Told off by an inspector for using a combination of tickets

[Bletchleyite]

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?

Any fares simplification will have winners and losers.

 

[Flamingo]

Any fares simplification will have winners and losers.

But nobody wants to be the loser...

 

[Bletchleyite]

But nobody wants to be the loser...

True... and therein lies the problem.

 

[HilversumNS]

Germans do it just fine

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

Also the Netherlands. It's simply based on distance, with a basic fixed add-on for each journey. A return ticket is only a day return, if you want to come back a week after your outbound journey you get 2 singles.

 

[Flamingo]

Also the Netherlands. It's simply based on distance, with a basic fixed add-on for each journey. A return ticket is only a day return, if you want to come back a week after your outbound journey you get 2 singles.

How do the government subsidies compare in those countries?

 

[Bletchleyite]

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).

Some argue that 19(c) *does* permit season-nonseason-nonseason without a stop, because all it says is that "one ticket is a season ticket and the other(s) is/are not". It doesn't, unlike my version, insist on each split being considered separately, nor that the season lies between the non-season tickets. That is in my view clearly the intent, but it is not what the wording of 19(c) says.

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

I'm not convinced there is much consistency in how it is applied other than splits where the train stops. I have certainly *heard* of issues with extending Bletchley-Euston seasons to MKC and using a VT service, though I haven't tried it myself.

 

[Merseysider]

Some argue that 19(c) *does* permit season-nonseason-nonseason without a stop, because all it says is that "one ticket is a season ticket and the other(s) is/are not". It doesn't, unlike my version, insist on each split being considered separately, nor that the season lies between the non-season tickets. That is in my view clearly the intent, but it is not what the wording of 19(c) says.



I'm not convinced there is much consistency in how it is applied other than splits where the train stops. I have certainly *heard* of issues with extending Bletchley-Euston seasons to MKC and using a VT service, though I haven't tried it myself.

I've successfully used <season><nonseason><nonseason> two or three times and I can't recall hearing of any guards or staff taking issue with a straightforward 19c (ie no weird loophole tickets to 50 miles away included). If anything, the rule that the train doesn't have to stop if one's a season is possibly the most well known.

 

[LexyBoy]

I've successfully used <season><nonseason><nonseason> two or three times and I can't recall hearing of any guards or staff taking issue with a straightforward 19c (ie no weird loophole tickets to 50 miles away included). If anything, the rule that the train doesn't have to stop if one's a season is possibly the most well known.

It's quite well known, but far from unusual to have an issue. I've had several XC guards query it, but always quickly accepted - one saying "you're the expert" without a hint of sarcasm!

I had quite a protracted conversation with a FGW guard who was adamant that the train must always stop at the split point. The inevitable response to my complain as below:

Me:
Yesterday morning (9/2/15) I took the 0759 service from Reading to Bath. I held a Reading-Didcot season ticket, and a Didcot-Bath Spa Anytime Day Single. This is a valid combination as per the Conditions of Carriage (section 19c).

I was told by the Train Manager that this was not valid, and that "split" tickets are only valid if the train calls at the point where tickets join, even if one is a season ticket. Whilst I was not charged for an additional ticket, it made for an unpleasant journey and more importantly this misinformation may result in others being charged incorrectly.

I therefore ask you to ensure staff are made aware of the conditions where split tickets are, and are not, valid.

FGW:
Dear <Lexyboy>

Thank you for your email of 10 February 2015. I understand that you recently had a disappointing experience when trying to travel on a combination of tickets and I'm glad you have given me the chance to explain what went wrong.

Combination tickets can work really well, but a condition of their use is that the train you're using must stop at the changeover station. On this occasion the train you had boarded 0759 service didn't stop at Didcot Parkway and this is why your ticket wasn't valid.

You can also check this information on the link given below:
http://internal.nationalrail.co.uk/45365.aspx

Thank you again for contacting me and I hope this has helped to make our position clearer.

I particularly enjoyed the link provided :roll:

 

[HilversumNS]

How do the government subsidies compare in those countries?

I have no idea, but I suspect it is higher than here.

It's about how the cost is spread out to passengers, what % of that is subsidised isn't the issue here.

 

[Alan White]

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?

To remain revenue-neutral for the industry - assuming that's an objective - any simplification would require adjustments in both directions. However, as I don't believe that many customers take advantage of split tickets then most people would be unaffected because they paid for the obvious tickets. The losers would be the relatively few people* who did the lengthy research required to save a few quid on the split, as I did with the example I referred to above. But even those losers would gain because they'd know that there was no point in spending time looking for a cheaper ticket by splitting .

