Virgin rail 'bullies'

[blacknight]

I also think that some of the aeroplane comparisons are somewhat tenuous. I can turn up at an airport with a ticket for a flight thats just closed and exchange that ticket plus some cash for one on the next flight. Have done so with Easyjet - my ticket retained value because its good customer service for this to be so. What I can't do is stroll onto the wrong plane with that ticket as I can a train. The gatekeeper at the airport is check-in - before the passenger is exposed to the potential cost of a mistake. On the railways the gatekeeper so often is the train guard. The attitude should be "its not valid, I need to upgrade it" not "aha I've caught you defrauding us".

We have gateline assistants at station who try to advise passengers as to which train their AP ticket is valid one but some passengers just have selective hearing at times only hear what they want to hear. Unlike airports departure lounges station waiting rooms tend to be platform side of gateline.
So when a passenger turns up 3 hours in advance with AP ticket but they would soon go running to press if they were told to go for a walk around town when they refuse to upgrade ticket held at ticket office.
If AP ticket T&C are no refund no change no value even with best customer service in the world you can only issue a new ticket for journey, yes staff do get questioned by manager if an off peak ticket is issued onboard.
Were they on wrong service yes was it possible to upgrade ticket no, then nothing left to debate either buy new ticket or accept UFN

 

[Zoe]

I repeat, why did the system Zoe described become untenable?

By having advance fares so cheap and walk-on fares expensive it allows TOCs to have more control over the number of people on each train and at the same time make a bit of money out of the people that want flexibility. I don't have any issue with certain peak services having higher fares as these services are very busy and higher fares encourage people to use off peak services. What I don't agree with is the fact that off peak walk-on fares are now becoming unaffordable.

 

[Oswyntail]

.. What I don't agree with is the fact that off peak walk-on fares are now becoming unaffordable.

Exactly. The optional, spur of the moment, traveller is being priced off railways. And, I would suggest, that is a bigger potential market than those who can plan ahead enough to buy true AP tickets.

 

[Ticket Man]

its a shame but off peak fares are rising quicker than inflation, and i guess we will start to see a rise in the amount of super off peak tickets available as TOC's come to the realisation that Off peak has priced out some of their business.

 

[Zoe]

its a shame but off peak fares are rising quicker than inflation, and i guess we will start to see a rise in the amount of super off peak tickets available as TOC's come to the realisation that Off peak has priced out some of their business.

Unfortunately the introducation of Super Off Peak has not resulted in cheaper fares in many cases. All the TOCs have done is introduce Super Off Peak at the Off Peak price but with more restrictions and then increase the Off Peak fare.

 

[colpepper]

There are two mindsets here, one that remembers BR which for all its faults ran an affordable, people centred service, the other that sees railways as a puppet of market forces. As an old school social inclusion type I think the nationalised system is best but more importantly I'd argue that making rail travel more affordable has untold benefits for the national economy, at the detriment of not making money for a few investors.

If the problem with BR was its subsidies from the national purse, why have those public hand-outs increased exponentially for a more expensive service? I think a few people on here are supporting the insupportable, more expense, less flexibility, more state subsidy and uncompromising 'rules is rules' revenue collection.

 

[Ticket Man]

Unfortunately the introducation of Super Off Peak has not resulted in cheaper fares in many cases. All the TOCs have done is introduce Super Off Peak at the Off Peak price but with more restrictions and then increase the Off Peak fare.

Are you sure about that, I've seen a few super off peaks going for much less than the off peak fare. a few examples are the virgin one trailed a few months back, london to brimingham for about £14 if i remember correctly, London Midland operate some cheepo ones aswell. I know there are examples the other way such as the london to hudderfield which is priced higher (or the same as) than an off peak but i think if the demand is right for a ticket thats cheaper that off-peak but more flexible that advance, then super off peak tickets will become more commonplace on various routes and the stange ones will either be reduced or re-classified as off peaks.

 

[MKB]

- The most shocking thing about this whole thread is MrCheek's passing judgement on the family based on his (unproven) assumption that the woman involved had a teenage pregnancy. I find it incredible that people like this not only exist, but also feel no qualms about airing their hideous viewpoints in public.

