Twitter team?

Were you referring them to the info on the NRE site which says; "Off-Peak and Super Off-Peak tickets are valid for travel on the date shown on your ticket and until 04:29 on the following day."

 

[Silverdale]

Who is this regulator you mention?

The one which @Starmill says could approve the stringent conditions related to differentiation.

 

[Starmill]

So you think limitations of a particular data/software implementation should dictate how some fares can be differentiated from others?

What if a particular software issue prevents a fare you think should exist, existing?

With respect I think you're significantly overstating the importance of what you think, and indeed what I think, of what range of tickets the train companies choose to offer.

I don't have any other useful comments for you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What did you actually ask the Twitter team?

Were you referring them to the info on the NRE site which says; "Off-Peak and Super Off-Peak tickets are valid for travel on the date shown on your ticket and until 04:29 on the following day."

Unless the restriction makes them not valid in that manner. Super Off Peaks are wholly unregulated so the TOC can bar them at any time they like.

The restriction says they are valid on Saturdays and Sundays. 0001 on a Monday is not on a Saturday or Sunday:

"Not valid on any train, Mondays to Fridays (except Bank Holidays)"

This may not be the intent, but it's what is written and therefore is what applies.

 

[rdwarr]

What did you actually ask the Twitter team?

Were you referring them to the info on the NRE site which says; "Off-Peak and Super Off-Peak tickets are valid for travel on the date shown on your ticket and until 04:29 on the following day."

My question was:

I think there's an issue with buying Super Off Peaks on your website if outward journey is on a Sunday and return is just after midnight (e.g. on the 00.02). It tries sell the more expensive Off Peak instead, thus overcharging customers. Please can you check?

...which elicited the previous answer (after a while). Subsequent posts directed them to the NRE page but they have not had a reply.

 

[Silverdale]

Hmm... Even if they did check, the team are not going to go on the Twitters and admit overcharging.

So my guess would be that you will get a non-denial denial (which you have) and nothing further.

The restriction says they are valid on Saturdays and Sundays. 0001 on a Monday is not on a Saturday or Sunday:

"Not valid on any train, Mondays to Fridays (except Bank Holidays)"

This may not be the intent, but it's what is written and therefore is what applies.

Of course, that is fair comment. The restriction is what the restriction is. But if a restriction can be so restrictive, the information provided on the NRE site is incorrect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, that is fair comment. The restriction is what the restriction is. But if a restriction can be so restrictive, the information provided on the NRE site is incorrect.

It's perhaps poorly worded, but with an Off Peak or Super Off Peak you overlay the restriction on top of what the ticket itself allows. As another example, break of journey is allowed by default but can be barred by the restriction.

 

[Starmill]

It's perhaps poorly worded,

I would argue that the wording isn't merely poor or unclear. Or even our favourite 'open to interpretation'. I would argue that they are directly contradictory positions. What happens when there are auto-contradictory terms in a contract?

you overlay the restriction on top of what the ticket itself allows

There is no evidence of an established hierarchy as you claim. That's just your hunch.

 

[Silverdale]

I would argue that the wording isn't merely poor or unclear. Or even our favourite 'open to interpretation'. I would argue that they are directly contradictory positions.

I agree that for journeys which are completed by 04:29 on the day following the date shown on the ticket, the restriction code FB does directly contradict what is stated on the NRE site. That site does say that where outward travel can't be completed by 04:29, it may continue into the next day, in which case any restrictions appropriate to that day do apply. So a restriction could bar an Off-Peak ticket being used after 04:29 on a Monday. But otherwise, no ifs, no buts, no 'unless restricted'.

What happens when there are auto-contradictory terms in a contract?

Where a term in a relevant contract is capable of more than one meaning, CRA 2015 says that the meaning which is most favourable to the customer prevails. It says nothing about contradictory terms. So my understanding is that established contract law would apply and it would be for a court to decide which term had precedence, or what the terms, taken together could be construed to mean.

If a court was ever asked, the proposition that the statement made by the industry-wide body takes precedence over what a particular company has (later?) stated, would be a fairly convincing one.