The "morality" of not sharing loophole tickets publicly

[Haywain]

Many people who work in the industry attend. You’d be more than welcome.

I have attended, some years ago.

 

[realemil]

But it's really difficult to argue for that kind of error to be fixed while aother kind of error is being kept a closely guarded secret and treated as a protected species.

I'm not sure what is being treated like that.

As many others have pointed out, all of this information is accessible by anyone possible.

I happily give away 'exploits' I find to my friends and other people who will benefit (especially when I won't!), I just don't give them away in public areas - just via DMs.

All of these have been found purely by putting 1 to 2 hours of time into looking for one, just how you can do it! And others can too - it's not hard to learn, everything is provided in a step-by-step guide. Not everything will be handed to you on a silver platter by her Majesty.

If you found a way to cheat in exams in school, would you tell everyone in your class? I wouldn't think so because otherwise it would be fixed. However, others in the class can find out about the way to cheat themselves if they look in the right places. The same concept applies here.

 

[Watershed]

I would like - no, actually I expect - the industry to fix the issues which prevent legitimate routes and legitimate fares being offered to ordinary customers who are not "in the know", but simply make an enquiry via the NRE, train company or third party retailer's journey planners.

I would expect it too, but the industry has a habit of thinking that compliance with consumer and contract laws is optional. So it isn't particularly phased at overcharging people.

It would be very hard to make a case for a project that sought to reduce the industry's income, even if that is through stopping it from overcharging people.

But it's really difficult to argue for that kind of error to be fixed while aother kind of error is being kept a closely guarded secret and treated as a protected species.

Here I think you are mixing up two unconnected issues.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the industry owes people an ability to buy anomalously cheap fares with often unintended validity. So when they are detected, it is hard to argue against them being fixed going forward.

But, that doesn't mean that the process of fixing anomalously expensive or restrictive tickets/routes would necessarily uncover all of the cheap fares.

You seem to see these as two sides of the same coin but they're really not. And the reality is that the industry would sooner invent a whole new fares system than fix all of the situations where it's overcharging people.

 

[Jason12]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the industry owes people an ability to buy anomalously cheap fares with often unintended validity. So when they are detected, it is hard to argue against them being fixed going forward.

But, that doesn't mean that the process of fixing anomalously expensive or restrictive tickets/routes would necessarily uncover all of the cheap fares.

Please read what I actually posted instead of making up your own version and criticising that.

If you found a way to cheat in exams in school, would you tell everyone in your class? I wouldn't think so because otherwise it would be fixed. However, others in the class can find out about the way to cheat themselves if they look in the right places. The same concept applies here.

Thanks, that's a very helpful way of explaining your view on this.

But I don't start from the presumption that cheating at exams is a good thing.

 

[m00036]

From my understanding of this conversation, Jason12's argument is that, in an ideal world, a complete list of fares from A to B, including those that use split ticketing, starting short, ending early, travelling via unusual routes etc. would be available for public use, such that for a given time of day any passenger could see exactly how to find the cheapest fare for that journey with a moment's glance. Such a list could be generated, albeit with precise coding and with a lot of computer power, by anyone because all of that data is made publicly available.

Of course, if such a list were made publicly available (in one simple format, no barrier to entry etc.), at the very least third party retailers would want to code their sites to offer those fares; It's very much a necessity of economic competition. Meanwhile, the TOCs/DfT/GBR (no idea which is correct but you get my gist) would race against them to close off those loopholes. The fares they set for the simple A to B route is, after all, designed to be the one that is taken up by passengers.

The new equilibrium would be that all fares are as publicised today to the normal customer, except that all of those customers would suffer from unexpected restrictions (for example, not being able to take the fastest route, or perhaps even the most sensible route), simply because a loophole used by a handful of passengers was published. Routes that undercut another by 10% would all be increased by that same amount to close off the loophole, disadvantaging passengers on that cheaper route by that same 10%, through no fault of their own. Publishing all 'loophole' fares would increase fares, journey time, or both for a large proportion of current passengers.

