Updated Advance Fares FAQ in iKB

[yorkie]

ATOC have released a new copy of the Advance Fares FAQ in iKB, which is only accessible to rail staff, however ATOC have kindly provided us a copy and allowed us to include it as a PDF attachment in our Fares Guide (Section 1 - Ticket types & Conditions 1.1.3 Advance tickets)

There is only one change, the old Q26 has been re-numbered Q27 and a new Q26 inserted:

Q26 - Can a passenger alight short of the destination on their Advance ticket, or board after the origin shown on their Advance ticket but on the same booked train?
A: Although Advance tickets are intended to be used only between the origin and destination stations shown on the ticket, there may be occasions where a passenger joins the correct train but at a later station, or alights earlier than the indicated destination. Although this is not strictly in accordance with the rules for Advance tickets, the Rail industry has agreed that in such cases, no additional fare should be charged unless there is clear evidence of intent to try and avoid a higher fare.

We had already received confirmation from helpful ATOC staff that this was rail industry policy many months ago, however this is the first time the policy appears in the Advance Fares FAQ.

Note that while people should not be deliberately booking Advance fares for a longer journey in order to obtain a cheaper Advance, it will hopefully avoid disputes such as the Professor Evans case at Durham, and other similar incidents, where the fares would be the same (or cheaper).

 

[alastair]

ATOC have released a new copy of the Advance Fares FAQ in iKB, which is only accessible to rail staff, however ATOC have kindly provided us a copy and allowed us to include it as a PDF attachment in our Fares Guide (Section 1 - Ticket types & Conditions 1.1.3 Advance tickets)

There is only one change, the old Q26 has been re-numbered Q27 and a new Q26 inserted:

We had already received confirmation from helpful ATOC staff that this was rail industry policy many months ago, however this is the first time the policy appears in the Advance Fares FAQ.

Note that while people should not be deliberately booking Advance fares for a longer journey in order to obtain a cheaper Advance, it will hopefully avoid disputes such as the Professor Evans case at Durham, and other similar incidents, where the fares would be the same (or cheaper).

Well,this seems an extremely welcome outbreak of common sense. Can any rail staff comment on how this is being interpreted in practice?

 

[tractakid]

I agree it makes sense as an internal policy (it can only mean fewer people getting in trouble), but I'm not sure it is helpful for the travelling public to know.

Starting/stopping short is still against the rules and doing so means you still run the risk of being caught and punished! Who knows where discretion will draw the line?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Picking a fairly typical example...Passenger books a ticket from Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill for £6.00, but subsequently discovers their destination is nearer Moor Street, which would have been the same price.

Should they be penalised for getting off one stop early given Chiltern have incurred no financial loss by them doing so? I would say they shouldn't.

Would they be penalised? Potentially, depending on the gateline staff.

 

[talltim]

iKB= isambard Kingdom Brunel?

 

[Urban Gateline]

Should they be penalised for getting off one stop early given Chiltern have incurred no financial loss by them doing so? I would say they shouldn't.

No, but if they were to get off at Warwick/Dorridge/Solihul or anywhere else along that route I'd say it's fair game for the passenger to be penalised!

 

[alastair]

Picking a fairly typical example...Passenger books a ticket from Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill for £6.00, but subsequently discovers their destination is nearer Moor Street, which would have been the same price.

Should they be penalised for getting off one stop early given Chiltern have incurred no financial loss by them doing so? I would say they shouldn't.

Would they be penalised? Potentially, depending on the gateline staff.

Well surely if the gateline staff did try and charge them they would not be abiding by this new stated policy and the passengers would be entitled to refuse to pay,or if forced to pay would have a valid complaint and have to be given a refund?

Of course another issue with this new policy is that it will not be that easy to prove that a passsenger stopping short was deliberately evading a higher fare by booking to a lower-priced more distant station unless detailed retrospective advance fare information is available. Is this the case?

 

[telstarbox]

Picking a fairly typical example...Passenger books a ticket from Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill for £6.00, but subsequently discovers their destination is nearer Moor Street, which would have been the same price.

No, but if they were to get off at Warwick/Dorridge/Solihul or anywhere else along that route I'd say it's fair game for the passenger to be penalised!

In that situation the Advance is still issued to "Birmingham Stations" (same for "Manchester Stations" for VT Advances) - common sense suggests that it's OK to exit at one of the other stations in the group.

