Was this trying to 'start late' on an Advance ticket?

[Goatboy]

You may think it's ridiculous, I may think it's ridiculous, but it hapepns for a reason. We may not agree with the reasons it is done (at least I don't), but we need to accept that distance is not the only factor in pricing rail (and air) tickets, and it is, usually not the overriding factor.

Distance obviously isn't and shouldn't be the only thing a fare is based on. Just because A to C is £50 doesn't mean that D to F, the same distance, should also be £50.

But when A to C is cheaper than B to C on exactly the same train that also calls at B on its way to C, something is wrong. This is not how a public service should be priced.

The problem with the MK example is that for whatever reason there are no Advance fares offered from Milton Keynes but they are offered from Rugby. If you look at the equivilent Walk On Fares then you'll notice that, as you'd expect, it's more expensive to travel from Rugby than it is from Milton Keynes.

 

[DelayRepay]

You've fallen into the common fallacy of assuming that travel from A-C via B is divisible into component parts of A-B and B-C. It's not. They are completely inseparable services.

In the alternative, bed and breakfast at a hotel isn't cheaper than room only.

You mis-understand. I had paid for my bed and breakfast in advance, booking a special rate of £50. Room only would have been £45. When I come to check out, they say "Mr DelayRepay, we notice you didn't have breakfast. That means the booking you made is invalid. The £50 is non refundable but we'll need to charge you for a room without breakfast, please pay us £45".

A more appropriate analogy is that Tesco's is selling ham sandwiches for 50p each (reduced to clear) and you take a pack of ham from the shelves and want to pay £1 for it rather than the £2.20 pack price because it contains the same amount of ham as two sandwiches.

That's, with the greatest of respect, nonsense. A closer analogy would be me buying two of the sandwiches for £1, taking the ham out to use for something else and throwing the bread away. Then receiving a bill from Tesco for £2.20 because that is the proper price of ham alone and by removing the bread I'd broken the terms and conditions of the sandwich.

A bit silly really

 

[Ferret]

ATOC do not decide policy of their own accord. Their purpose is to facilitate the will of the TOCs (I will emphasise this for the final time!).

So you are saying that they act like lemmings then! I do accept that the TOCs have to take their share of the blame for this fiasco, but so do ATOC. Which you don't seem to get! If you're the ones putting out 'guidance' as an organisation known as 'ATOC' that conflicts with terms and conditions for tickets agreed through your own organisation then you look ridiculous. It defies belief that ATOC are 'not permitted' to have an opinion and you must realise that. At the very least, there will have been a meeting with TOC representatives and ATOC regarding this - did nobody at ATOC think to say 'but what about condition xyz?'. Either way, they are culpable - whether it's that they said nothing because they blindly follow the lead of the TOCs or whether they consciously said nothing.

My criticism of them remains as valid as your criticism of the TOCs here.

 

[crosscity]

I think there is a simple way of resolving the issue of starting short or getting off early on an Advance ticket that penalises the passenger, but not too harshly. The conditions would be that if you start short you pay for a single from where you joined the train to where your advance ticket started, or if you leave the train you pay for a single from where the advance ticket ends to where you left the train. To me that's logical as it's as though you are paying to get to/from the station on the ticket, but have decided not to make the journey as you're already where you want to be.

 

[AlterEgo]

It defies belief that ATOC are 'not permitted' to have an opinion and you must realise that.

Have you ever done any work directly with ATOC, or sat in any meetings with them? I have - and I do so often.

ATOC may be legitimately criticised for poor or ambiguous wording on policy documents, but they themselves do not set policy, nor do they have any input into it.

I think, with respect, you misunderstand the dynamics involved. It is very easy to blame ATOC on this forum for a multitude of ills. My favourite is when people say "I bet ATOC think x". What they mean is "I bet the TOCs collectively think x".

 

[Ferret]

Have you ever done any work directly with ATOC, or sat in any meetings with them? I have - and I do so often.

No I have not - why would I? It still doesn't change what I laid out in my last post - you're saying they act like lemmings, and I don't believe you - because it defies all logic and common sense that any organisation would do so. If nothing else, by doing so they are not meeting the needs of their members if they blindly agree to anything and everything without considering the consequences. No matter how much you wriggle on this, ATOC are not above criticism for this utter farce. From a staff point of view it is completely unacceptable to be asked to enforce restrictions and then publicly undermined if you do so and I do accept that the TOCs themselves are very much to blame. I don't believe there is anything stopping ATOC suggesting a change here though, and resolving that with their members - nor is there anything stopping individual TOCs proposing the same.

