Told off by an inspector for using a combination of tickets

[Romilly]

If there are four stations A-B-C-D, can I combine an A-C and B-D ticket if the train stops at both B and C, in the same way as an A-B and B-D or A-C and C-D?

I am assuming that you would not be leaving the station at either B or C, i.e. you would not be breaking your journey (and that we do not need to worry about whether break of journey, and therefore starting late/ending early, is restricted by either of your tickets).

In principle, there is no rule against having two tickets/paying twice for a train journey. So long as you can show a valid ticket for B-C, it doesn't matter that you have another valid ticket for B-C in your pocket/wallet/purse.

But Condition 19 of the NRCOC says:

You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:
....
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one ticket to another;

I would say that your A-C and B-D tickets together cover the entire journey. But does paragraph (b) apply? That strikes me as an interesting question, since you could change from one ticket to the other at B, at C, or at any point between them. And it is not obvious how, or whether, you can show where you are changing from one ticket to the other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Now that you put it in actual station terms, it's obvious that it would be allowed. The only problem would be if both of them were advances and a guard took a particularly strict view of the rules.

Some might argue, depending on whether they think starting/ending short is the same thing as break of journey, that it may also not be where BoJ is expressly prohibited, as in practical terms you can't travel on two tickets at once. However it would take a very picky guard/inspector to pull someone up on that, and it may not even be the case anyway.

Personally, I've tended to the view that ending short is *not* the same thing as break of journey, and that it would effectively be the case that if you exit the system early on a walk-up ticket barring BoJ that just means the ticket becomes spent at that point and the journey cannot be resumed. Starting "long" is perhaps more debatable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would say that your A-C and B-D tickets together cover the entire journey. But does paragraph (b) apply? That strikes me as an interesting question, since you could change from one ticket to the other at B, at C, or at any point between them. And it is not obvious how, or whether, you can show where you are changing from one ticket to the other.

I think the implication is that there must be a station, or set of stations, where if you selected one of them one ticket would be valid to finish the journey and the other to start it. So if the first ticket was not valid for ending early, and the second not valid for starting late, you couldn't do it. But it's questionable as to whether that is actually true of any walk-up tickets.

 

[cookie365]

Sorry for the slightly off-topic question, but your post reminds me of a question that I can't remember if there was an answer to...

If there are four stations A-B-C-D, can I combine an A-C and B-D ticket if the train stops at both B and C, in the same way as an A-B and B-D or A-C and C-D? I'm thinking not, but want to be sure as it would be possible to make both journeys for which I have tickets.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=113523

 

[gnolife]

At a station common to both tickets (unless one, and only one, is a regular point to point season ticket) yes. Not necessarily Grindleford

(There's also the bit about zonal tickets which I don't fully understand - I've always taken the view that part was mainly intended to refer to TfL boundary zone tickets and the relevant Travelcard, but it may also encompass others such as two overlapping Ranger/Rover tickets. If both tickets are "zonal tickets", whatever that means, the train also need not stop).

I've often wondered the same thing - again using Hope Valley as the example, would it be permissible to combine a Derbyshire Wayfarer and a TfGM wayfarer (both are valid between Chinley and Grindleford) on a TPE or EMT service?

 

[najaB]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=113523

That was the one, thanks! Since the corners are where things get interesting, two more corner cases:

1. I've got a 'normal' A-B plus B-C split, what happens if B is set-down/pick-up only?

2. Is the validity of a split determined by what should have happened or what actually happens on the day. For example, if the wires come down on the ECML between Edinburgh and Newcastle and I've got two tickets: Edinburgh-Berwick and Berwick-Newcastle. If VTEC run via Carlisle, can I use their train?

 

[Bletchleyite]

1. I've got a 'normal' A-B plus B-C split, what happens if B is set-down/pick-up only?

My view would be that this is not valid, because you couldn't carry out the separate journeys validly. However I can see why that would be controversial.

 

[ainsworth74]

1. I've got a 'normal' A-B plus B-C split, what happens if B is set-down/pick-up only?

I would argue that combination wouldn't be valid as you couldn't start/finish one of your tickets.

If your train was running Paddington - Reading (Pick-Up Only) - Bristol and you had a Paddington to Reading and Reading to Bristol ticket you would not have had a valid ticket to Reading therefore your whole combination would be invalid.

2. Is the validity of a split determined by what should have happened or what actually happens on the day. For example, if the wires come down on the ECML between Edinburgh and Newcastle and I've got two tickets: Edinburgh-Berwick and Berwick-Newcastle. If VTEC run via Carlisle, can I use their train?

Speak to the Guard. I think technically not but I would surprised to see many staff say 'no' if you asked them first during disruption.

 

[PermitToTravel]

My view would be that this is not valid, because you couldn't carry out the separate journeys validly. However I can see why that would be controversial.