 

[yorkie]

I agree it makes sense as an internal policy (it can only mean fewer people getting in trouble), but I'm not sure it is helpful for the travelling public to know.

What advantage would there be in keeping the policy secret?

Starting/stopping short is still against the rules and doing so means you still run the risk of being caught and punished! Who knows where discretion will draw the line?

If anyone is "punished" in the circumstances where they shouldn't be, I would urge them to contact us for advice, I would be happy to help. Alternatively, the media love this sort of story, for obvious reasons (here's another one, and I can find plenty more).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, but if they were to get off at Warwick/Dorridge/Solihul or anywhere else along that route I'd say it's fair game for the passenger to be penalised!

Why?

I just had a quick look for Marylebone to Solihull vs Birmingham and found the fare to be identical (£9) for a random date (16 July).

Of course another issue with this new policy is that it will not be that easy to prove that a passsenger stopping short was deliberately evading a higher fare by booking to a lower-priced more distant station unless detailed retrospective advance fare information is available. Is this the case?

In general, it shouldn't be cheaper to book further, and it usually isn't, but if there is a flow for which there are no Advance fares, causing Advance fares to further destinations to be cheaper, it would be very easy to look at the price on the ticket, compared with the cheapest available walk-up fare. The NRCoC allows for an excess fare to be charged in those circumstances, to the lowest priced ticket.

For example the lowest priced ticket to High Wycombe is £12.80, so an excess fare of £3.80 could be charged to a passenger holding a £9 Advance to Birmingham.

The passenger wouldn't have a case, but of course the media may still be interested in the story though!

 

[Urban Gateline]

Why?

I just had a quick look for Marylebone to Solihull vs Birmingham and found the fare to be identical (£9) for a random date (16 July).

Fair enough, I didn't realise there were Advances to Solihul! I guess the point I was trying to get at was one you made at the end of your post regarding flows where there are no Advances. With these new guidelines it does seem to open the door to people to purposely buy an Advance ticket to somewhere further if it is cheaper and then stop short, not something anyone should be promoting!

 

[yorkie]

...With these new guidelines it does seem to open the door to people to purposely buy an Advance ticket to somewhere further if it is cheaper and then stop short..

I don't agree that it does, as it specifically excludes that.

In the vast majority of cases that's not going to be an issue. The cases we have seen have been people alighting at Darlo/Durham instead of Durham/Newcastle, or starting short at places like Tiverton instead of Exeter, or York instead of Berwick and numerous others.

..not something anyone should be promoting!

Indeed.

 

[bb21]

For example the lowest priced ticket to High Wycombe is £12.80, so an excess fare of £3.80 could be charged to a passenger holding a £9 Advance to Birmingham.

Plus a £10 admin fee since you are changing an Advance ticket.

I am glad that this issue has been clarified to a certain degree. As to whether the passenger is deliberately avoiding paying a higher fare, I am of the opinion that comparing Advance fare price tiers is a sensible course of action, and one which makes sense.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

iKB= isambard Kingdom Brunel?

iKB = National Rail Enquiries (internal) Knowledge Base

(Formerly "The Manual", formerly the "Fares and Retail Publication Portal (FRPP), formerly the "National Fares Manual" (NFM)/"Guards Handbook")

.....I am glad that this issue has been clarified to a certain degree....

Clarified in so much as everybody is singing from the same hymn sheet maybe, but I suspect the grey line between right and wrong is now rather thicker than it was before.

.....As to whether the passenger is deliberately avoiding paying a higher fare, I am of the opinion that comparing Advance fare price tiers is a sensible course of action, and one which makes sense.

If the fare is the same it seems logical, but in the past I have booked an Advance ticket from Sandwell and Dudley (SAD) to London because, on the same train, the fare from Birmingham New Street (BHM) was twice the price (at the time of sale).

The actual fare brackets are probably the same, but I bought the ticket from SAD because it was cheaper (in case anyone cares I travelled out to SAD on another ticket which was still cheaper than the fare for shorter journey).

There is simply no way for front line staff to tell if the fare, at the time of sale, was more or less than that which was bought.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Well surely if the gateline staff did try and charge them they would not be abiding by this new stated policy and the passengers would be entitled to refuse to pay,or if forced to pay would have a valid complaint and have to be given a refund?

Of course another issue with this new policy is that it will not be that easy to prove that a passsenger stopping short was deliberately evading a higher fare by booking to a lower-priced more distant station unless detailed retrospective advance fare information is available. Is this the case?