- The OP reminds me of a similar incident I had way back in 1986 when I was travelling on a Saver (i.e. flexible off-peak) ticket from Coventry to Euston (bought a few days earlier) and intending to catch the first off-peak train of the day. I was late and had run all the way to the station. Panting, I arrived at the station with about 30 seconds to spare and could see my train waiting the other side of the manned barrier on platform 1. The barrier clerk checked my ticket and said nothing. I jumped on the train which immediately pulled out about a minute late. I was thankful for the delay else I would have missed it.

Then, to my horror, I discovered that it wasn't my train, but the previous one running 31 minutes late. I was told I should have heard platform announcements, but obviously these were made before I arrived. The upshot was that I was forced to buy a peak ticket for the journey. Subsequent correspondence with BR got me nowhere.

Sadly, businesses exploiting honest mistakes made by the little man is nothing new.

 

[SS4]

- The most shocking thing about this whole thread is MrCheek's passing judgement on the family based on his (unproven) assumption that the woman involved had a teenage pregnancy.

threatened her 14-year-old son...Mrs Spacey, 30

Last time I checked 13 <= (30-14) < 20

I don't agree with MrCheek's views (ie the implication of what a teenage pregnancy and social stigma) but you can't argue with maths

 

[Ticket Man]

The upshot was that I was forced to buy a peak ticket for the journey. Subsequent correspondence with BR got me nowhere.

Are you saying that BR wasn't all it was cracked up to be?????

 

[MKB]

Last time I checked 13 <= (30-14) < 20

I don't agree with MrCheek's views (ie the implication of what a teenage pregnancy and social stigma) but you can't argue with maths

As has already been pointed, out, you can. The woman may be the lad's stepmum. But it changes nothing about the OP scenario if she did indeed have a teenage pregnancy. You can deduce nothing about the woman's moral values based on that.

 

[radamfi]

Are you sure about that, I've seen a few super off peaks going for much less than the off peak fare. a few examples are the virgin one trailed a few months back, london to brimingham for about £14 if i remember correctly, London Midland operate some cheepo ones aswell. I know there are examples the other way such as the london to hudderfield which is priced higher (or the same as) than an off peak but i think if the demand is right for a ticket thats cheaper that off-peak but more flexible that advance, then super off peak tickets will become more commonplace on various routes and the stange ones will either be reduced or re-classified as off peaks.

The cheap Super Off Peaks have been in competitive situations (e.g. LM and Virgin, Virgin and Chiltern, FCC and Southern). EC rebranded the 'Business Saver' as 'Off Peak' and the Saver as 'Super Off Peak'. The others (e.g. EMT and fGW) have mostly introduced a new more expensive tier and branded that 'Off Peak' with slightly better restrictions than the old 'Off Peak' (basically introduced a 'Business Saver' like East Coast had) and renamed 'Off Peak' as 'Super Off Peak' and increased the restrictions to or near the maximum allowed.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

What's so difficult about the situation Zoe described in the previous post, which obtained for so long? (apart from the fact it stopped a few shareholders becoming as rich as Midas?)

That is still allowed and hasn't changed at all. If you have an Off-Peak ticket and want to travel at peak time you simply pay an excess fare, NOT a whole new ticket again (although this may be different in Penalty fare areas, I am not sure). If you want to go a different route you pay an excess fare, NOT a whole new ticket again. Both these can, according to the excess fares instructions, be done on the train. In fact, nothing has really changed in terms of excess fares at all since the BR era. It has just become more noticeable now due to the bigger difference in fares.

The ONLY difference, as far as I can see, is that relating to Advance ticket types. Now, under BR there were, as already stated, a plethora of different Advance ticket types so I can't possibly go into the conditions relating to altering them prior to travel as they are all different. Some ticket types (SuperApex) couldn't be altered at all once they had been purchased.

Other Advance ticket types all seem to have the following conditions (taken from an Intercity CrossCountry leaflet dated 1995) "If you travel on a different service than that on which you are reserved, including connecting Regional Railways or Network SouthEast services, your ticket will become invalid and you will be liable to a £5 charge per ticket plus the difference between the fare paid and the appropriate fare for the trains being used".

The only difference to this seems to be the Daypex (Intercity East Coast leaflet, 1994) which says "They are subject to availability and can be used only on the specified services shown overleaf. Travelling on any other day or train service with this ticket will mean paying the full appropriate fare for the journey undertaken" then further on it says "Seat Reservations are included in the price of the ticket but you must reserve a seat for the outward and return journey at the time of booking. Because of the large discount available on this offer, we regret that no change of travel plans will be permitted and no refunds available once a ticket has been purchased". The advertised price for this ticket from Leeds to London was £19 return with no railcard discounts. Nowadays Advance tickets from Leeds to London are cheaper, you can get a railcard discount, and you can even alter them prior to travel for a fee!