 

[DelayRepay]

I think there is a simple way of resolving the issue of starting short or getting off early on an Advance ticket that penalises the passenger, but not too harshly.

Why do you want to penalise the passenger at all?

The railway should be grateful that the passenger has decided not to travel the full journey. It is a seat that can be used by someone else (who may otherwise have to stand). It reduces the possibility of the passenger being delayed and claiming delay repay, a taxi or even overnight accomodation. And if it was a 1st Advance it would perhaps reduce the quantity of free snacks and drinks consumed, saving further funds.

What if the passenger abandons their journey due to disruption - they're breaking the terms and conditions but if they're able isn't it better to allow them to leave the railway and make their way home under their own steam?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Because changing the train is completely different. You are moving from a train priced in a certain way to reflect the expected demand onto another which may have a completely different demand profile. Moving trains *does* have an effect on the TOC in a way that getting on a station later doesn't.

It is worth pointing out at this stage that, officially, changing seat reservations on the same train has an admin fee attached, though the actual journey is unchanged.

As a minor side question to anyone who knows (for which I genuinely do not know the answer), when you change the train being used, does the quota for the original train go back on sale?

....You can probably count on one hand the number of people who, faced with an Advance Ticket at £20, thought 'You know what, my car might break down or I might find myself called away to a town near the station one stop further on. I'll buy the £100 ticket instead'. It would be cheaper to buy TWO Advance Singles, one from each station you'd maybe perhaps possibly use, than buy a fully flexible ticket for that reason!....

Possibly, and that could be a better option in some cases, but as I noted, that is life and we have to accept when things don't go to plan.

When I book hotel rooms I reserve the cheaper non-refundable ones and I know that if I can't use it, that is tough, I know also that I am unlikely to be able to change the booking, that is also tough, but I accept this as a trade off for price. If, for some unforeseeable reason, I can't get there, I chalk it up to experience. I could moan and b*tch 'til my heart stops, but I know I made a choice and I have to live with it.

....Fully flex tickets offer far more flexibility than somebody in that scenario would ever need. They are happy to be tied to a specific train....

That doesn't negate the options for the passenger, the railway shouldn't be held accountable for a passenger's decision.

....Do you not think the fact that its often cheaper to travel further is the bigger problem than the myriad of rules we need to make sure people can't travel short distances for the same money as people travelling long distances?....

So you would rather see the end of Advance fares than accept a few simple rules? I can think of many people who would disagree with that point of view.

....For this particular example, jack up the price of the Rugby ticket. I had a £7.50 myself from Birmingham to London. Very grateful of it but it's a fundamentally stupid system that allows me to travel from Birmingham to London for CONSIDERABLY less money than somebody boarding my train at Milton Keynes also travelling to London!....

However, the Milton Keynes passenger has much more flexibility for that extra cost, they could, for example, travel from Watford Junction or Bletchley at no additional cost if they needed to.

....What? It's dead simple. Advance ticket is only valid on the train specified. This then prohibits BoJ because your ticket stops being valid once the train specified leaves your break point without you on it!

And what of journeys where a change of train is involved? (a ticket doesn't have to be '&Connections' to have a booked connecting train) For example, Stalybridge-Preston, 'rte AP TPE Only', a change of train is required at Manchester Piccadilly, in your world I could instead travel from Piccadilly or Bolton, equally I could end my journey at either, but I could not, for any reason, spend my 50 minute connecting time (example) outside of Piccadilly station? That doesn't sound fair to me and in any case it's not like I wouldn't have paid to travel the whole way anyway, I think it's terribly inconvenient rule and clearly not reasonable or fair and should be scrapped immediately.

Fortunately though we don't have that situation and the passenger can choose a more flexible ticket to suit their needs without complex restrictions on break of Journey, though it will cost more.

 

[Goatboy]

Interestingly I also book hotel rooms. Guess what - even though they are non refundable, I can leave early if I want. I can also check in a day later if my plans change. I don't get a refund of any description, but I don't need to pay for a new room either.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

My point, which I think you have deliberately missed, is that I accept the conditions of the booking, rather than moan about how unfair life is and wouldn't it be easier if these cheap bookings didn't have restrictions and so on.

 

[Goatboy]

My point, which I think you have deliberately missed, is that I accept the conditions of the booking, rather than moan about how unfair life is and wouldn't it be easier if these cheap bookings didn't have restrictions and so on.

Not sure I get this point either.

When I buy an Advance ticket, I also accept the terms of the bookings. I don't start short, I don't finish early. I take the journey I've booked on the train I specified. If I think I might need to start short, I buy the appropriate ticket, often for more money.