This is not a policy but a guideline for staff. You should still comply with the restrictions on your ticket.

 

[OwlMan]

There is simply no way for front line staff to tell if the fare, at the time of sale, was more or less than that which was bought.

However I can see a thread in the future complaining about being charged for getting off early when the conversation goes

RPI: Why have you got a ticket to Newcastle and not to Durham
Passenger: because it was cheaper only £20 instead of £45.
RPI: Ching, Ching........

 

[bb21]

There is simply no way for front line staff to tell if the fare, at the time of sale, was more or less than that which was bought.

That is the crux of the matter, if we were having to dig into the availability of quota at the time of booking.

Comparing the price tiers is the only realistic option I can see.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

That is the crux of the matter, if we were having to dig into the availability of quota at the time of booking.

Comparing the price tiers is the only realistic option I can see.

And what if no comparison can be made? i.e. the shorter journey has no Advance fares (or none of that type) and the fare for the journey made is deemed more than the fare paid.

It puts staff in a very difficult position, and I am of no doubt that most complaints to Customer Services would result in an apology and a refund of any extra fare paid, maybe even with a promise to 'brief staff' or 'train them correctly'.:roll:

 

[tractakid]

What advantage would there be in keeping the policy secret?

Passengers pushing boundaries now that they know there is leniency, but they meet the wrong guard and according to the letter of the law are legitimately told to buy an excess/appropriate ticket etc.

Before, there was only the law, which drew a clear line. Railway ticketing already has enough grey areas without creating any more!

I am all for guards not punishing passengers for getting off at Penryn instead of Falmouth Town, for example.

 

[yorkie]

Plus a £10 admin fee since you are changing an Advance ticket.

That's not documented in the NRCoC, so I'd dispute that

If the fare is the same it seems logical, but in the past I have booked an Advance ticket from Sandwell and Dudley (SAD) to London because, on the same train, the fare from Birmingham New Street (BHM) was twice the price (at the time of sale).

If that happens again, please provide an example as that would be rather rare. The price tiers would generally be the same (or sometimes slightly higher for "& Connections" fares in some cases)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Passengers pushing boundaries now that they know there is leniency, but they meet the wrong guard and according to the letter of the law are legitimately told to buy an excess/appropriate ticket etc.

Staff not adhering to the correct procedures is nothing new (though more should be done to address that), but having this policy publicised increases the chances of staff knowing the correct policy too.

Before, there was only the law, which drew a clear line. Railway ticketing already has enough grey areas without creating any more!

I am all for guards not punishing passengers for getting off at Penryn instead of Falmouth Town, for example.

I don't understand how you can be "for" a policy, but want its existence to be kept secret. I think we'll have to agree to disagree!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It puts staff in a very difficult position

It puts staff in an easier position than previously, in my opinion, as at least you can now be aware of the policy. This policy has been around for some time, but previously you could read the entire iKB but if you missed the memo, you'd still have been unaware of it.

and I am of no doubt that most complaints to Customer Services would result in an apology and a refund of any extra fare paid, maybe even with a promise to 'brief staff' or 'train them correctly'.:roll:

Of course to most of the general public it's an absurd idea to charge people more for travelling a shorter distance, and the safest thing to do is never to attempt to charge an excess fare. To do anything else risks negative media coverage (as well as additional paperwork) as it's considered unacceptable to the general public to charge an excess to travel less distance.

I'd advise anyone considering charging an excess fare in these circumstances needs to be careful to be certain that the intermediate fare is definitely higher, and should check what their Company's policy is before taking any action that could trigger headlines!

 

[bb21]

And what if no comparison can be made? i.e. the shorter journey has no Advance fares (or none of that type) and the fare for the journey made is deemed more than the fare paid.

Then staff would be in a much stronger position to argue that the passenger paid for a ticket to a further destination in order to avoid paying the higher "correct" fare.

In reality you will always have people push the boundaries, and as yorkie alluded to, to many the concept of paying less for a longer distance is an irrational one.

 

[Sleepy]

Wonder how long it will take to filter down - my TOC still hasn't briefed that Advance peeps on wrong time train should be charged SVS fare not SOS if on off peak journey !

 

[tractakid]

I don't understand how you can be "for" a policy, but want its existence to be kept secret. I think we'll have to agree to disagree!

I am not necessarily advocating secrecy, but having the policy public doesn't help passengers. It doesn't give passengers any more rights, so it either leaves letter of the law passengers in the same position and those that push boundaries putting themselves at risk by doing so.

