Triangular routing, starting journey with a break

[triangularq]

Hi,

I'm keeping this question deliberately somewhat vague as I know railway staff frequent these forums. I had the following conundrum today. Discussed with two guards, both of whom thought it was an interesting question. Both were unsure but ultimately allowed the tickets to be used. I'd love to know if I was right or not.

I boarded the train at station B, midway between station A and station C. Station A and station C are connected by an express train not stopping at B. B is connected to A and C by a stopping train.

For work today I had to travel B > C > A then back to B. For this journey I bought a day return A >< C, boarding at B, traveling to C, traveling to A then back to B. B > C on the stopper, C > A on the express then A > B on the stopper.

In other words, I broke my journey at B, but *started* my journey with the break. Obviously this was massively cheaper than buying two day returns, B > C and A > B.

Obviously if my journey happened to be A > B > C > A this would be a valid routing, breaking my journey at B. My gut is that my journey was not technically allowed under the conditions, but that answer seems unsatisfactory as covering the same stations in a different order would be allowed on one ticket, visiting in a different order but traveling on the same trains.

If that isn't allowed, there is also a station (call it D) that the stopper calls at but not the express. Would I be able to complete the journey on the A > C ticket IF I bought a single ticket D > C. The reason I ask is the best reason I can think for my ticket not being valid is that I exited the station at C, thus completing (albeit without starting) my ticket A > C. IF my journey was not valid because I exited station C on my A > C ticket, would exiting on a different ticket (i.e. D > C) make a difference?

I appreciate this is probably an academic question and most guards/inspectors would allow it. It's got me thinking though, and I'd love to know if I was right (or, why I was wrong).

Sorry for the vague post. This is a work journey I'm likely to need to make again, so I'm reticent to go into too many details.

Thanks!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure I wholly understand but so far as I know...

All of the following assumes the ticket(s) held permit Break of Journey.

1. You can both finish short and start short. That is, if you have A-B-C and your ticket is A-C, you can just travel B-C on it, or indeed A-B. This applies in both directions.

2. What you cannot however do is use an earlier part of the ticket later. In other words, again using A-B-C, if you travel B-C you cannot then travel A-B on the same ticket. However if you travelled A-B you could then go on to travel B-C, as that's a simple Break of Journey. Similarly you cannot use the return half of a return ticket before the outward, if you do then it invalidates the unused outward portion.

3. When using regular single or return tickets, as it appears you are, the train must stop at the changeover station(s) if you are combining more than one ticket to make one journey.

I hope that makes sense - I can't quite follow what you mean in your post but I think the above two rules should explain if what you did was OK or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Sorry, edited to remove the "what if it doesn't permit BoJ" bit as it was confusing and possibly debatable in places)

 

[PG]

I'm no expert so you'll more than likely get a better answer in due course from someone who is.

My thinking is that once you start using the return portion of a ticket then the outward portion has no further validity.

Thus in your example I think you can't use the outward portion to travel A>B since you had already used the return portion to travel C>A

 

[triangularq]

Yes that does - so if I'm traveling B - C on an A - C ticket, the A - B portion is invalidated because I've already used the B - C portion? I.e I can't choose to start my journey with the break, and in doing so I forfeit the first portion of the ticket (i.e. A - B).

Didn't know that RE using a return before outbound - I've often switched outbound and return on longer journeys for the longer validity on one portion. Good to know.

That being said, that does seem massively unfair (as do huge parts of our ticketing system). The journey I described is traveling on the same trains through the same stations as a valid ticket, albeit in a different order. It's unclear why that should be more expensive!

Thanks for the clear and concise answer!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes that does - so if I'm traveling B - C on an A - C ticket, the A - B portion is invalidated because I've already used the B - C portion? I.e I can't choose to start my journey with the break, and in doing so I forfeit the first portion of the ticket (i.e. A - B).

Yes, correct. Essentially, where Break of Journey is permitted, you can miss out any bit(s) of the journey you like, be that at the start, the end or in the middle, or you can stop off and resume provided you stay within the validity timespan of the ticket and any time restrictions, but you still have to use it in the correct order - if you miss a bit, you can't go back and do it later.

