The Gatwick Express Issue

[barrykas]

Morning all,

Having been thinking on the issue of validity of "Southern Only" tickets on Gatwick Express, it occurs to me that the simplest solution would be to change the routeing on them to "Not Gatwick Express" as that's clearly the intent.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[jopsuk]

I may be being thick here, but isn't it also a restriction against being used on FCC?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Like your thinking. But wouldn't that then indicate that a "Not Gatwick Express" ticket would also then be interavailable on First Capital Connect services between East Croydon and Gatwick Airport. Or on First Great Western services between Redhill and Gatwick Airport?

 

[Yew]

Or maybe southern could stop making a fuss and trying to breach the nrcoc?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....And Southeastern, SWT and anyone else that operates services over the 'Southern' network (First Great Western?).

Perhaps a new routeing of 'Sthn not Gat Exp' with a written note on it that says 'Gat Exp' is Gatwick Express services and 'Sthn' is Southern, because otherwise it could get confusing.:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or maybe southern could stop making a fuss and trying to breach the nrcoc?

Isn't that libelous?

They aren't breaching the NRCoC because Gatwick Express listed as a separate Train Operating Company in the NRCoC (rightly or wrongly).

 

[MikeWh]

They aren't breaching the NRCoC because Gatwick Express listed as a separate Train Operating Company in the NRCoC (rightly or wrongly).

At the moment it isn't listed in section C at all. From next Wednesday it will be listed as an alternative brand of Southern Railway Limited. Of course it is Southern Railway Limited which holds the licence which requires it to apply the NRCoC.

 

[RJ]

Or maybe southern could stop making a fuss and trying to breach the nrcoc?

Or maybe people could stop being extra and trying the pick the bones out of a situation which they have no understanding of? To this date, I haven't seen anyone come up with conclusive evidence that confirms that Southern Only tickets are valid on Gatwick Express branded services.

 

[Wyvern]

I understand the Gatwick Express is now operated by Southern. Does it have Southern livery? If so, how will thickos like me know the difference?

 

[radamfi]

I understand the Gatwick Express is now operated by Southern. Does it have Southern livery? If so, how will thickos like me know the difference?

It normally has a separate livery to most Southern services, however it is now branded as 'Express' rather than 'Gatwick Express'. In addition, some fast Brighton - Victoria services use these trains which are not Gatwick Express, although these don't usually stop at Gatwick.

 

[Stats]

The franchise holder is Southern Railway Ltd and the trading name is Southern. So I suggest the easiest solution would be that instead of stating that "Gatwick Express is managed and operated by Southern" that they say that "Gatwick Express is managed and operated by Southern Railway Ltd." That way they are still part of the same franchise but make it clear that the Southern division/brand and the Gatwick Express division/brand are two distinct identities and so "Southern" tickets would not be valid on Gatwick Express.

They should also make it clear in ticket restriction codes that they are not valid on Gatwick Express services.

 

[MikeWh]

Before I explain why there is a problem, let me first state that I have no issue with the concept of premium fares on the Gatwick Express. My issue is with the way that DafT have (a) not realised that there was an problem when they transfered the Gatwick Express operation to Southern, and (b) tried to fix the problem but spectacularly failed, while also opening the door to further restrictions (more later).

The problem
Condition 10 of the NRCoC states:

10. Tickets valid only in trains of particular Train Companies
The validity of a ticket may:
a) be restricted to; or
b) prohibit
travel in the trains of a particular Train Company or Train Companies. Any such restriction
or prohibition will be shown on the ticket. If you travel in a train with a ticket that is not
valid, the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply. If you are unable to use a ticket or
any part of it, you may be able to claim a refund under Condition 26 or Condition 36.

Then in Appendix A there is a list of definitions, including:

(q) “Train Company” means a company operating passenger railway services which
is required to apply these Conditions to its tickets under a condition of the
Passenger Licence granted to it by the Office of Rail Regulation. A list of these
companies can be found in Appendix C. “Train Companies” means all or more
than one of these Companies;

So, it is crystal clear that in condition 10 it is refering to a restriction on the trains of a company required to apply these conditions under a condition of it's Passenger Licence. From 5th October, Appendix C will list two lines for Southern Railway Ltd; one for Southern and one for Gatwick Express. They will both be Southern Railway Ltd which is the entity with a Passenger Licence requiring it to adhere to these conditions.