The result from there is that passengers pay considerably more - both those that used loophole tickets, who now pay standard fares, but also those who were paying standard before and may now have to pay a premium to use their normal route. Both groups are worse off, and in total terms the normal passengers are worse off than the rail gurus, who will instead calculate the cheapest routes by mileage and plan their rail hopping journeys around those instead.

Of course, GBR could instead take a couple of other options. One is to remove the allowance for breaks of journey - clearly not in passengers' interests, and clearly very difficult to enforce, so the only people this benefits are those that break the law by ignoring that change. We'd all agree that's not an amicable solution. Alternatively, GBR could reduce the standard fares across the board having rooted out anomalies such that there is a 'perfect' system, and such that the change is revenue-neutral, but I suspect an economic analysis of this (and indeed I wrote my dissertation on it) would show that such a change wouldn't be possible; After all, the railways are subsidised already, so revenue will always fall if prices go down (the equilibrium price is higher than the one faced in a regulated industry).

The current solution is what is called a 'second best' solution - one which acknowledges that there is no perfect market, no perfect enforcement of ticketing, no perfect flow of information etc., while maximising the common good. The 'dead-weight loss' to the industry, one could argue, is that a handful of passengers with that additional time can circumvent the system through research of their own, although as I've shown above this doesn't disadvantage common passengers, merely total revenue for the industry. As I mentioned in a previous post, this dead-weight loss is actually very small because a high proportion of split-ticket users (or similar) are those that won't have chosen to travel by train had the reduced split-ticket fare not been available; There is therefore price discrimination at play, which actually benefits all users and the industry at large.

Ultimately concerns surrounding a 'simplified' ticketing system have been raised by economists before, and will be raised again, because such a system is likely to disadvantage passengers, and in any case may well disadvantage the industry as a whole (whether from a passenger or supplier perspective), not least from the expense of trying to design such a scheme. There will always be losers, and I hope I've given some argument above to demonstrate that here the number (or at least the value) of losing is kept to a second-best minimum.

Sorry for such a long post, and sorry for likely boring some with economic theory as well

 

[Watershed]

Please read what I actually posted instead of making up your own version and criticising that.

I did read your post. But you seem to be in denial of the fact that, as @m00036's post eloquently explains, the current setup is overall likely the 'least worst' outcome and publicising anomalies would not help anyone.

 

[Jason12]

I did read your post. But you seem to be in denial of the fact that, as @m00036's post eloquently explains, the current setup is overall likely the 'least worst' outcome and publicising anomalies would not help anyone.

I'm not in denial. My view is that the least worst outcome is a routeing guide (or other arrangement of fares and routes) with the fewest possible errors therein.

I simply don't accept that status quo represents the least worst or best possible arrangement.

An example of the status quo is to enquire from NRE (or any TOC or 3rd-party retailer's site) for fares from Tamworth to Loughborough on a Mon-Fri, departing around 7am and returning the same day. For the quickest and most obvious route, via Derby, you will be quoted £42.70, being out and back Anytime and Off-peak singles. Whereas the Off-Peak return at £23.60 is actually valid for that journey, bar for the completely erroneous "unpublished restrictions" forcing journey planners to reject it.

Are you seriously suggesting that a system which charges the ordinary punter £42.70 for a journey which should be offered at £23.60 is the best that can be achieved?

And in this example are we to take it that by undercutting the fare offered by the journey planners, the £23.60 fare is actually a loophole? Because I think the fact that the £23.60 fare exists and is valid should be publicised.

 

[Watershed]

I'm not in denial. My view is that the least worst outcome is a routeing guide with the fewest possible errors therein.

That would mean the loss of a reasonable sum of revenue from people who are sufficiently price conscious to use anomalous fares. And although that might be the ideal - as has been pointed out to you several times already, it is unrealistic to hope that the industry will review permitted routes and fix omissions.