I think the reason for this is that if you could use any bit of a ticket in any order it'd be too complex to enforce against people re-using tickets - i.e. "but Mr RPI, I haven't used that bit, look, it isn't stamped" Buying an Anytime Return and using it as a season ticket until it gets stamped has not in the past been a particularly unusual practice.

 

[triangularq]

Point taken, although you've got me racking my brains now trying to think of a ticket combination (legal of course) that can get me around the triangle at the lowest possible price.

I still think it's massively unfair that B > C > A > B should be twice the price of A > B > C >A, but as I mentioned there are plenty of aspects of our ticketing system that I think are unfair (and put people off rail travel in general. I wonder how much revenue is lost to perceptions of complicated pricing structures verses overuse of anytime returns, for example).

I digress. Thanks for the prompt and informative replies - much appreciated!

Go steady

 

[Belperpete]

If your outward ticket was clipped/scanned while travelling on the B > C leg, and then you attempted to use it again for A > B, it would look as though you were trying to use the ticket to travel from A > C twice.

 

[furlong]

When presenting an outward coupon, you may be asked to show your unused return coupon, without which the outward coupon is not valid.

 

[dutchflyer]

The heading of your question is a bit misleading as this is not a triangle you make. You touch on the same as f.e. tickets TO London being much deerer or cheaper as FROM L to starting point. A triangle would be if there was a(much shorter direct) line connecting A to C not going via B. Yes, esp. from the eyes of a continental this British ticketing/fare system makes no sense at all and is even much more complicated as the germans can make it. Its mostly a moneyspinner. And it apparently, seeing this forum, also leads to enormous mental efforts trying to break it or perhaps get the best out of it.

 

[pelli]

There was a similar thread recently about a circular journey where the OP wanted to complete the circle starting from a different point than the starting point of the return ticket: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ticket-breaks-in-journey.196487/

There, we advised the OP to buy an extra single ticket to make it valid. In your case, either buy an A->B single to use for your final trip while doing the first bits on an A->C return, or buy a B->C single to use for your first trip while doing the rest on a C->A return.

Alternatively, if a period return is cheaper than a single plus day return, and you do this trip at least once a month, then start yourself off with an A->C day return for B->C->A, then buy an A->C period return to finish off A->B this time and do B->C->A next time, and repeat.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

For work today I had to travel B > C > A then back to B

In other words, I broke my journey at B, but *started* my journey with the break. Obviously this was massively cheaper than buying two day returns, B > C and A > B.

Using return tickets, for the reasons which have been discussed upthread you will need B>C and B>A (because you would use the return leg of an A>B before using the outward leg).

But it might be worth comparing the price of an A>C return plus an A>B single against the price of the two returns. As you have very probably found, return tickets are heavily discounted compared to singles, but there's always a chance that the sums will work out in your favour.

 

[30907]

On the question of unfairness, many or most UK return tickets are priced at a discount compared with singles (most obviously offpeaks), so it isn't clear whether you would have lost out by buying the correct tickets (ie the cheaper of the two single fares B-A and C-B plus the A-C fare).
SNAP! Fawkes Cat wins by a canvas/short head!

Even on a single-fares only system, A-C would almost certainly be cheaper than A-B plus B-C because a tapering tariff would be applied.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

But it might be worth comparing the price of an A>C return plus an A>B single against the price of the two returns.

it isn't clear whether you would have lost out by buying the correct tickets (ie the cheaper of the two single fares B-A and C-B plus the A-C fare).

@30907 seems to have had much the same idea as I did - but they've thought it through properly and I agree with them. Check which is the cheaper single fare out of A>B and B>C. Then do the sums using that and the A>C return* - because it's your choice if on the A>C return you start late (not using the A>B part of the outward portion) or alternatively you start with a B>C single, then get a C>A return and finish early (not using the B>C part of the return portion).

* This is assuming that an A>C return costs the same as a C>A return, which is normally true, but there are some journeys where it's cheaper one way than the other to try and limit overcrowding, so it's always worth checking.

 

[robbeech]

Without wishing to take this topic in a slightly different direction. What you did wasn't valid, which i think is clear now. You've been given some good suggestions as to things you can try which may vary i price depending on the actual stations.
However, the first thing that stands out to me is why 2 members of staff don't know this rule........... I'd love to be surprised.