Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
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.
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?
But nobody wants to be the loser...Any fares simplification will have winners and losers.
But nobody wants to be the loser...
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.
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'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.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.
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.
How do the government subsidies compare in those countries?
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 .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?
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?
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.
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?
Yes, but you are going to have to either: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 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.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.
Still waiting for Flamingos explanation of why he thinks I should be kicked off the train and forced to wait for the next one?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
The current Conditions work just fine in my view.
Please could you elaborate as to why the old ones were better?The Conditions as introduced at privatisation in 1993 were better in my view.
I advise you to never look at airfares...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.
Please could you elaborate as to why the old ones were better?
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?