I don't mind knowing the policy, but it won't change how I use advance tickets.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....It puts staff in an easier position than previously, in my opinion, as at least you can now be aware of the policy. This policy has been around for some time, but previously you could read the entire iKB but if you missed the memo, you'd still have been unaware of it....

Assuming a memo is even sent.......

Staff had a rule to follow, in black and white, now it's make your mind up time, decide if they are dodgers and watch them claim otherwise, report you and get their own way anyway, just because you are doing what the company (and ATOC) says. I don't envy a guard's job these days, I really don't.

....Of course to most of the general public it's an absurd idea to charge people more for travelling a shorter distance, and the safest thing to do is never to attempt to charge an excess fare. To do anything else risks negative media coverage (as well as additional paperwork) as it's considered unacceptable to the general public to charge an excess to travel less distance....

Unfortunately what most people seem not to realise is that when you pay the reduced fares you get a more restrictive ticket, that is why you pay less, nothing to do with distance. If the passenger wanted the more flexible ticket, they could have bought it instead of the Advance fare. Of course this will always be glossed over as it is seen as 'anti-passenger'.

Is it any more rational than giving someone a T&Cs card saying you can't stop short and then when they do stop short, the staff just let them walk off? What's the point in a restriction/condition if it isn't enforced?

....I'd advise anyone considering charging an excess fare in these circumstances needs to be careful to be certain that the intermediate fare is definitely higher, and should check what their Company's policy is before taking any action that could trigger headlines!

More checking and double checking for staff, but of course this is easier for them then just knowing the rules and using them........apparently........Oh, and don't forget trial by media........It just gets better and better.....I guess I had better start learning the fares database so I can recite it off by heart, you know, just in case.....

Then staff would be in a much stronger position to argue that the passenger paid for a ticket to a further destination in order to avoid paying the higher "correct" fare...

Even if it is a genuine last minute change of plans and the passenger had no way of knowing it cost more? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

....In reality you will always have people push the boundaries, and as yorkie alluded to, to many the concept of paying less for a longer distance is an irrational one.

And that is where front line staff will be hung out to dry. Can't accuse but can't let them go.

 

[RJ]

Assuming a memo is even sent.......

Staff had a rule to follow, in black and white, now it's make your mind up time, decide if they are dodgers and watch them claim otherwise, report you and get their own way anyway, just because you are doing what the company (and ATOC) says. I don't envy a guard's job these days, I really don't.

It's often the case that guards do their own thing in terms of discretion. This makes life easier for them and passengers who feel aggrieved at having to follow the T&Cs they agreed to (taking notice or otherwise) when buying the ticket.

 

[Starmill]

This is probably the only ticketing issue where I am on the 'dark side'.

This policy is a mess. I suspect another high profile case will come along soon enough where someone gets prosecuted for misuse of Advances (e.g. somebody makes lots of Leeds - York journeys on Leeds - Thirsk advances, to avoid the extortionate Leeds - York fares, this is clear cut because there aren't any Leeds - York advances at all).

In general, it shouldn't be cheaper to book further, and it usually isn't,

This makes me very nervous, it's not all that uncommon for the further fare to be cheaper.

In reality you will always have people push the boundaries, and as yorkie alluded to, to many the concept of paying less for a longer distance is an irrational one.

Maybe. But as some pricing structures rely on that to make money - and I can't really see it as an 'unethical' pricing structure - then does it not deserve to be enforced?

As to whether the passenger is deliberately avoiding paying a higher fare, I am of the opinion that comparing Advance fare price tiers is a sensible course of action, and one which makes sense.

Come on bb21 you know better than this; the tiers can be the same and the availability different! HHF has highlighted how this can be profitable - and how it's impossible to use this to compare fares for an excess without knowing exactly what was available at the time of booking.

Of course to most of the general public it's an absurd idea to charge people more for travelling a shorter distance, and the safest thing to do is never to attempt to charge an excess fare. To do anything else risks negative media coverage (as well as additional paperwork) as it's considered unacceptable to the general public to charge an excess to travel less distance.

I argue that this undermines the pricing structure. It leaves a bitter taste to say it, but I think the excess should be charged in some cases because the pricing structure is market-based and sound. Of course, the excess cannot be charged in most cases, including the one below.

