Told off by an inspector for using a combination of tickets

[Deerfold]

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.

Well that's the purpose of 19 (c), certainly.

 

[34D]

Only when they're not issued by a PTE; so the train needn't stop if splitting with a TfL Freedom Pass, but it needs to if the pass held is a TfGM ENCTS.

I disagree here. Let me quote 19C:

one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not

I believe we can distinguish a zone 1-6 travelcard (issued on behalf of LU or TfL) from a freedom pass (albeit with similar validity) issued by 'London Councils'. This organisation is defined as "London Councils represents London’s 32 borough councils and the City of London. It is a cross-party organisation that works on behalf of all of its member authorities regardless of political persuasion
- See more at: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/who-we-are#sthash.oBgboF3O.dpuf ENDS"

I would therefore suggest that London Councils (and it's members) are local authorities.

Furthermore, the freedom pass, being off peak only, could surely be considered a 'leisure travel pass'

 

[Minilad]

If people are having problems when using split tickets then why not just show the ticket applicable to the part of the journey you are on when the guard asks to see your ticket?

 

[jkdd77]

If people are having problems when using split tickets then why not just show the ticket applicable to the part of the journey you are on when the guard asks to see your ticket?

That's difficult if the ticket shown would not validly cover the relevant part of one's journey in isolation (e.g. (ignoring barriers), if a passenger shows a London- Milton Keynes ticket on a train that stops at MK to pick up only, or if a passenger shows a Peterborough- Huntingdon 7DS on a VTEC train to Kings's Cross). In both cases, I am assuming that the travel is validated by the existence of other valid tickets such that the whole journey is covered under Condition 19.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I continue to wonder why it is that 19(c) was written in such a vague way so as to be open to interpretation in the manner UK law tends to be?

So we presently have:

19. Using a combination of tickets
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:
(a) they are both Zonal Tickets unless special conditions prohibit their use in this
way. The Ticket Seller will, if you ask, advise you whether you can use a Zonal
Ticket in combination with another ticket.
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one ticket to another;
or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include
Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport
executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/
are not.

Would it not be better as something like the following (depending on the intentions - this is based on my view of what the intentions are):-

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey, they have at least one station in common via (one of) which your journey must travel, and one or more of the following applies for each join between two tickets:

(a) They are both Rover or Ranger tickets, or Passenger Transport Executive, local authority or other tickets providing unlimited travel within a defined area, where there are no specific terms and conditions prohibiting such use.

(b) One ticket is a London Travelcard, and the other is a ticket from a relevant Boundary Zone. In this case, subject to any additional restrictions on the ticket, you may use any Permitted Route from the boundary of that Zone to/from the origin/destination on that ticket and need not pass through any specific station.

(c) The train you travel on calls at a station in common between the tickets as noted above for both joining and alighting.

(d) One ticket is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include a season ticket issued for or on behalf of a local authority, Passenger Transport Executive or equivalent[1]) and the other is not. This is to allow the extension of a Season Ticket either using a single/return ticket or a ticket in note [1] provided the terms and conditions of that ticket in note [1] do not prohibit such use.

(e) One ticket is a Rover or Ranger ticket, and another ticket is being combined with it to travel into or out of the area of validity, provided the terms and conditions of both tickets do not prohibit such use.

Is that maybe better?

 

[talltim]

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?

I like this

 

[Alan White]

Would it not be better as something like the following (depending on the intentions - this is based on my view of what the intentions are):-
...
Is that maybe better?

No .

The current version is shorter, easier to understand, and of more benefit to the customer. Additionally, the existing 19b - the bit of interest to me - doesn't have the restriction introduced in 19c.

 

[87 027]

"One or more" introduces ambiguity, especially with (c) in the mix

 

[Bletchleyite]

"One or more" introduces ambiguity, especially with (c) in the mix

Does it? The others are mutually exclusive, and my (c) makes any split valid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Additionally, the existing 19b - the bit of interest to me - doesn't have the restriction introduced in 19c.

However it does seem at least some TOCs are enforcing my version (i.e. anecdotal evidence that you will not be allowed onto a VT at Euston with "u" at MKC with a split there).

To be honest I think a train is not considered to call at a station for the relevant purpose (joining/alighting) in the case of "u" or "s" and so I agree with VT's interpretation. Many don't though!