Doesn't condition 19(b) explicitly give the right to do this though?

 

[Flamingo]

That was the one, thanks! Since the corners are where things get interesting, two more corner cases:

1. I've got a 'normal' A-B plus B-C split, what happens if B is set-down/pick-up only?

2. Is the validity of a split determined by what should have happened or what actually happens on the day. For example, if the wires come down on the ECML between Edinburgh and Newcastle and I've got two tickets: Edinburgh-Berwick and Berwick-Newcastle. If VTEC run via Carlisle, can I use their train?

1. Good question, well presented! I'd give you the benefit of the doubt...

2. It's not your fault it went pear-shaped, and it would be the same scenario as a route-specific ticket if that route was closed and the train diverted, eg a Via Stroud ticket from Cheltenham to Paddington if the Stroud line was closed and the train diverted via Bristol Parkway (as happened a few weeks ago).

 

[najaB]

2. It's not your fault it went pear-shaped, and it would be the same scenario as a route-specific ticket if that route was closed and the train diverted, eg a Via Stroud ticket from Cheltenham to Paddington if the Stroud line was closed and the train diverted via Bristol Parkway (as happened a few weeks ago).

Would your answer be the same if there were RRB's laid on?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't condition 19(b) explicitly give the right to do this though?

An interesting question. I can see why it might, but I'd take the view that if there is an 'u' the train does not call at the station for the purpose of alighting, and vice versa, and therefore that that would by extension not be satisfied.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would your answer be the same if there were RRB's laid on?

i.e. planned disruption? In the case of planned disruption involving a diversion, I would say you must still travel via the station of the split.

As an example let's say we have someone who has split Birmingham to Euston at Milton Keynes Central. If there is planned engineering work resulting in only a stopping service to MKC and thence a bus, and VT are diverting via the Chiltern Line, I would say you would have to use the stopping service and bus, because you could have known about the plan when you bought your ticket.

For unplanned disruption, I would expect a level of reasonableness. Though as you have gamed the railway's system, perhaps in some cases not any more reasonableness as is strictly required by the NCoC...some may see a longer journey as "sweet revenge" for having played the system to get a cheaper fare than the railway would wish to sell you.

 

[najaB]

i.e. planned disruption? In the case of planned disruption involving a diversion, I would say you must still travel via the station of the split.

I'm thinking unplanned diversion, but one that lasts long enough for buses to be put on - e.g. a major dewirement that can't be fixed overnight, and you're travelling the next morning. I agree that if it was planned at the time you bought your ticket then you should have to travel the route you booked.

 

[Dent]

An interesting question. I can see why it might, but I'd take the view that if there is an 'u' the train does not call at the station for the purpose of alighting, and vice versa, and therefore that that would by extension not be satisfied.

The condition only says that the train must call at the station, it does not say that is must call "for the purpose of alighting".

 

[island]

The point of 19c is to allow folks with season tickets to buy an extension for a one-off journey beyond their usual origin or destination for whatever reason, without then having to use stopping trains.

It has several side effects.

 

[bb21]

The condition only says that the train must call at the station, it does not say that is must call "for the purpose of alighting".

Yes, we have had this discussion before. My view is the same as this one, because Condition 19 is clear that the train needs to call at the changeover station. There is no distinction between a call to both set down and pick up, a pick-up only call, or a set-down only call. If the train is scheduled to stop at the station for public use, then there is no doubt in my mind that the train calls.

Nothing's bad. Indeed, by some readings[1] of condition 19 (and a sign in the window at Chorley booking office years ago), this is an *advantage*, as a regular season can be combined with a PTE pass to give an equivalent of an outboundary Travelcard.

[1] ISTR that one of the PTEs has a reading of their T&Cs that explicitly prohibits this?

Both Metro and Travel South Yorkshire stipulate these in their terms.

IMO it is debatable whether they can give you less rights than the NRCoC, since a contract to travel on rail services is subject to the acceptance of NRCoC by both parties.

The point of 19c is to allow folks with season tickets to buy an extension for a one-off journey beyond their usual origin or destination for whatever reason, without then having to use stopping trains.

It has several side effects.

My understanding is that it is a concession afforded to season ticket holders due to the fact that season tickets cannot be over-distance excessed.

 

[Merseysider]

The condition only says that the train must call at the station, it does not say that is must call "for the purpose of alighting".

What about request stops where the train normally whizzes through? Would you have to ask the guard to make the train stop and then not get off?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, we have had this discussion before. My view is the same as this one, because Condition 19 is clear that the train needs to call at the changeover station. There is no distinction between a call to both set down and pick up, a pick-up only call, or a set-down only call. If the train is scheduled to stop at the station for public use, then there is no doubt in my mind that the train calls.