Consider CrossCountry Advances from Leeds to Sheffield. I have attached two screenshots to show the same train on the same date with it's Advance fares available. The train's next stop after Sheffield is Chesterfield. CrossCountry know there is a specific demand for Leeds to Sheffield tickets that just doesn't exist for the Leeds to Chesterfield flow. They therefore never sell one tier of tickets between Leeds and Sheffield that they do between Leeds and Chesterfield, even though the tiers are priced the same (the MBS is available because it is being sold Leeds - Chesterfield, but only the MAS is on sale for Leeds - Sheffield). This is very cheeky behaviour on the part of XC, but you can see why they do it. Now if you want to come along and say that all the fares should strictly increase with distance to make it simple, that's fine. But that would just jack up the fares for anyone wanting to do Leeds - Chesterfield wouldn't it? There's no way XC are going to reduce their fares on Leeds - Sheffield as it is clearly making them a nice bit of money. So is it OK for somebody to buy a Leeds - Chesterfield advance and get off at Sheffield? I do not think it is. And this guidance says it is not OK either. It still hands a free pass to anyone who wants to do that - doesn't it? HHF has pointed out that there's no way of stopping someone now (it is 'an attempt to avoid a higher fare' but 'clear evidence' of this is impossible to attain unless the passenger admits just that).

What advantage would there be in keeping the policy secret?

Passengers aren't allowed to stop short on Advances. They shouldn't do so, and they should be told they mustn't do so. But if they do, the industry can choose to always take no further action.

I realise that characterising it as being 'for' a policy but wanting to keep it a secret might seem odd, but put it this way; the terms and conditions of the ticket should be clear and well advertised, but if somebody breaks this particular one, they can be let off without further charge. As I said, I think that telling everyone is going to lead to cases of deliberate abuse.

If I were a guard (especially an XC one!), I would be most displeased with this guidance.

 

[yorkie]

...If I were a guard (especially an XC one!), I would be most displeased with this guidance.

... while, in contrast, I would welcome any guidance that avoids both myself and my employer having negative publicity because, as we all know, the general public isn't going to accept - no matter how much you try to disprove otherwise - that it should be cheaper to go further.

In fact, all your arguments do is ridicule the pricing structure of the rail industry even more.

.... I suspect another high profile case will come along soon enough where someone gets prosecuted for misuse of Advances ....

That is not a likely prospect, for the reasons already stated.

 

[cuccir]

Agree with starmill. Superficially a pro customer move, but actually makes things as clear as mud. Why not just change the T&Cs of the ticket?

 

[bb21]

Come on bb21 you know better than this; the tiers can be the same and the availability different! HHF has highlighted how this can be profitable - and how it's impossible to use this to compare fares for an excess without knowing exactly what was available at the time of booking.

In which case you have completely missed my point.

It matters not one jot whether it makes money for the train companies or not, or how market-based pricing works, in many (and I would imagine that is a vast majority of) people's eyes, it is a ludicrous concept to pay less for a longer distance, or that you pay for a seat on a service and only use it for part of the distance you should be penalised.

Companies these days are image conscious, even railway companies, and they would try their best to avoid adverse publicity if they can. If this is not a pricing structure that goes against common sense why would they bother coming up with such a notice? So as yorkie pointed out earlier, all this shows is how ridiculous the fares system is.

I agree with hairyhandedfool insomuch as the position of front-line staff are concerned. They are the ones put in a difficult position in practice. However what does not change is that it is a welcome sign that ATOC are beginning to accept what a mess this whole thing is. It would be even better if the guidelines are clearer, but in the absence of that, a clarification of the intentions is better than none, from the passenger's perspective.

Even if it is a genuine last minute change of plans and the passenger had no way of knowing it cost more? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In which case the T&Cs of Advance tickets is a fall-back they can use and it has not changed. (Of course staff can simply decide not to penalise those who are on the correct booked service. )

It would have been better if clearer guidelines were issued in terms of what exactly constitutes "unless there is clear evidence of intent to try and avoid a higher fare", but we don't have that, so I am merely suggesting a reasonable set of criteria that can be used which are available on the spot.

Of course the railway companies could all just stick to the T&Cs of Advance tickets rigidly, but clearly that is not going to happen after several high-profile cases.

I do wonder how many people actually get penalised for starting/stopping short on Advance tickets given that stopping short is almost impossible to police, and those who intentionally do it would have "exit passes" for the gatelines at their destination stations anyway to avoid being caught. Starting short is also impossible to police if it is at a station where the passenger changes trains. So those together would exclude a large proportion of the people breaking this restriction anyway.