 

[JamesRowden]

I continue to wonder why it is that 19(c) was written in such a vague way so as to be open to interpretation in the manner UK law tends to be?

So we presently have:

19. Using a combination of tickets
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:
(a) they are both Zonal Tickets unless special conditions prohibit their use in this
way. The Ticket Seller will, if you ask, advise you whether you can use a Zonal
Ticket in combination with another ticket.
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one ticket to another;
or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include
Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport
executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/
are not.

Would it not be better as something like the following (depending on the intentions - this is based on my view of what the intentions are):-

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey, they have at least one station in common via (one of) which your journey must travel, and one or more of the following applies for each join between two tickets:

(a) They are both Rover or Ranger tickets, or Passenger Transport Executive, local authority or other tickets providing unlimited travel within a defined area, where there are no specific terms and conditions prohibiting such use.

(b) One ticket is a London Travelcard, and the other is a ticket from a relevant Boundary Zone. In this case, subject to any additional restrictions on the ticket, you may use any Permitted Route from the boundary of that Zone to/from the origin/destination on that ticket and need not pass through any specific station.

(c) The train you travel on calls at a station in common between the tickets as noted above for both joining and alighting.

(d) One ticket is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include a season ticket issued for or on behalf of a local authority, Passenger Transport Executive or equivalent[1]) and the other is not. This is to allow the extension of a Season Ticket either using a single/return ticket or a ticket in note [1] provided the terms and conditions of that ticket in note [1] do not prohibit such use.

(e) One ticket is a Rover or Ranger ticket, and another ticket is being combined with it to travel into or out of the area of validity, provided the terms and conditions of both tickets do not prohibit such use.

Is that maybe better?

You haven't accounted for the NonSeason<->Season<->NonSeason combination which would seem to me to be just as valid as the NonSeason<->Season combination.

 

[Wolfie]

I disagree here. Let me quote 19C:



I believe we can distinguish a zone 1-6 travelcard (issued on behalf of LU or TfL) from a freedom pass (albeit with similar validity) issued by 'London Councils'. This organisation is defined as "London Councils represents London’s 32 borough councils and the City of London. It is a cross-party organisation that works on behalf of all of its member authorities regardless of political persuasion
- See more at: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/who-we-are#sthash.oBgboF3O.dpuf ENDS"

I would therefore suggest that London Councils (and it's members) are local authorities.

Furthermore, the freedom pass, being off peak only, could surely be considered a 'leisure travel pass'

My bold

It's off peak only solely on non-TfL services.

Also by no stretch of the imagination could a freedom pass (effectively London's equivalent of the ENCTS albeit with greater utility) by considered a 'leisure travel pass'. Me learned friends would have a field day with anyone trying to make such an assertion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You haven't accounted for the NonSeason<->Season<->NonSeason combination which would seem to me to be just as valid as the NonSeason<->Season combination.

I have, because each join can be considered separately.

It doesn't consider the idea of using 19(c) to do <season>-<nonseason>-<nonseason>, but I don't believe that is the intentional meaning of 19(c) and is as such a loophole which probably should be closed.

 

[Merseysider]

I have, because each join can be considered separately.

It doesn't consider the idea of using 19(c) to do <season>-<nonseason>-<nonseason>, but I don't believe that is the intentional meaning of 19(c) and is as such a loophole which probably should be closed.

Please don't apply for any jobs at ATOC!

 

[JamesRowden]

I have, because each join can be considered separately.

It doesn't consider the idea of using 19(c) to do <season>-<nonseason>-<nonseason>, but I don't believe that is the intentional meaning of 19(c) and is as such a loophole which probably should be closed.

I think that calling it an 'event in which the passenger transfers from one of the tickets to another' rather than a 'join between two tickets' would make it clearer

 

[Merseysider]

I continue to wonder why it is that 19(c) was written in such a vague way so as to be open to interpretation in the manner UK law tends to be?

So we presently have:

...[current NRCoC]...

Would it not be better as something like the following (depending on the intentions - this is based on my view of what the intentions are):-

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey, they have at least one station in common via (one of) which your journey must travel, and one or more of the following applies for each join between two tickets:

(a) They are both Rover or Ranger tickets, or Passenger Transport Executive, local authority or other tickets providing unlimited travel within a defined area, where there are no specific terms and conditions prohibiting such use.