We have to deal with the world in the way it is, not how we wish it to be. Posting anomalies will not help anyone and will not help to fix omissions. So there is no point doing it.

 

[Jason12]

as has been pointed out to you several times already, it is unrealistic to hope that the industry will review permitted routes and fix omissions.

I don't care how many time it's pointed out. I don't accept that the bug-ridden, error-strewn status quo is the best we can aspire to achieve.

 

[bakerstreet]

Please remember that many (possibly a majority?) of cost cutting opportunities exist not because of a typo here or an oversight there, but simply because train companies often price journeys based on what the market can bare or other similar reasons.

One example might be a higher fare to a busy centre or airport and a much cheaper fare to a quieter station nearby.

Another example would be where a journey is to a destination closer ‘as the crow flies’ than the miles required to make the journey by rail.

In such a circumstance it’s possible that the longer rail journey is priced ‘as the crow flies’ (cheaper) and not by the rail miles actually travelled.

Therefore this may result in an opportunity for a different passenger beginning a journey en route to be able to save money by buying a ticket for the longer journey.

Now this is not an error or a typo.

But equalising the fares (which would almost certainly be to the higher fare) would punish the passenger who lives closer to the destination (as the crow flies) and would possibly make the demand for that journey reduce significantly, losing the railway income.

I would not think it fair that, just because someone discovers this method of reducing their fare, that other passengers for whom the cheaper fare is designed should be negatively affected.

I also don’t think the onus is on the finder of the opportunity to publicise it.

In other words keeping such money saving opportunities private may save the fare from being raised for the person for whom the fare was originally intended.

 

[miklcct]

Please remember that many (possibly a majority?) of cost cutting opportunities exist not because of a typo here or an oversight there, but simply because train companies often price journeys based on what the market can bare or other similar reasons.

One example might be a higher fare to a busy centre or airport and a much cheaper fare to a quieter station nearby.

Another example would be where a journey is to a destination closer ‘as the crow flies’ than the miles required to make the journey by rail.

In such a circumstance it’s possible that the longer rail journey is priced ‘as the crow flies’ (cheaper) and not by the rail miles actually travelled.

Therefore this may result in an opportunity for a different passenger beginning a journey en route to be able to save money by buying a ticket for the longer journey.

Now this is not an error or a typo.

But equalising the fares (which would almost certainly be to the higher fare) would punish the passenger who lives closer to the destination (as the crow flies) and would possibly make the demand for that journey reduce significantly, losing the railway income.

I would not think it fair that, just because someone discovers this method of reducing their fare, that other passengers for whom the cheaper fare is designed should be negatively affected.

I also don’t think the onus is on the finder of the opportunity to publicise it.

In other words keeping such money saving opportunities private may save the fare from being raised for the person for whom the fare was originally intended.

The Bournemouth - Brighton not via London cheaper than to Clapham Junction example mentioned before should be obvious to anyone that this is a loophole. There isn't any circuitous or unintended routing involved. Does it exist because the fare is regulated?

 

[Jason12]

But equalising the fares (which would almost certainly be to the higher fare) would punish the passenger who lives closer to the destination (as the crow flies) and would possibly make the demand for that journey reduce significantly, losing the railway income.

I would not think it fair that, just because someone discovers this method of reducing their fare, that other passengers for whom the cheaper fare is designed should be negatively affected.

There will always be situations where it's legitimate to price a fare for a longer distance lower than a fare for a shorter distance on the same route. And I'm certainly not suggesting that those cheaper fares should be abolished.

But given that the cheaper pricing is legitimate, how does it follow that the cheaper fare should then be available to use on the shorter journey by starting/stopping short? Allowing that would be to destroy the differential that we have jest decided is legitimate. Surely the answer to to apply restrictions to the use of the cheaper fare which maintain the legitimate differential?

 

[bakerstreet]

There will always be situations where it's legitimate to price a fare for a longer distance lower than a fare for a shorter distance on the same route. And I'm certainly not suggesting that those cheaper fares should be abolished.