Now I know that the restriction lists Southern rather than Southern Railway Ltd, but there is a limit to the number of characters allowed on the ticket and most of the company names are too long. There is only one company which includes Southern in it's name, so it is pretty clear which entity is being used for the restriction. Well, no, of course it isn't, which is the problem all along.

The solution, and the further problem
What they need to do is to change the wording of condition 10 to specify that the restriction applies to a brand (or trading name?) as listed in Appendix C. Most of the restriction texts already relate to the customer visible branding anyway.

But, the new problem is that when adding the Gatwick Express brand to the list of companies they have also added a new Stansted Express brand alongside NXEA. Does this mean that in the future they are intending to exclude travel on the Stansted Express from certain fares? It might not be a problem if that meant that they reduce the price of said tickets, but will they? This is potentially an area to keep an eye out for changes by stealth.

 

[mallard]

To this date, I haven't seen anyone come up with conclusive evidence that confirms that Southern Only tickets are valid on Gatwick Express branded services.

To this date, I haven't seen anyone come up with conclusive evidence that confirms that Southern Only tickets are not valid on Gatwick Express branded services.

The whole situation is horribly ambiguous. Of course, all the ambiguity plays right into Southern's hands and allows them to make up the rules as they see fit (read: makes the most money).

Remember, the railway exists to make money for the railway companies, not to benefit the passenger.

 

[island]

Gatwick Express is not a company. Ergo, it cannot be a Train Operating Company.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Gatwick Express is not a company. Ergo, it cannot be a Train Operating Company.

It is recognised as a separate entity in the new NRCOC's. That has solved that, and it is final. We now know the answer about all the ticket issues.

The only debate that remains is a purely academic one on whether it should be or not. If brand names are not recognised, then surely this makes things like "Virgin trains only" unenforceable, as virgin trains is not a company, and does not hold an operating licence. It is a brand name of West Coast trains (or something along those lines, I can't remember the exact name).


---
- Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Deerfold]

It is recognised as a separate entity in the new NRCOC's. That has solved that, and it is final.

You really believe that?

When the owner has this to say:

Southern provides train services in South London and connects central London to the South Coast, East and West Sussex, Surrey and parts of Kent and Hampshire. It also runs the Gatwick Express service.

(along with an appalling apostrophe they've added to the name of an award they've won)

 

[island]

It is recognised as a separate entity in the new NRCOC's.

No, no it's not. "Train operating", which should realistically be written as "train-operating", is an adjective applied to "company". "Gatwick Express" is a trading style. It is not a company. It cannot therefore be a train operating company. It may (perhaps) be train-operating. But it is not a company.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

They are now separated in the NRCOC's so that issue has been clarified. It's silly to try and protest that it's not correct, and it only detracts from the real argument as to whether it is right and fair.


---
- Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[island]

Again, please explain how something that is not a "company" can be a "train-operating company"?

 

[mallard]

Would (I don't think they actually exist, apart from advances) hypothetical "East Coast Only" tickets be valid on the "Hull Executive", "Highland Chieftain", "Northern Lights" and "Flying Scotsman" services?

Of course they would.

Are "London Midland Only" ticket valid on trains branded "London Midland City"?

Yep.

Are "NXEA Only" tickets valid on the "Stansted Express" services?

Absolutely.

Why should "Southern Only" be different?

 

[Deerfold]

They are now separated in the NRCOC's so that issue has been clarified. It's silly to try and protest that it's not correct, and it only detracts from the real argument as to whether it is right and fair.

I don't think most people are arguing that the tickets should be valid on Gatwick Express - only that if they are not valid they should say so unambigously.

 

[bb21]

The only debate that remains is a purely academic one on whether it should be or not. If brand names are not recognised, then surely this makes things like "Virgin trains only" unenforceable, as virgin trains is not a company, and does not hold an operating licence. It is a brand name of West Coast trains (or something along those lines, I can't remember the exact name).

