Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,440
I have attended, some years ago.Many people who work in the industry attend. You’d be more than welcome.
I have attended, some years ago.Many people who work in the industry attend. You’d be more than welcome.
I'm not sure what is being treated like that.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 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.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.
Here I think you are mixing up two unconnected issues.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 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.
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.
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.Please read what I actually posted instead of making up your own version and criticising that.
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 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.
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.I'm not in denial. My view is that the least worst outcome is a routeing guide with the fewest possible errors therein.
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.
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?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.
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 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.
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.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?
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.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?
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.Which would probably mean banning break of journey on vast numbers of tickets, even season tickets.
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.However they are often harder to exploit, because airlines generally forbid skipping segments of a journey.
Is it? I think the number of people buying season tickets on that basis will be an extremely small proportion of the total.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.
We absolutely could do better - but in the current industry setup there is no chance of that happening.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.
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.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 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.
We absolutely could do better - but in the current industry setup there is no chance of that happening.
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.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.
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.That's fine, but you do keep the information about cheap fares and loopholes within that circle.
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
They are open to all!I thought such events were open to all.
Indeed and @Haywain has himself attended; again this was a while back now and I actually learnt a lot myself that day.Many people who work in the industry attend. You’d be more than welcome.
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.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.
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.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.
Those that are not "in the know" can still see that the fares exist and can still read the human readable text.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.
Yes, agreed.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 disagree; that logic is deeply flawed.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.
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.So, we need a different industry set up
Feel free to post your proposals in the Speculative Discussion section.So, we need a different industry set up.
You've not read any of the previous threads on the topic then?Why bother? Nobody here seems to think there's a better way of doing things.
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".
Duly noted.Anyway the option to do so remains open.
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.I'm not making a moral argument at all.
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?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?
How is looking up a fare, reading how that fare is valid, and using that fare in accordance with that information, a "privilege"?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.
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?noun
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 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 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.