Yes, for those travelling on flexible tickets the cost has gone up quite significantly, but for those on Advance the cost has come down since BR days. Personally I like the AP deals, but I also think the walk up tickets should be a bit better value too.

Just as an item of interest, in NFM 59 (January 1995) the cheapest Advance between London and Leeds was £24.50 (Apex booked at least 7 days in Advance). Less than 7 days advance notice it was £43 (SuperSaver Sgl with restrictions) or £46.50 Standard Open Sgl. Cheapest returns were £25 Apex 7 days in Advance, £44 SuperAdvance, £44 SuperSaver, £53 Saver, £93 Standard Open. Looking now for next Monday I can find Advance fares on many trains for around £32 - which as it less than 7 days notice is significantly cheaper than the fare 16 years ago. Having said that, if I decide to buy on the day it is between £87.60 or £119.50 depending on when I travel - significantly more expensive! The cheapest on the day return is now £88.60, roughly twice the price of the same walk up fare 16 years ago. The Standard Open however has rocketed from £93 to £239!!!

 

[bnm]

Thanks for that wonderful historical analysis kwvr45! Two sayings come to mind:

"Swings and roundabouts"

and

"You pays your money, and you takes your choice"

 

[radamfi]

£44 SuperAdvance, £44 SuperSaver

You can see why not many people got SuperAdvances! The only advantage from what I remember is that you could travel on a few trains which were not valid on a SuperSaver, although they might have been valid on a Saver.

 

[TEW]

You could get a railcard discount on Super Advance and couldn't on an Apex if I remember correctly which often meant for railcard holders Super Advance tickets were cheaper than Apex. Then as you say Super Advances might be valid when Super Savers aren't.

 

[jon0844]

I have pretty much forgotten the ticketing options under BR, but do remember thinking at the time that it was expensive (but, I did have a YPRC then) and confusing.. especially when I think you had a super Apex ticket or something that needed to be booked 14 days in advance.

When I was young, I could barely plan 14 hours ahead let alone 14 days!

In some ways, it is a lot easier today than before but with many fare increases too, although looking at petrol, the price of bread, even toilet paper or chocolate bars - it's fair to say that the huge increases aren't all down to privatisation.

 

[Zoe]

You can see why not many people got SuperAdvances! The only advantage from what I remember is that you could travel on a few trains which were not valid on a SuperSaver, although they might have been valid on a Saver.

Most notably you could use a Super Advance on a Friday and on the route I remember using them, it was a bit cheaper than the Super Saver. From what I remember though Apex tickets were quite popular. What's interesting to note is that the cheapest advance fares on the route in question are still chearp than the equivalent Apex fare about 15 years ago. The cheapest walk-on fare though is about double the price it was. Travlling by trains has never been cheaper if you can book in advance but has never been as expensive to just turn up at the station and get a ticket for the next train.

 

[Flamingo]

In some ways, it is a lot easier today than before but with many fare increases too, although looking at petrol, the price of bread, even toilet paper or chocolate bars - it's fair to say that the huge increases aren't all down to privatisation.

If anyone wants to work it out, use this
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/inflation/calculator/flash/index.htm

 

[colpepper]

Many goods and services cost far less than they used to. Factor in the manning cost required to service a steam locomotive and modern fuel efficient traction and few or none of those efficiencies have been passed on in ticket price or the tax bill for non-rail users.

 

[Zoe]

Many goods and services cost far less than they used to. Factor in the manning cost required to service a steam locomotive and modern fuel efficient traction and few or none of those efficiencies have been passed on in ticket price or the tax bill for non-rail users.

See my post above, rail travel has never been cheaper. It's only if you want to turn up at the station and get a ticket for the next train that it's much more expensive.

 

[Greenback]

The majority of walk up fares have risen by more than inflation since 1995, according to Barry Doe. As a mathematician, I'm sure he has worked it out correctly in the current RAIL magazine.

 

[Zoe]

The majority of walk up fares have risen by more than inflation since 1995, according to Barry Doe. As a mathematician, I'm sure he has worked it out correctly in the current RAIL magazine.

