TPE guard making claim regarding ticket validity

[sheff1]

This didn't actually become a dispute but thought this was the best section

Leaving Manchester Piccadilly earlier this week the guard made the common announcement about TPE only and Northern only tickets not being valid but then added something I have never heard before on my frequent journeys on this route - "Tickets split at Grindleford are not valid".

The majority of my journeys on this route do involve a split at Grindleford (which is, of course, perfectly valid on a non-stop train under NRCoT 14.3) but on this occasion I had a through ticket from the TPE Club 55 offer.

In the event the guard didn't actually check tickets, so it was doubly moot, but I wonder if anyone else has heard this incorrect announcement ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's accurate if there's a split involving two single/return tickets that often comes up. Splits involving zonal tickets and seasons are of course valid.

 

[methecooldude]

You havent made clear what tickets you held, but 14.3 states:

Unless Condition 14.1 applies, if you are using a Season Ticket, daily Zonal Ticket, or
another area based Ticket such as a concessionary pass, ranger, or rover, in
conjunction with another Ticket and the last station at which one Ticket is valid and the
first station that the other Ticket is valid are the same, then the train does not need to
Call at that station for your combination to be valid.

So, unless your ticket was a season, zonal ticket, ranger or rover where Grindleford is the start of validity for that ticket, if the train you boarded did not call at Grindleford, then your split tickets are not valid and the Guard is correct.

Example: you have a season ticket Grindleford to X, and a single Y to Grindleford. That is valid.

 

[jfollows]

The GM Wayfarer (https://assets.ctfassets.net/nv7y93...farer_Rail_diagram_2020__TPL_Spring_2020_.pdf) is a good use case here, being valid along with a Grindleford-Sheffield ticket and without the need to call at Grindleford.

 

[methecooldude]

The GM Wayfarer (https://assets.ctfassets.net/nv7y93...farer_Rail_diagram_2020__TPL_Spring_2020_.pdf) is a good use case here, being valid along with a Grindleford-Sheffield ticket and without the need to call at Grindleford.

Yep, exactly, that falls in to Ranger/Rover as mentioned in 14.3. But again, OP hasn't stated which tickets they normally hold

 

[rg177]

The lack of a (non-Northern only) day return from Sheffield to Manchester thanks to TPE removing it several years back is probably behind this. You can purchase a day return, splitting at Grindleford, for around £21, while the Off-Peak Return is closer to £29. Doing this wouldn't be valid, so the guard would be correct in such a scenario.

Of course, a split with a Ranger/Rover/Season would be valid in many instances (as I've educated a guard about on this very route, though he was genuinely happy for me to open up to NRCoT and show him).

Much like the "this is a Peak train" announcements that some staff like to make, it's quite a minefield making blanket statements about tickets over the PA, when you either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that there will be exceptions.

 

[185]

Train doesn't stop, then guard is right - two ordinary tickets split there are not valid. The only exception is for a combination involving an area-based ticket (ie the GM Wayfarer), but I'm quite certain the vast majority of tickets found to be split at Grindleford are two ordinary single or return tickets, which can only be used on the all stops train.

As for the guards announcement, good on them - they are preventing passengers being charged for full new tickets or, as seen on here a lot, penalty fares & prosecutions.

 

[Kite159]

Split tickets are a bit of a minefield, especially with Trainline doing it without making it clear they are selling split tickets for the Northern stopper which calls at Grindleford and someone catching a TPE/EMR

I would imagine it happens elsewhere across the network where the stopping train has a split available at one of the smaller stations which is skipped by the faster trains.

 

[sheff1]

The GM Wayfarer (https://assets.ctfassets.net/nv7y93...farer_Rail_diagram_2020__TPL_Spring_2020_.pdf) is a good use case here, being valid along with a Grindleford-Sheffield ticket and without the need to call at Grindleford.

That is my usual split. I didn’t think it needed mentioning as the announcement claimed
splits (full stop) were not valid which is clearly incorrect regardless of which tickets I personally use. Probably I should have left the third paragraph out.

Much like the "this is a Peak train" announcements that some staff like to make, it's quite a minefield making blanket statements about tickets over the PA, when you either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that there will be exceptions.

Indeed. I believe that if you can’t make an announcement which is fully accurate you should not say anything at all. It seems that other guards on this route agree - as I said, I have never heard this announced before (My main reason for posting was to see if anyone else had).