Has anyone here tried this, e.g. on VT services with "u" in the evening peak? Particularly given that by doing so you can save more than a few quid, as MKC has no evening peak restrictions northbound, and VT are not permitted by their franchise agreement to introduce any.

 

[PermitToTravel]

You'd not be allowed onto the train, most likely. It's a more feasible prospect at Paddington and will also deliver a saving there

 

[island]

Has anyone here tried this, e.g. on VT services with "u" in the evening peak? Particularly given that by doing so you can save more than a few quid, as MKC has no evening peak restrictions northbound, and VT are not permitted by their franchise agreement to introduce any.

Regardless of entitlement, you will not be allowed board by the Virgin staff on the manual barriers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regardless of entitlement, you will not be allowed board by the Virgin staff on the manual barriers.

Which would suggest they agree with my original premise, i.e. for a split to be valid, the two components of it (unless they are a 19(c) split) must also have been valid on that train individually for the two parts of the split as if only one of them had been done.

(You can still save a packet by splitting at MKC and taking a slightly earlier LM, changing there!)

 

[Dent]

Regardless of entitlement, you will not be allowed board by the Virgin staff on the manual barriers.

If Virgin really are in the habit of denying passengers entry regardless of their entitlement then that is a serious issue.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

On discussing split ticketing with an East Coast guard today, his view was summarised in his closing remark : "It's the only way!".

 

[Wolfie]

If Virgin really are in the habit of denying passengers entry regardless of their entitlement then that is a serious issue.

Too damn right!

Regardless of entitlement, you will not be allowed board by the Virgin staff on the manual barriers.

My bold

Fine, refer to Passenger Focus (and/or London Travelwatch), DfT, ORR and of course Sir Beardy himself threatening to trash his precious Virgin brand all over social media - amazing how effective the last one is (I've used it to a minor extent!)...

 

[35B]

Splitting the fares issue from boarding rights, if a train is advertised pick up/set down only, why should a prospective passenger be allowed aboard if their ticket relies on boarding/alighting where the train isn't open to boarding/alighting?

 

[Dent]

Splitting the fares issue from boarding rights, if a train is advertised pick up/set down only, why should a prospective passenger be allowed aboard if their ticket relies on boarding/alighting where the train isn't open to boarding/alighting?

If they already are making a single journey with split tickets then they are not relying on boarding/alighting where the train isn't open to boarding/alighting. There is no requirement to alight and re-board at the splitting point.

 

[najaB]

If they already are making a single journey with split tickets then they are not relying on boarding/alighting where the train isn't open to boarding/alighting. There is no requirement to alight and re-board at the splitting point.

I agree that there's no requirement to alight and reboard at the split point, the question being posed is that since it wouldn't be possible to legally use the one of the tickets on that train, does that make the combination invalid?

 

[185143]

I'm thinking unplanned diversion, but one that lasts long enough for buses to be put on - e.g. a major dewirement that can't be fixed overnight, and you're travelling the next morning. I agree that if it was planned at the time you bought your ticket then you should have to travel the route you booked.

If its any good, on the TPE 47s for the Tour de France last summer, one of my split tickets was at Leeds and the train I was on from Liverpool diverted via Wakefield, meaning we ran non stop from Huddersfield to York. When the RPI passed through he train he had no problem with the split as the train was advertised to call there until shortly after departure!

 

[jkdd77]

I agree that there's no requirement to alight and reboard at the split point, the question being posed is that since it wouldn't be possible to legally use the one of the tickets on that train, does that make the combination invalid?

I would say no, on the grounds that the plain wording of Condition 19(b) is satisfied, in the same way that the wording of Condition 19(c) would be satisfied if precisely one ticket was a season ticket and the other wasn't (with the same origins and destinations printed on both tickets).

The whole purpose of Condition 19 is to allow combinations of tickets to be used notwithstanding that they might not necessarily be valid in isolation to make any one 'portion' of the journey.

I think that this is one case where, as with the use of multiple SDRs and one short-distance 7DS on a non-stopping train, a split meets the literal wording of the Condition and hence is valid, notwithstanding that this may not necessarily have been the intent of the drafters. There is also an argument that, if there is ambiguity in the wording of the contract for travel, then the passenger is entitled to the benefit of the doubt under the principle of contra proferentem.

 

[Merseysider]

If they already are making a single journey with split tickets then they are not relying on boarding/alighting where the train isn't open to boarding/alighting. There is no requirement to alight and re-board at the splitting point.

I concur with this point of view. The NRCoC make no distinction.

 

[Flamingo]

The whole purpose of Condition 19 is to allow combinations of tickets to be used notwithstanding that they might not necessarily be valid in isolation to make any one 'portion' of the journey.

The purpose is to allow season-ticket holders to extend their journey on one-off journeys where there season ticket covers them for part of the journey. The rest of it comes under the law of unintended consequences.