But given that the cheaper pricing is legitimate, how does it follow that the cheaper fare should then be available to use on the shorter journey by starting/stopping short? Allowing that would be to destroy the differential that we have jest decided is legitimate. Surely the answer to to apply restrictions to the use of the cheaper fare which maintain the legitimate differential?

Which would probably mean banning break of journey on vast numbers of tickets, even season tickets. And again you penalise the passengers for whom the original ticket was intended.

But if you can find a solution to any of the issues you have with the current system which do not penalise passengers or make the system even worse, potentially losing the railway footfall and/of reputation then Im sure the forum would be interested in hearing them.

The system is not perfect but long term passengers of the railway have seen how the solution to one problem is often one of significant detriment to them. In addition, some of the anomalies which currently exist have appeared precisely because the industry is constantly playing whack-a-mole by fixing one issue which is a perceived problem and creating something far worse.

 

[JonathanH]

Allowing that would be to destroy the differential that we have jest decided is legitimate. Surely the answer to to apply restrictions to the use of the cheaper fare which maintain the legitimate differential?

That is just what will happen with wider PAYG. The place you touch in and the place you touch out will determine the fare. However, there will still be anomalies between fares.

 

[miklcct]

Which would probably mean banning break of journey on vast numbers of tickets, even season tickets.

What's the point of a season ticket if break of journey isn't allowed? One of the target demographics of season tickets is passengers who need to travel to multiple different places in a week, who purchase a weekly season with a large number of permitted routes.

 

[mmh]

However they are often harder to exploit, because airlines generally forbid skipping segments of a journey.

Quite. I once flew from London to San Francisco via Cork and back to London before the leg to San Francisco because it was half the price. If I'd missed my "start" in Cork, I'd have been treated as a no-show and my ticket would have been worthless. As usual, airline comparisons with Britain's railways are rarely useful.

 

[Haywain]

One of the target demographics of season tickets is passengers who need to travel to multiple different places in a week, who purchase a weekly season with a large number of permitted routes.

Is it? I think the number of people buying season tickets on that basis will be an extremely small proportion of the total.

 

[Watershed]

I don't care how many time it's pointed out. I don't accept that the bug-ridden, error-strewn status quo is the best we can aspire to achieve.

We absolutely could do better - but in the current industry setup there is no chance of that happening.

Again, we have to deal with the situation as we find it. Aspirations doth butter no parsnips!

What's the point of a season ticket if break of journey isn't allowed? One of the target demographics of season tickets is passengers who need to travel to multiple different places in a week, who purchase a weekly season with a large number of permitted routes.

The target demographic of season tickets is squarely commuters who travel into a particular place of work or study 4 or 5 days a week. Any other use of season tickets is seen as incidental.

 

[Jason12]

The system is not perfect but long term passengers of the railway have seen how the solution to one problem is often one of significant detriment to them. In addition, some of the anomalies which currently exist have appeared precisely because the industry is constantly playing whack-a-mole by fixing one issue which is a perceived problem and creating something far worse.

I agree, but the lesson you seem take from that is to stick with the current system in fear of something worse.

All the commentators who agree with that are happy to point to the cases where those who currently win from the haphazard routeing and ticketing rules would lose. Not much consideration for those who currently lose from having to deal with a system which prevents obviously sensible routes and valid tickets being offered for day to day journey options.

Anyone would think that the staus quo is the peak of perfection that can only be degraded by any kind of change.

We absolutely could do better - but in the current industry setup there is no chance of that happening.

So, we need a different industry set up.

 

[miklcct]

The target demographic of season tickets is squarely commuters who travel into a particular place of work or study 4 or 5 days a week. Any other use of season tickets is seen as incidental.