It is not as simple as this. Virgin Trains is a brand representing West Coast Trains Limited in its entirety, hence can be used (as a substitute to West Coast Trains Limited) to indicate a TOC restriction.

The Southern brand does not represent Southern Railway Limited in its entirety and hence cannot be what "Southern Only" means as it would not then be a TOC restriction, contrary to Condition 10. The only way that the text can conform to NRCOC Condition 10 is for "Southern Only" to refer to the TOC itself, hence such tickets being valid on Gatwick Express.

Virgin and Southern are fundamentally different.

 

[radamfi]

They are now separated in the NRCOC's so that issue has been clarified. It's silly to try and protest that it's not correct, and it only detracts from the real argument as to whether it is right and fair.

Given the NXEA and Stansted Express appear to be separated in the same way, are 'NXEA only' tickets no longer valid on the Stansted Express?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The fact is, the conditions now separate them. You can spend all day debating semantics about the meaning of company, or you can look at whether the change was fair and proper, and then have a better case to present to your MP/Passenger Focus.

For what it's worth, I actually think that to be classed as a TOC they should have their own operating licence in that name.


---
- Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[bb21]

The fact is, the conditions now separate them. You can spend all day debating semantics about the meaning of company, or you can look at whether the change was fair and proper, and then have a better case to present to your MP/Passenger Focus.

For what it's worth, I actually think that to be classed as a TOC they should have their own operating licence in that name.


---
- Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

Just because the conditions state so doesn't mean that it is enforceable though, does it?

 

[mallard]

The fact is, the conditions now separate them. You can spend all day debating semantics about the meaning of company, or you can look at whether the change was fair and proper, and then have a better case to present to your MP/Passenger Focus.

You've asserted that separating it onto a different line appendix C of the NRCoC somehow makes things completely clear twice now, but the actual text of the NRCoC refers to the holder of the operating licence, not appendix C. The formatting of appendix C isn't relevant.

Also, according to "radamfi", Stansted Express has been similarly separated, does this mean that "NXEA Only" tickets are no longer valid on these services? If not, why not?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Just because the conditions state so doesn't mean that it is enforceable though, does it?

Well, yes actually. The conditions are legally binding. They cannot override any primary legislation though.

 

[island]

Would (I don't think they actually exist, apart from advances) hypothetical "East Coast Only" tickets be valid on the "Hull Executive", "Highland Chieftain", "Northern Lights" and "Flying Scotsman" services?

Of course they would.

There are several first-class walk-up tickets routed EC only.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It is not as simple as this. Virgin Trains is a brand representing West Coast Trains Limited in its entirety, hence can be used (as a substitute to West Coast Trains Limited) to indicate a TOC restriction.

The Southern brand does not represent Southern Railway Limited in its entirety and hence cannot be what "Southern Only" means as it would not then be a TOC restriction, contrary to Condition 10. The only way that the text can conform to NRCOC Condition 10 is for "Southern Only" to refer to the TOC itself, hence such tickets being valid on Gatwick Express.

Virgin and Southern are fundamentally different.

So if I understand your point here.....

Virgin Trains is acceptable even though it is a brand not a company.
London Midland is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
South West Trains is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
Island Line is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
Southeastern is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
Southern is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
Gatwick Express is not acceptable because it is a brand and not a company.

Am I close?

 

[jon0844]

Seems to me that Virgin and others refer to a brand, not the company - whereas 'Southern only' refers to the operator AS WELL as the brand.

As Gatwick Express doesn't match Southern, but the TOC name does, I can see why people could argue that Southern only includes Gatwick Express.

This needs to be clarified as I am sure in court it will be looked upon as the company name, and be the clearer example from the above. If anything, it calls the other examples into question!

 

[Deerfold]

So if I understand your point here.....

Virgin Trains is acceptable even though it is a brand not a company.
London Midland is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
South West Trains is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
Island Line is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
Southeastern is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
Southern is acceptable even though it is a brand and not a company.
Gatwick Express is not acceptable because it is a brand and not a company.

Am I close?

Southern is ambiguous as there is Southern and Southern (Gatwick Express). If the tickets were NOT GAT EXP or SOUTHERN NOT GX (say) they'd be clear.
Tickets for all the others are clear - VIRGIN is clearly not valid on (say) LM.