I see this as analogous to energy prices: the mantra is to research and switch to the lowest tariff. But firstly this means that those who are able and willing to do the research are subsided by those who can't or won't, and secondly if everyone did that then there would be only one tariff .

The bottom line is that there is no logical explanation why a journey on the same trains at the same times should cost £30 or £23 depending on how the ticket is described.


* This is speculation: I have no idea what percentage of customers use split tickets. But I bet it's not significant.

 

[Chris999999]

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?

Still waiting for Flamingos explanation of why he thinks I should be kicked off the train and forced to wait for the next one?

 

[Deerfold]

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 spent ten weeks commuting to work on split tickets on buses - a Student Metrocard for West Yorkshire and an under-19 GMPTE bus season.

Didn't have a problem with any bus drivers despite using 4 different bus services across the border over the weeks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I spent ten weeks commuting to work on split tickets on buses - a Student Metrocard for West Yorkshire and an under-19 GMPTE bus season.

Didn't have a problem with any bus drivers despite using 4 different bus services across the border over the weeks.

I meant more conventional splits, i.e. boarding and asking for a ticket from another stop.

 

[Deerfold]

I meant more conventional splits, i.e. boarding and asking for a ticket from another stop.

I've boarded buses with one ticket and asked for a ticket from another stop to continue on. Sometimes I've been told to come back and ask at the split stop so it's easier to issue but so far I've never been refused.

Not sure why my other example was less conventional?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've boarded buses with one ticket and asked for a ticket from another stop to continue on. Sometimes I've been told to come back and ask at the split stop so it's easier to issue but so far I've never been refused.

Not sure why my other example was less conventional?

Because my point related to potential difficulties in issuing "remote" tickets on a bus type ticket machine. Though from what you say it seems the more modern ones can do it more easily.

 

[clagmonster]

To remain revenue-neutral for the industry - assuming that's an objective - any simplification would require adjustments in both directions. However, as I don't believe that many customers take advantage of split tickets then most people would be unaffected because they paid for the obvious tickets. The losers would be the relatively few people* who did the lengthy research required to save a few quid on the split, as I did with the example I referred to above. But even those losers would gain because they'd know that there was no point in spending time looking for a cheaper ticket by splitting .

Yes, but you are going to have to either:
a) reduce the long distance fare
b) increase one or both of the short distance fares
c) a combination of a and b

In order to remove split ticketing anomolies, a lot of local passengers would see fare increases, in order to bring the combinations of local fares up to the level of long distance fares.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because my point related to potential difficulties in issuing "remote" tickets on a bus type ticket machine. Though from what you say it seems the more modern ones can do it more easily.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I understand that some modern bus ticket machines are fitted with some form of GPS tracking equipment, designed specifically to prevent fraud by drivers issuing tickets from anywhere other than where there bus is currently positioned.

I had a case with such a machine, where is A is the origin of a bus route, B is an intermediate stop and C is the other terminus. I intended to travel from B to C, then return to A. I researched the fares, and found that the cheapest ticket was a day return from A to C. The driver informed me it was impossible to issue because of the GPS. What he ended up doing was issuing a child single from B to C, which coupled with an adult single from C to A which I purchased on the way back, came to roughly the right fare.

 

[Flamingo]

Still waiting for Flamingos explanation of why he thinks I should be kicked off the train and forced to wait for the next one?

The relevant part of the ticket could be excessed up for the journey you are continuing to do, or you could buy singles. No different from the situation at present where people are being kicked off the direct trains when the train doesn't stop at the splitting point, or having to buy a single from the last stop to the next stop.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, but you are going to have to either:
a) reduce the long distance fare
b) increase one or both of the short distance fares
c) a combination of a and b

In order to remove split ticketing anomolies, a lot of local passengers would see fare increases, in order to bring the combinations of local fares up to the level of long distance fares.

And I would say that this is much more unfair on a large number of passengers doing local journeys than removing a loophole for some longer-distance travellers.

 

[clagmonster]

The relevant part of the ticket could be excessed up for the journey you are continuing to do, or you could buy singles. No different from the situation at present where people are being kicked off the direct trains when the train doesn't stop at the splitting point, or having to buy a single from the last stop to the next stop.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And I would say that this is much more unfair on a large number of passengers doing local journeys than removing a loophole for some longer-distance travellers.