I believe that is correct but this is what people should be saying when they complain about expensive fares. If you just say train travel is too expensive then the TOCs can quote their rock bottom advance fares which in some cases are even cheaper than fares were 15 years ago. As I've stated before I don't agree with the way walk-on fares are so expensive but at the same time I doubt many would be prepared to give up the rock bottom advance fares in return for cheaper walk-on fares. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Greenback]

I agree, although I personally would be happy to more than I sometimes do for the cheapest Advance fares. (I am delighted to get £6 Advances from Manchester to Leeds for example, and I would happily pay £10!) I accept that the majority view may not be the same as mine!

 

[radamfi]

Buying an Apex/SuperAdvance was such a faff in the BR days as it generally meant queueing at a ticket office and the clerk had to check reservations on each of the trains, and then write out the reservations on the ticket. There was no easy way like now of browsing the list of trains and choosing the train with the lowest price, or one a bit more expensive but nearer your preferred time.

Perhaps BR would have changed to today's wide range of Advance fares if BR still existed, as the internet and TOD has made it a lot easier.

 

[colpepper]

Theoretically a TOC could advertise 'anywhere for a quid' days and still not hit the bankruptcy courts. The fact a few eager, time flexible types can access them has little bearing on the cost of commuting, for example. I do believe cheap tickets are a 'catch penny' as my father used to say, something that appears to be a bargain but has little relevance to normal use and provides good publicity for TOCs under pressure from public opprobrium and government scrutiny.

Their response is 'we could always stop them..?' and their fans say 'No!' and so the long con is perpetuated.

 

[Flamingo]

Theoretically a TOC could advertise 'anywhere for a quid' days and still not hit the bankruptcy courts. The fact a few eager, time flexible types can access them has little bearing on the cost of commuting, for example. I do believe cheap tickets are a 'catch penny' as my father used to say, something that appears to be a bargain but has little relevance to normal use and provides good publicity for TOCs under pressure from public opprobrium and government scrutiny.

Their response is 'we could always stop them..?' and their fans say 'No!' and so the long con is perpetuated.

OK, I'll bite. Lets put it in easy stages -

1. The running costs of the railways is subsidised by taxpayers. You agree that?

2. Without the subsidy, the cost of tickets would be higher. You agree that?

Answer, yes or no and questions 3 and 4 can be put to you.

If you answer no, back up your answer with facts and figures, not opinions.

If you don't answer at all, it proves that you are not interested in anything other than crayoning all over the forum, and shouting your opinions for attention, AKA trolling.

 

[colpepper]

OK, I'll bite. Lets put it in easy stages -

1. The running costs of the railways is subsidised by taxpayers. You agree that?

2. Without the subsidy, the cost of tickets would be higher. You agree that?

Answer, yes or no and questions 3 and 4 can be put to you.

If you answer no, back up your answer with facts and figures, not opinions.

If you don't answer at all, it proves that you are not interested in anything other than crayoning all over the forum, and shouting your opinions for attention, AKA trolling.

Well if we're in the name calling racket we might open up the conversation to your opinion about where teenage girls put their legs with the innuendo in which you framed it but I'd prefer not to go there as you're a company employee. There are worse names than troll.
1) Absolutely.
2) Rubbish. Since privatisation the cost to the taxpayer has run out of control. I have no problem with taxation providing an essential transport infrastructure, even if not everyone uses it, I do have issues with the increase from the public purse with no tangible benefits over previous funding. Where in either of those answers to your question does trolling come in?

 

[Flamingo]

2) Rubbish. Since privatisation the cost to the taxpayer has run out of control. I have no problem with taxation providing an essential transport infrastructure, even if not everyone uses it, I do have issues with the increase from the public purse with no tangible benefits over previous funding

So you think that without the subsidy given by taxpayers, ticket costs would be LOWER? I note you still are not giving any facts or figures to back up your assertions, and can't provide any examples of the lack of tangible benefits.

Anyway, BR required subsidy, are you saying the subsidy should be increased to reduce prices? The costs are there regardless, the arguement is over who should be paying them.

Anyway, what innunedo? If you have a dirty mind, it's your problem.

 

[colpepper]

So you think that without the subsidy given by taxpayers, ticket costs would be LOWER? (I note you still are not giving any facts or figures to back up your assertion)

You said: "2. Without the subsidy, the cost of tickets would be higher. You agree that?"

Without 'the' subsidy, not a subsidy. As BR ran a service at a fraction of the tax payer's input given to the TOCs we can assume neither passenger nor taxation value for money is the current priority.