Let's take Southampton - London Terminals season ticket as an example. Southampton is well outside the London commuter area so it's unlikely that people will use the ticket for commuting. However, this ticket comes with a large number of permitted routes covering as north as Basingstoke and Reading, and as south as Brighton and Hove. Therefore I believe the demographic of such season tickets is for businessmen who have a client base all over Hampshire and Surrey, and requiring frequent travel between clients.

If break of journey can't be done there is no point in offering long-distance season tickets which fall outside commuting areas.

 

[infobleep]

That's fine, but you do keep the information about cheap fares and loopholes within that circle.

I'm not in any circle and I come across cheaper fares. I did go to a Fares Workshop once and it was most helpful.

Another member also helped me out once with a private message, around the same time. I've done the same back to other members via a PM where I can. I'm not an expert compared to some here though.

I enjoy looking into the complexities of the fare system and it does take time to find stuff, especially as I don't use any form of database or querying to find cheaper fares.

Train Split is a great help but even then I'll find stuff they can't or it will be a joint partnership with them finding part of my journey and myself doing the rest.

I tend to play around with stations and see what I find.

One recent year I was looking for an example fare to quote on this forum and in doing so I uncovered a cheaper fare. Thus I didn't quote this fare but something else instead.

 

[FenMan]

I note we haven't yet moved on to another significant reason why loophole tickets exist, namely the different restriction codes applied by the pricers in different TOCs for journeys over the same core length of track at particular times of day e.g. where TOC A requires Anytime tickets to be held and TOC B is comfortable with Off Peak tickets (with no break of journey restrictions) being used . There's plenty of fun to be had with this single variable.

 

[yorkie]

But surely Train Pricing Managers in mufti attend forum meals and fares workshops.

I suspect @yorkie etc have enough inside industry information to know who those people are and so to ensure they aren't invited

I thought such events were open to all.

They are open to all!

If there are people present who may have a conflict of interest if certain matters are disclosed, then I won't disclose those matters, but I will still be happy to help people.

We did in fact have the pricing manager of Southern Railway (before it became GTR) and it was great to meet him; this was a long time ago and I learnt a lot too. I believe he is retired but in the unlikely event he is reading this, if he still has an interest, it would be great to meet him again.

I am not aware of any other pricing managers attending.

Many people who work in the industry attend. You’d be more than welcome.

Indeed and @Haywain has himself attended; again this was a while back now and I actually learnt a lot myself that day.

Then it seems to me that you can't read.

If you search for so-called "good value" fares, what you find include many which are due to clear and obvious errors, mistakes, typos, slapdash coding, etc. An example I mentioned being map combos which permit wildly circuitous routes which were clearly never intended by the fare setter. To those "in the know", these errors in the routeing guide can be exploited to save money, as long as they aren't publicised.

Yes, as with air fares it is possible to travel further, for less money if you know of the existence and validity of a particular fare.

You've confirmed that this applies to yourself too.

You will also find clear and obvious errors, typos, etc, etc which prevent legitimate routes being permitted. I have mentioned a missing map combo in that regard as well and there are others.

This is true; I suggest anyone in that position creates a thread about it, so the appropriate routes can (hopefully) be added. It may be the case that the routes were removed illegally.

But there are also the hideous "unpublished restrictions" for many restriction codes - BT is a prime example - where journey planners are prevented from offering legitimate fares for a whole host of journeys. Again, those "in the know" understand the errors in the "unpublished restrictions" and that despite the fare not being offered by journey planners, it's nevertheless valid for travel.

Those that are not "in the know" can still see that the fares exist and can still read the human readable text.

I agree with you the situation is unsatisfactory, but I do not understand your reference to "those in the know" in relation to this matter.

I would like - no, actually I expect - the industry to fix the issues which prevent legitimate routes and legitimate fares being offered to ordinary customers who are not "in the know", but simply make an enquiry via the NRE, train company or third party retailer's journey planners.

Yes, agreed.

But it's really difficult to argue for that kind of error to be fixed while aother kind of error is being kept a closely guarded secret and treated as a protected species.

I disagree; that logic is deeply flawed.