Quite why that means I'm not entitled to an opinion on the ticketing system I've no idea. I'm also not sure where I've advocated no restrictions on Advance tickets, either. Infact I've been careful to specifically state how I support almost *all* of the strict conditions attached to an Advance ticket.

 

[crosscity]

Why do you want to penalise the passenger at all?

What if the passenger abandons their journey due to disruption - they're breaking the terms and conditions but if they're able isn't it better to allow them to leave the railway and make their way home under their own steam?

I don't, but I do see the value to both the passenger and the railway to highly restrictive Advance fares. If I buy such a ticket I expect to be penalised if I break my side of the agreement, but not unduly harshly. My proposal is a simple and proportionate way of saying I've broken the terms, so slap my wrists rather than give me a good hiding.

Disruption is a different point. In that case the railway may be breaking its side of the bargain, so I would not expect to be penalised at all.

 

[bb21]

Having observed how the thread has developed today, I think some people might have misunderstood some of my points.

When I mentioned revenue implications, I was not referring to revenue implications for a particular service. I was more thinking of the wider implications in relation to Advance fares. Some people argue that the rule on stopping/starting short is unreasonable, however what are the alternatives if the rules are changed to allow travelling short? Words would soon spread that one can buy further for a shorter journey which previously attracted a higher fare. People will catch on to the idea, even if slowly. This will then likely to gradually result in a shortfall of revenue from those places, and deny some people who would have otherwise booked those Advances from further out the chance to do so. Some of them will probably still travel, but others would probably use some other means. Given how expensive many long-distance walk-on fares are, it would not surprise me if the overall effect is a reduction in revenue as many leisure travellers are price-sensitive.

I might have jumped the gun earlier to claim that there would definitely be a shortfall, however this is the more likely outcome imo.

Another potential outcome is that Advance fares are increased in price to compensate for the potential loss of revenue. Note that I am not insisting that there would definitely be a loss of revenue, however pricing policy will be in part dependant on what the perceived impact changes will bring and it will not surprise me if the TOCs adopt a more pessimistic outlook. For all we know, many of them might have built income from such excesses into their business model (ethics aside), and the loss of this income would not be viewed favourably. This need not be done by raising prices of each tier at all. It can be achieved quite simply by reducing availability in the lower-priced tiers. This still gives the TOC a claim that Advance fares are available "from £x" and the public will be none the wiser.

Apart from filling up spare capacity which is what Advance fares were originally designed for, they now exist for a number of different reasons, such as avoiding sharing revenue with other TOCs through ORCATS. In fact a journey I regularly make, which comprises two legs, have Advances priced at £1.80 for a distance of over 60 miles, and these Advances are usually available less than 3 weeks before travel whereas exactly the same Advances on solely the first train for the first leg start at £2.40 and are scarcely available at all. The trains are quite often wedged. This might be a silly situation, however if the system is changed, how will the prices change? I am almost certain that the £1.80 fares will go up to match the £2.40 ones rather than the other way round.

I understand that ATOC have issued guidance, nevertheless the last thing the industry wants is more inconsistency. For a start, how do staff determine whether a passenger has benefited from starting short? The Rugby example showed that even if exactly the same Advance fares for two different origins existed, they are not always available from both, even on the same train. Has a passenger therefore gained an advantage by purchasing further? Consistency would be almost impossible to achieve and the direct result is more media hysteria because Uncle Sam got charged an excess by Guard A whereas Miss Choo was let off under similar circumstances by Guard B on another train. The passenger in this very incident we are discussing could well be let off with discretion, but will this discretion extend to everyone else in that situation? If so then we are back to the scenario I described in the second paragraph.

So to sum up, I don't think existing rules are unreasonable as the passenger's obligations are simple and straight forward as they stand. There may be a need to communicate it better but that does not make them unreasonable. The media need to be very careful what they wish for, as more importantly I am of this view because I don't think the alternatives will benefit the passengers. Of course the rules can be changed, but I believe that such changes will likely come at the cost of the passengers who are able to stick to the T&Cs currently in place, which is the vast majority. Will the cost be negligible? I don't think it will be however we will only be able to tell through time.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Quite why that means I'm not entitled to an opinion on the ticketing system I've no idea. I'm also not sure where I've advocated no restrictions on Advance tickets, either. Infact I've been careful to specifically state how I support almost *all* of the strict conditions attached to an Advance ticket.

You are entitled to an opinion, no matter how wrong it is, you can even voice it. I don't believe I have asked you to stop, but if you do voice it you should expect someone to disagree with it or challenge it.