 

[methecooldude]

Indeed. I believe that if you can’t make an announcement which is fully accurate you should not say anything at all. It seems that other guards on this route agree - as I said, I have never heard this announced before (My main reason for posting was to see if anyone else had).

It's likely the Guard is being very "general" with the announcements. Great, you know about and use the GM Wayfarer, but how many people would that guard come across that do not?
I make announcements about having correctly timed advance ticket... doesn't mean there's isn't any exceptions (such as being delayed on a different leg of your journey) but it's more likely not be be in the exceptions and I can excuse those when queried.

 

[RHolmes]

I used to make the exact same announcement on this route as it was a nightmare for trainline ticket splitting.

I wouldn’t be so bothered about the generalisation, you’re aware that your wayfarer ticket is a valid combination, but it’s for the benefit of those less savvy who just buy the cheapest available fare.

If the guard got specific about the various ticket restrictions you’d be at Sheffield before he/she/they finished their announcement.

I would also add that as of three years ago I no longer work the above service anymore which is why you’ve not heard me say it

 

[Watershed]

I wouldn’t be so bothered about the generalisation

It's not a generalisation, it's a misleading and incorrect announcement.

It would be a generalisation if they said "most split tickets aren't valid, please check with me if you're not sure" instead, for example.

And if they said "split tickets where you have just singles or returns aren't valid", that would be a succinct and accurate announcement.

you’re aware that your wayfarer ticket is a valid combination

Someone may have bought the Wayfarer split based on a recommendation from friends/family/ticket office staff etc. They may be unsure about the exact rules and be misled into thinking that it's not valid based on the announcement, thus stepping back onto a stopper and unnecessarily delaying themselves.

but it’s for the benefit of those less savvy who just buy the cheapest available fare.

At the end of the day it's incumbent on the industry to make the ticketing system sufficiently clear (even if not necessarily simple, as I recognise that's an unrealistic aim in the short term) that ticket holders can easily work out which trains they can use.

If the guard got specific about the various ticket restrictions you’d be at Sheffield before he/she/they finished their announcement.

Hardly so.

 

[alistairlees]

If it’s complicated then I don’t think that’s the public’s fault. It’s clearly a decision (although in my view a poor one) by train operators to make it complicated. Having chosen to do so they, and their employees, have an obligation to provide clear and comprehensible advice, eg in the form of announcements and 1:1 interactions. I appreciate that’s not always easy - but it’s the responsibility of the TOC to do this.

I would also say that retailers are forever trying to work out how to provide the right level of information to customers. It’s increasingly complex. Of note, of course, is that as it becomes increasingly complex, RDG has just reduced commission for third party retailers by 10% (from 5% to 4.5%) from 1st April. Sadly it was not an April fools joke.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

It’s clearly a decision (although in my view a poor one) by train operators to make it complicated.

I'm going to challenge this one. Do we think that the railway companies - collectively or individually - sat down and said 'we think that tickets between Manchester and Sheffield via Grindleford should be difficult to understand'? I'm going to take it as read that they didn't.

I'll further assume that the current arrangement has just happened as fare setting has devolved from the unitary BRB to various companies and PTEs. So do we now think that the railways have sat down and said 'we think that tickets between Manchester and Sheffield via Grindleford sre difficult to understand and that's Ok'? I'm rather less certain but suspect that decision also hasn't been taken.

It's quite possible that the railway have said that and said 'we think that tickets between Manchester and Sheffield via Grindleford are difficult to understand: we don't like it but don't see how to sort it out'. But that's hardly a decision to make things complicated.

 

[yorksrob]

The lack of a (non-Northern only) day return from Sheffield to Manchester thanks to TPE removing it several years back is probably behind this. You can purchase a day return, splitting at Grindleford, for around £21, while the Off-Peak Return is closer to £29. Doing this wouldn't be valid, so the guard would be correct in such a scenario.

Of course, a split with a Ranger/Rover/Season would be valid in many instances (as I've educated a guard about on this very route, though he was genuinely happy for me to open up to NRCoT and show him).

Much like the "this is a Peak train" announcements that some staff like to make, it's quite a minefield making blanket statements about tickets over the PA, when you either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that there will be exceptions.

Yes, TPE shouldn't have been allowed to get rid of off-peak day returns for so many day trips.

If the Establishment were really interested in "simplifying" ticketing, they would ensure that there was a cheap day return for all day trip length journeys.

Funnily enough, whilst the Establishment are keen to push removing long distance off-peak fares, they are suspiciously quiet about reinstating CDR's for journeys such as Leeds - Manchester etc.