(b) One ticket is a London Travelcard, and the other is a ticket from a relevant Boundary Zone. In this case, subject to any additional restrictions on the ticket, you may use any Permitted Route from the boundary of that Zone to/from the origin/destination on that ticket and need not pass through any specific station.

(c) The train you travel on calls at a station in common between the tickets as noted above for both joining and alighting.

(d) One ticket is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include a season ticket issued for or on behalf of a local authority, Passenger Transport Executive or equivalent[1]) and the other is not. This is to allow the extension of a Season Ticket either using a single/return ticket or a ticket in note [1] provided the terms and conditions of that ticket in note [1] do not prohibit such use.

(e) One ticket is a Rover or Ranger ticket, and another ticket is being combined with it to travel into or out of the area of validity, provided the terms and conditions of both tickets do not prohibit such use.

Is that maybe better?

The answer isn't to add more subsections! What happens in 5 years when people somehow find a way to interpret your new conditions in a way that wasn't intended? Add another 2 subsections? You'll end up with Conditions the length of the Deutsche Bahn Beförderungsbedingungen where it's unecessarily complicated. The current Conditions work just fine in my view.

 

[Flamingo]

Personally, at this stage, I'd be happy with the only split allowed on the same train to be a season/non-season (as intended), and no other splits allowed unless changing train as well.

But that's not going to be popular around here, I suspect.

 

[ainsworth74]

You'll end up with Conditions the length of the Deutsche Bahn Beförderungsbedingungen where it's unecessarily complicated.

178 pages!!!

 

[Deerfold]

Furthermore, the freedom pass, being off peak only, could surely be considered a 'leisure travel pass'

I don't think so.

In fact North Yorkshire CC has just withdrawn a number of bus routes from receiving funding from them on the basis that the routes are provided primarily for leisure purposes.

http://www.dalesbus.org/fares.html#OAP

 

[Merseysider]

Personally, at this stage, I'd be happy with the only split allowed on the same train to be a season/non-season (as intended), and no other splits allowed unless changing train as well.

But that's not going to be popular around here, I suspect.

As a passenger, I'd obviously be strongly opposed to any change that means I'd have to pay more for my loopholes

But in return for your simplified conditions, how about the tocs make sure long distance tickets don't cost over (eg) 10% more than their component parts? (Without increasing the component parts!) Ridiculous overpricing is the reason most of us split. (£320 for Manchester to London and back?!) The premium in price could be justified if it allowed a larger variety of routes to choose from instead of splits along a single route.

It would still be more generous than some systems such as the Irish where rebooking isn't allowed.

 

[Dent]

Personally, at this stage, I'd be happy with the only split allowed on the same train to be a season/non-season (as intended), and no other splits allowed unless changing train as well.

"As intended" by whom? Obviously those writing the contract intended conditions 19(a) and 19(b) to be part of it, otherwise they wouldn't have written them.

 

[craigwilson]

You haven't accounted for the NonSeason<->Season<->NonSeason combination which would seem to me to be just as valid as the NonSeason<->Season combination.

I have, because each join can be considered separately.

It doesn't consider the idea of using 19(c) to do <season>-<nonseason>-<nonseason>, but I don't believe that is the intentional meaning of 19(c) and is as such a loophole which probably should be closed.

As I understand it, in JamesRowden's example as the middle example is a season, and you alternate between ticket types, you could go from the origin of the first non-season, to the destination of the second one, without the train being required to call at either of the changeover points between tickets.

In Neil's example (red bold), your train is required to call at the station where you change from the first non-season to the second. 19(c) does not permit you to travel on a non-stopping train in this case, and to comply with Condition 19, you are required to call at the changeover point, therefore fulfilling 19(b).

Is this the correct understanding of Condition 19, or more specifically, is this the correct understanding of how it is applied in practice?

 

[Chris999999]

Personally, at this stage, I'd be happy with the only split allowed on the same train to be a season/non-season (as intended), and no other splits allowed unless changing train as well.

I sometimes need to travel from my local station (Basingstoke) to Cosham and then to Waterloo. These are in opposite directions from Basingstoke. I achieve this by buying 2 returns from Basingstoke.

On my journey from Cosham to Waterloo I use 2 tickets on a train which stops at Basingstoke - the return half of my return to Cosham and the outward half of my return to Waterloo. Why do you consider it reasonable that I should be forced to get off the train at Basingstoke and wait for the next train to Waterloo?