It is very legitimate to argue that Birmingham to Frodsham should be valid via Warrington; the existence of good value fares elsewhere does not in any way assist a passenger making that journey and is utterly irrelevant.

There can be no expectation that anyone, who reports a fare as not being valid via an obvious route, would be aware of any other issues with any other fares; nor can there be any expectation that any awareness would lead to any disclosure. It's got no relevance whatsoever.

You appear to be making a moral argument that makes no real sense to most of us; you have the right to that opinion but it's wrong to suggest that a complaint that a reasonable route not being permitted is in any way affected by the existence of any other "good value fare".

 

[Watershed]

So, we need a different industry set up

We are getting one in the form of GBR. But it is unclear how this will substantively affect the day-to-day running of the fares system, or how the mooted fares reform will happen and what it will mean in practice.

Roger Ford's column in this month's Modern Railways explores in some depth the issues surrounding potential fares reform and why, in essence, it simply isn't possible to develop a system where everybody wins.

In its current size, the railway will always be subsidised and therefore subject to a degree of political control. It will never have the commercial incentives that a truly private company would have.

 

[yorkie]

So, we need a different industry set up.

Feel free to post your proposals in the Speculative Discussion section.

 

[Jason12]

Why bother? Nobody here seems to think there's a better way of doing things.

 

[yorkie]

Why bother? Nobody here seems to think there's a better way of doing things.

You've not read any of the previous threads on the topic then?

We have over 8,400 active members (active within the past month); how would you know that none of them think there's a better way of doing things?

I am sure many of them do; though you wouldn't find universal agreement on how to do it.

Anyway the option to do so remains open.

 

[Jason12]

You appear to be making a moral argument that makes no real sense to most of us; you have the right to that opinion but it's wrong to suggest that a complaint that a reasonable route not being permitted is in any way affected by the existence of any other "good value fare".

I'm not making a moral argument at all. The discussion was labelled a morality tale by whichever mod created the thread and gave it a title.

It's purely a question of utility. Is a system which allows loopholes, errors and mistakes to exist - and to be exploited as long as they are not exploited widely, fit for purpose? I've heard lots of defences of that arrangement, mostly along the lines that those who use such "good value fares" would lose out should the errors be fixed and/or the loopholes closed. It's an argument for the continuation of a privilege, but without any attempt to justify why that privilege should exist.

Anyway the option to do so remains open.

Duly noted.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not making a moral argument at all.

How is "But it's really difficult to argue for that kind of error to be fixed while aother kind of error is being kept a closely guarded secret and treated as a protected species" a valid argument? It looks to me like a moral argument as it's not based on any logic.

If there is an error that disbenefits passengers, it is easy to argue the case for fixing that error.

Any such case is completely separate and independent of the existence of any "good value" fares that may or may not exist elsewhere.

It's purely a question of utility. Is a system which allows loopholes, errors and mistakes to be exploited as long as they are not exploited widely, fit for purpose?

You could ask if the system is fit for purpose, but if you are defining what makes a system fit for purpose, you'd be using other metrics. Is the air industry fare system also unfit for purpose?

If you, or anyone else, has any ideas regarding how a system that is fit for purpose can be implemented, feel free to create a thread to discuss it.

I've heard lots of defences of that arrangement, mostly along the lines that those who use such "good value fares" would lose out should the errors be fixed and/or the loopholes closed. It's an argument for the continuation of a privilege, but without any attempt to justify why that privilege should exist.

How is looking up a fare, reading how that fare is valid, and using that fare in accordance with that information, a "privilege"?

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

noun

• a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
• the unearned and mostly unacknowledged societal advantage that a restricted group of people has over another group: white privilege based on skin color;male privilege;children of privilege.

a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.

a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.

the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.

I fail to see how any of these apply to someone who looks up the details of a rail fare (or a plane fare, bus fare etc); are you able to elaborate/clarify please?

 

[Jason12]

Oooh, I have touched a nerve here, haven't I?