Funny that.

 

[Kite159]

Yes, TPE shouldn't have been allowed to get rid of off-peak day returns for so many day trips.

If the Establishment were really interested in "simplifying" ticketing, they would ensure that there was a cheap day return for all day trip length journeys.

Funnily enough, whilst the Establishment are keen to push removing long distance off-peak fares, they are suspiciously quiet about reinstating CDR's for journeys such as Leeds - Manchester etc.

Funny that.

Unless you want them to go down the LNER route of axing return tickets all together to make things "Simpler" and then changing the single to be only the anytime day single available priced at around 60% of the current off-peak return

 

[yorksrob]

Unless you want them to go down the LNER route of axing return tickets all together to make things "Simpler" and then changing the single to be only the anytime day single available priced at around 60% of the current off-peak return

Just force all the railway to have cheap day returns for day trip distances and period off-peak and anytime returns for the rest of the railway.

That is what the state is for.

 

[Kite159]

Just force all the railway to have cheap day returns for day trip distances and period off-peak and anytime returns for the rest of the railway.

That is what the state is for.

What would you define as a "Day Trip Distance"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would you define as a "Day Trip Distance"?

Traditionally it was up to 50 miles.

 

[Haywain]

Traditionally it was up to 50 miles.

Back in the 1970s you could get day returns over much longer distances. On that basis I might say "define traditional".

 

[yorksrob]

Traditionally it was up to 50 miles.

Back in the 1970s you could get day returns over much longer distances. On that basis I might say "define traditional".

To put it in TPE context, you can certainly do a day trip between Leeds and Manchester (as an example). The fifty miles thing might be a good starting point.

 

[jfollows]

Back in the 1970s you could get day returns over much longer distances. On that basis I might say "define traditional".

Macclesfield-Weymouth I remember.
But I agree that Manchester-Leeds or Wilmslow-Derby ought to have day returns.

 

[Discuss223]

You havent made clear what tickets you held, but 14.3 states:

So, unless your ticket was a season, zonal ticket, ranger or rover where Grindleford is the start of validity for that ticket, if the train you boarded did not call at Grindleford, then your split tickets are not valid and the Guard is correct.

Example: you have a season ticket Grindleford to X, and a single Y to Grindleford. That is valid.

I find this post very confusing.

The legislation you quoted suggests that the OP's ticket would be valid if he had a split ticket but then you say it wouldn't be.

 

[NorthernSystem]

I find this post very confusing.

The legislation you quoted suggests that the OP's ticket would be valid if he had a split ticket but then you say it wouldn't be.

National Rail Condition of Travel (NRCoT) 14.3 allows for "season tickets, daily Zonal or other area based Ticket such as a concessionary pass, ranger or rover". That's the argument that's kinda getting lost here. The aim of the TPE guard was to make clear that any split tickets (such as the ones commonly split at Grindleford/Hathersage) are not valid. That is correct and falls inline with the advisory on 14.3. Ticketing is a minefield as is, and as a guard who works such routes (namely the stopper that does stop at Grindleford), it's a good advisory for passengers not to get caught out.

Personally saying, most people that purchase rangers and rovers have a good understanding of their rules, and the tickets that can be used in conjunction. I was speaking to a colleague of mine who said that he's previously used a Birchwood-Glazebrook, GM County Card, Hazel Grove-Chinley and Derbyshire Wayfarer in conjunction. Albeit long winded, and personally a brilliant set of tickets to see, it's valid.

 

[Discuss223]

NRCoT 14.3 allows for "season tickets, daily Zonal or other area based Ticket such as a concessionary pass, ranger or rover". That's the argument that's kinda getting lost here. The aim of the TPE guard was to make clear that any split tickets (such as the ones commonly split at GRN/HSG) are not valid. That is correct and falls inline with the advisory on 14.3. Ticketing is a minefield as is, and as a guard who works such routes (namely the stopper that does stop at GRN), it's a good advisory for passengers not to get caught out.

Personally saying, most people that purchase rangers and rovers have a good understanding of their rules, and the tickets that can be used in conjunction. I was speaking to a colleague of mine who said that he's previously used a BWD-GLZ, GM County Card, HAZ-CLY and Derbyshire Wayfarer in conjunction. Albeit long winded, and personally a brilliant set of tickets to see, it's valid.

Oh, ok, so the crux of it is, singles and returns are not valid for split ticketing if the train is not scheduled to call at that station, thanks.