 

[Merseysider]

As I understand it, in JamesRowden's example as the middle example is a season, and you alternate between ticket types, you could go from the origin of the first non-season, to the destination of the second one, without the train being required to call at either of the changeover points between tickets.

In Neil's example (red bold), your train is required to call at the station where you change from the first non-season to the second. 19(c) does not permit you to travel on a non-stopping train in this case, and to comply with Condition 19, you are required to call at the changeover point, therefore fulfilling 19(b).

Is this the correct understanding of Condition 19, or more specifically, is this the correct understanding of how it is applied in practice?

I think all this talk of an 'alternative' or 'improved' condition 19 is complicating matters. One season ticket plus any amount of non-season tickets can be combined in any order on non-stop trains. Is there really any point in discussing the interpretation of a hypothetical condition 19?

 

[ainsworth74]

In Neil's example (red bold), your train is required to call at the station where you change from the first non-season to the second. 19(c) does not permit you to travel on a non-stopping train in this case, and to comply with Condition 19, you are required to call at the changeover point, therefore fulfilling 19(b).

The NRCOC do not say that. Condition 19(c) simply states:

one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (...) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not.

So if you hold a combination of a season ticket and normal tickets you are covered (the (s) after 'ticket' is the key here). It does not say that you can use a season and non-season together and then after that 19(b) applies.

This interpretation is accepted by XC and several of their guards as valid and I believe by most on here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, at this stage, I'd be happy with the only split allowed on the same train to be a season/non-season (as intended), and no other splits allowed unless changing train as well.

But that's not going to be popular around here, I suspect.

I think that would be slightly silly, I'm surprised Ireland claim to do it. Though I suppose it could happen as a side-effect of introducing compostage or smartcards where the ticket is not valid unless you touch in at the stated starting station. Banning it for reasons of practicality might be reasonable (you'd get nowhere with it with a bus driver, for example, simply because of how his ticket machine works) but not, to me, banning it effectively out of spite to stop people finding a better deal.

I wouldn't say it would be unreasonable to say it was only allowed if the train stops there or if you are extending a season ticket, though. The other situations are rather edge cases. And the situation of creating an outboundary Travelcard using a PTE season and a normal season would be solved better with a modification of the ticketing system to allow a single product like that to be sold just like it is in London rather than having an obscure situation that only some people know about.

 

[Alan White]

But that's not going to be popular around here, I suspect.

For obvious reasons .

If TOCs don't like split ticketing then the solution is simple: make the fares simpler*.

As an example, this post shows a journey I took recently. Guess which tickets I bought .


* Regrettably TOCs would simplify by making the splits the same price as the basic tickets :cry:.

 

[Flamingo]

Everybody trots out the old mantra "Make the fares simpler". Nobody says how, in a manner that will be revenue-neutral, and I can't see any government increasing the rail subsidies to cover any loss of revenue from any so-called simplification.

One way to make them simpler is have flat fares, no peak, no railcards, no splits. Anybody up for that?

 

[Merseysider]

Everybody trots out the old mantra "Make the fares simpler". Nobody says how, in a manner that will be revenue-neutral, and I can't see any government increasing the rail subsidies to cover any loss of revenue from any so-called simplification.

One way to make them simpler is have flat fares, no peak, no railcards, no splits. Anybody up for that?

Germans do it just fine

And they have space for 25%, 50% or 100% discount railcards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One way to make them simpler is have flat fares, no peak, no railcards, no splits. Anybody up for that?

Another is to have exponential[1] kilometric fares with fixed percentage discounts for off-peak[1], Railcards etc. That way a split will *never* be cheaper, except where the journey crosses the start/end of the peak period, which few people would bother about, and if some do, just factor that into the calculation of what the rates should be. For First Class you similarly have a multiplier, I would suggest 1.5 or 1.6.

A third is to split IC (airline style pricing with compulsory reservation - you can't get simpler than that) and regional (kilometric) but I don't think our service pattern fits that in the way it does say France's.

[1] Might be the wrong term. What I mean is that the kilometre rate becomes lower the further you go.

 

[Haywain]

Regrettably TOCs would simplify by making the splits the same price as the basic tickets :cry:.

As often pointed out on this forum, for some fares to go down in price others would have to go up. Is that the simplification that you want?