 

[Goatboy]

You are entitled to an opinion, no matter how wrong it is

Quote of the thread for me right there.

My opinion is neither right or wrong - it is opinion, not fact. Ditto yours.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another potential outcome is that Advance fares are increased in price to compensate for the potential loss of revenue

I'm not enitrely sure how bad an idea this is. I think the Advance system needs looking at - there are as many excessively cheap tickets as there are silly-expensive ones. I'm not even sure why some of the XC ones for example even bother existing given how they are often the same price as a walk-on fare for the same train - infact if like 95% of people you need to come back, too, they are often more expensive than a flexible walkon fare. Yet on the other side of the coin you have VT offering £7 quid tickets to London from Birmingham to people who would presumably be just as happy paying £10 or even £15 for the same ticket.

For me the most bizarre thing about Advance fares from the South West is that if I wish to travel to the capital, well over 200 miles away, and I know I'm going in Advance, I can usually get a return for as little as £26 or even First Class returns for under £50. The service I receive from FGW on these trains is absolutely excellent. Yet as soon as I need to go somewhere that isn't London and involves XC, even at similar times of the day/week, the cheaper tickets are far harder to get - infact I've never managed to find a conveint XC Advance that isn't pretty much the same price as the walkon equivilents - and the service provided is markedly worse than FGW.

Just seems so weird that I often receive service from FGW of such a high standard I'd happily pay 50% more yet move TOC's and I'd probably still feel ripped off at 50% less...

 

[bb21]

I'm not enitrely sure how bad an idea this is. I think the Advance system needs looking at - there are as many excessively cheap tickets as there are silly-expensive ones. I'm not even sure why some of the XC ones for example even bother existing given how they are often the same price as a walk-on fare for the same train - infact if like 95% of people you need to come back, too, they are often more expensive than a flexible walkon fare.

I'm afraid that some of these boils down to cluster pricing, such as some of the clusters involving XC & Connections, some down to historical reasons at simplification and others possibly because some TOCs might hope people don't notice as some on here might suggest.

For me the most bizarre thing about Advance fares from the South West is that if I wish to travel to the capital, well over 200 miles away, and I know I'm going in Advance, I can usually get a return for as little as £26 or even First Class returns for under £50. The service I receive from FGW on these trains is absolutely excellent. Yet as soon as I need to go somewhere that isn't London and involves XC, even at similar times of the day/week, the cheaper tickets are far harder to get - infact I've never managed to find a conveint XC Advance that isn't pretty much the same price as the walkon equivilents - and the service provided is markedly worse than FGW.

Partly because they don't have spare capacity and partly because they know many of the punters have no other choice I would think.

 

[badzena]

While on the subject of advanced tickets, here's a question that came to mind yesterday evening:

I was watching a video of the Highland Chieftain and wondered whether or not you would be able to catch the Caledonian Sleeper after arriving at Inverness, if you were wanting to travel on both of these services (as a rail enthusiast or a visitor to the UK).

As it happens, the Highland Chieftain arrives at Inverness at 20:06, and the Caledonian Sleeper sets off for London at 20:44. This is plenty of time to make the connection, but I was wondering what would happen if the Highland Chieftain was delayed? If you knew you wouldn't make the connection, would you be permitted to leave the train at Aviemore and join the sleeper from there if you were on advanced tickets for both services? I know this would involve stopping and starting short, but would staff allow it in the correct curcumstances? If not, your only option would be to pray that a nearby hotel has a vacancy!

It would be at the discretion of the train manager on the Sleeper service I'd think. That exact situation once happened to me and I was able to board the sleeper at Aviemore.

 

[neilmc]

Interesting to observe how many people consider that passengers should be penalised in these circumstances for starting late because they are "distorting revenue flows", yet these forums are replete with examples of how to "distort revenue flows" by buying six split tickets from various TOCs instead of one through ticket from the TOC you are actually travelling with.

Cross-Country, with a large number of handy intermediate stops between major centres, seem a particular victim of this. So if I turn up for a Manchester to Bristol train one day and find it no longer runs and I have to catch six local trains taking eight hours to match the six local journeys for which people have learnt to buy tickets, can I blame the devious practices on these forums please?

 

[Goatboy]

Cross-Country, with a large number of handy intermediate stops between major centres, seem a particular victim of this.