 

[Watershed]

I'm going to challenge this one. Do we think that the railway companies - collectively or individually - sat down and said 'we think that tickets between Manchester and Sheffield via Grindleford should be difficult to understand'? I'm going to take it as read that they didn't.

I don't imagine they have deliberately schemed to make it more complicated. But, as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words - and I would say it's entirely fair to judge the industry by the outcome of its actions. Those outcomes don't speak of an industry that cares about keeping ticketing simple.

Even just taking this one journey as an example, the TOCs have added less flexible fares (Advances & "Northern only") whilst removing more flexible ones ("Any Permitted" Off-Peak Day Return). At the same time they have substantially increased and restricted the remaining interavailable fares (Off-Peak/Anytime Return).

The end result is that it's rarely cheapest to buy the simplest ticket, which would be an interavailable day/period return. Paying a reasonable price now requires you to either engage in more complex ticketing arrangements, such as a ranger/rover + single split, or accepting limitations in terms of the train(s) you can get. The latter causes conflict and complexity, not to mention negating the benefit of the today's higher frequencies.

It seems that the TOCs are utterly incapable of taking a holistic view of the overall outcome of their actions. They only view things through the narrow lens of "will this increase the bottom line revenue for my TOC". This is the root cause of the problem.

Even if one were to accept that it's legitimate to reduce subsidy by making passengers carry more of the cost (which I do not), there are other ways and means this can be achieved. There is no need to complicate the ticketing for such a common and everyday journey.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I'm not sure that

It’s clearly a decision (although in my view a poor one) by train operators to make it complicated.

and

Those outcomes don't speak of an industry that cares about keeping ticketing simple

are actually paraphrases of each other. So while @Watershed may be right with respect to their assertion, that doesn't of itself prove @alistairlees ' point.

 

[Watershed]

I'm not sure that

and

are actually paraphrases of each other. So while @Watershed may be right with respect to their assertion, that doesn't of itself prove @alistairlees ' point.

My argument would be that although it may not be a deliberate course of action, it is ultimately a series of small short-sighted decisions which each make the system more complicated. So yes, I would still regard it as a decision.

 

[185143]

Back in the 1970s you could get day returns over much longer distances. On that basis I might say "define traditional".

I've used a day return for a journey of over 200 miles before now. I won't say where as it's a good value ticket I'd rather not draw too much attention to. It's not a routing guide loophole or anything, it's a proper point to point ticket.

 

[alistairlees]

I'm going to challenge this one. Do we think that the railway companies - collectively or individually - sat down and said 'we think that tickets between Manchester and Sheffield via Grindleford should be difficult to understand'? I'm going to take it as read that they didn't.

I'll further assume that the current arrangement has just happened as fare setting has devolved from the unitary BRB to various companies and PTEs. So do we now think that the railways have sat down and said 'we think that tickets between Manchester and Sheffield via Grindleford sre difficult to understand and that's Ok'? I'm rather less certain but suspect that decision also hasn't been taken.

It's quite possible that the railway have said that and said 'we think that tickets between Manchester and Sheffield via Grindleford are difficult to understand: we don't like it but don't see how to sort it out'. But that's hardly a decision to make things complicated.

TOCs have knowingly made ticketing more complex by adding hundreds of ticket types and also hundreds of ticket restriction codes over the last two decades or so. This has not been an accident, or something that they did not realise was happening - they have set out to hit revenue targets, or maximise yield, or both; and one of the key tools for doing this has been the fares system.

There has been little acknowledgement or understanding of the non-financial consequences of this: a complex fare system costs more to sell, more to police, typically has higher fraud / evasion, creates mistrust (refer to umpteen surveys of the public regarding both trust and perceptions of complexity), creates danger for staff (in terms of gateline and on train conflict) and creates negative PR (such as for the railcard discounted anytime tickets being used before the railcard validity with northern).

I will concede that, 20 years or so ago, that it was probably the case that no fares manager at a TOC said “how can I make fares more complex?”. But, through thousands of decisions they did make fares more complicated, and they will have been aware of this. But they did nothing about it, and just carried on down the same road. Which is why we find ourselves in the mess today that we do. (And at least part of this is because of the total lack of guidance direction from either the dft or RDG; and another part is because franchise revenue bidding models forced every last penny to be squeezed out of franchises, through ever more creative fares changes).

Incidentally, what is “the railway” that I hear you and others speak of? I cannot find it. It doesn’t exist, for anyone wondering; it hasn’t existed for 20+ years.