Agreed. I can't see the long distance fares being reduced, and I suspect barring split ticketing being unworkable. Indeed, was there not a court case which resulted in it being specifically allowed in the NRCoC.

 

[Flamingo]

Agreed. I can't see the long distance fares being reduced, and I suspect barring split ticketing being unworkable. Indeed, was there not a court case which resulted in it being specifically allowed in the NRCoC.

Was there? It is barred on Irish railways, according to information on other threads, and Irish law is basically based on British Common Law. If the NRCoC were altered, could this be challenged successfully, I wonder?

Of course, politically, there is no way it will be a runner or ever happen. Unless split ticketing skews the revenue take to such an extent that some action has to be taken.

 

[reb0118]

Another is to have exponential[1] kilometric fares[1]......

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

Reducing kilometric scale?

 

[clagmonster]

Was there? It is barred on Irish railways, according to information on other threads, and Irish law is basically based on British Common Law. If the NRCoC were altered, could this be challenged successfully, I wonder?

Of course, politically, there is no way it will be a runner or ever happen. Unless split ticketing skews the revenue take to such an extent that some action has to be taken.

I suppose the other issue is that fare avoidance isn't the only reason to use split ticketing. If a passenger wants to use an unpermitted route for a journey, or make a journey for which no through fare exists, then split ticketing will often be the logical thing to do. It would probably be very tricky to outlaw fare reduction schemes whilst allowing others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, politically, there is no way it will be a runner or ever happen. Unless split ticketing skews the revenue take to such an extent that some action has to be taken.

I would think the vast majority of splitting will occur at change points anyway, though, and that cannot be stopped because you'd simply exit the station and re-enter which would be a new journey in any reasonable person's view. Multiple splits take rather more investigation to find so are probably a minority in what is already a minority pursuit.

One thing the railway could do if it did want to discourage splitting would be to remove any easement in case of emergency diversion (enjoy your long replacement bus ride!) and to insist that, like airlines, its responsibility for taxis etc exists only to the end of the current ticket, so if you've split and were heavily delayed and get stuck at a split point, you're on your own.

 

[bnm]

And I would say that this is much more unfair on a large number of passengers doing local journeys than removing a loophole for some longer-distance travellers.

Loophole? Correctly used split tickets are enshrined in the Conditions of Carriage. How can it be said they are a loophole?

If the suggested alternative is unfair then I presume you are advocating the status quo.

 

[sheff1]

The current Conditions work just fine in my view.

The Conditions as introduced at privatisation in 1993 were better in my view.

 

[Merseysider]

The Conditions as introduced at privatisation in 1993 were better in my view.

Please could you elaborate as to why the old ones were better?

 

[najaB]

The bottom line is that there is no logical explanation why a journey on the same trains at the same times should cost £30 or £23 depending on how the ticket is described.

I advise you to never look at airfares...

 

[sheff1]

Please could you elaborate as to why the old ones were better?

Because you could split any types of tickets (no season needed) at an intermediate station at which the train you were on did not call, as long as at least one train operated by the same TOC did call there.

So, for example, you could split at Grindleford and travel on the fast Central Trains (as was) between Sheffeld & Manchester because the last Central Train of the day called at all stations through the Hope Valley. Very useful indeed with a GMPTE Wayfarer !

 

[34D]

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.

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

Hmmm. We have business travel and we have leisure travel.

I would suggest that OAP's going shopping, going for a day out in another town, going to play bowls, going to daycentres, etc etc all come under leisure.

Am I missing something salient?

 

[Richard1960]

Hmmm. We have business travel and we have leisure travel.

I would suggest that OAP's going shopping, going for a day out in another town, going to play bowls, going to daycentres, etc etc all come under leisure.
Am I missing something salient?

No only the fact if other authorities adopt this policy then pensioners bus passes could become worthless as the "Leisure" services bite the dust.

 

[neilmc]

I think the Dalesbus issue is that many of these are Sunday/Bank Holiday only services and can be classed as "tourist" services and therefore ENCTS passes aren't accepted. If the service operates weekdays also it's unaffected.

This produces the hilarious outcome that, on a service such as the 820 from Otley, ENCTS passes ARE accepted on the outward journey as the service originates within West Yorkshire but not on the return, in addition a North Yorkshire pensioner using the bus for a genuine local journey within the county would have to pay both ways! But if you have a West Yorkshire Metrocard the service is free both ways (Sunday-only extension).

If you follow Deerfold's link you can find a map to explain this; personally I think NYCC have made a mockery of the whole thing.