Don't cry too hard for them (Though I do feel for Arriva as most of this was done before they took over) given that the reason why so many people split on XC routes is because some bright spark decided that the best way to fix the enormous capacity cockup that was 'Operation Princess' was just to keep ramping up fares wherever possible in the hope that the more people they irritate back onto road transport the less people they'll have standing in vestibules

So if I turn up for a Manchester to Bristol train one day and find it no longer runs and I have to catch six local trains taking eight hours to match the six local journeys for which people have learnt to buy tickets, can I blame the devious practices on these forums please

No, you can blame a fare structure that made it 50% cheaper to buy a ticket from A to B and a ticket from B to C instead of a ticket from A to C.

 

[Zoe]

I'm not even sure why some of the XC ones for example even bother existing given how they are often the same price as a walk-on fare for the same train - infact if like 95% of people you need to come back, too, they are often more expensive than a flexible walkon fare.

You get a guaranteed seat with an advance ticket on XC (as long as the system is working). The last time this was discussed it was pointed out that there are times when if you try and book a seat with a walk-up ticket it will tell you that there are none available but there are still advance fares on offer for the same train.

 

[Goatboy]

You get a guaranteed seat with an advance ticket on XC (as long as the system is working). The last time this was discussed it was pointed out that there are times when if you try and book a seat with a walk-up ticket it will tell you that there are none available but there are still advance fares on offer for the same train.

You can book seats without issue through ticket offices if this is the case. I've never had this problem.

 

[Zoe]

You can book seats without issue through ticket offices if this is the case. I've never had this problem.

As long as there are still walk-up reservations for that train available. It would be quite surprising if they are available when booking at the station but not online. Do they not both use the National Reservations System for booking?

 

[Goatboy]

Presumably. Are XC the only operator who hold reservations for Advance tickets?

It's far from a guaranteed seat anyway - increasingly frequently of late there have been faulty or no reservations so you are as likely to end up with a 5% RTV under the XC charter than you are your booked seat.

 

[sheff1]

ATOC are not permitted to "have" an opinion of their own.

ATOC clearly believe they do. Unless the various ATOC views/opinions documented on their website are in fact not their views/opnions at all, in which case the documents are misleading at best

 

[island]

That's, with the greatest of respect, nonsense. A closer analogy would be me buying two of the sandwiches for £1, taking the ham out to use for something else and throwing the bread away. Then receiving a bill from Tesco for £2.20 because that is the proper price of ham alone and by removing the bread I'd broken the terms and conditions of the sandwich.

I am highly offended by this and demand you withdraw your accusation that I have written nonsense.

As I and hairyhandedfool have said multiple times, people are wrongly assuming that travel from A-C via B is always divisible into separate services of travel from A-B and travel from B-C, and you can use whichever part you like. It is so divisible if and only if you purchase a ticket allowing you to do that.

The same system exists in airlines, where failing to use the first flight on your ticket results in the rest of the ticket being cancelled, such as when flying Edinburgh to London to New York. You won't be able to turn up at London and start your journey there unless you have, guess what, a flexible ticket.

Interestingly I also book hotel rooms. Guess what - even though they are non refundable, I can leave early if I want. I can also check in a day later if my plans change. I don't get a refund of any description, but I don't need to pay for a new room either.

A hotel I stay at regularly charges £50 to leave earlier than the booked date.

 

[BillyBoy]

A hotel I stay at regularly charges £50 to leave earlier than the booked date.

There is a difference. If you book a, so called, "Flexible" rate there is an increasing trend nowadays for hotels to levy an "early departure fee" if you check out before staying for all the nights you have booked i.e you pay for the nights you have stayed so far plus, say, £50.
If you have purchased an "Advance" rate then you pay for your entire stay up front. You don't get anything back if you leave early but nor are you penalized. So, in that example, Goatboy's analogy holds good.

 

[Goatboy]

As I and hairyhandedfool have said multiple times, people are wrongly assuming that travel from A-C via B is always divisible into separate services of travel from A-B and travel from B-C, and you can use whichever part you like. It is so divisible if and only if you purchase a ticket allowing you to do that.

The same system exists in airlines, where failing to use the first flight on your ticket results in the rest of the ticket being cancelled, such as when flying Edinburgh to London to New York. You won't be able to turn up at London and start your journey there unless you have, guess what, a flexible ticket.

This is not the same as the situation in the OP as it involves multiple flights. The situation in the OP involves the same train at all stages, not multiple trains. There are also costs involved with passengers not showing up for booked flights that are not the case with rail travel.

A hotel I stay at regularly charges £50 to leave earlier than the booked date.

The only way it would do this is if it isnt going to charge you for the un-used stay on top. If you've prepaid for the reservation in full, the 'penalty' is simply forfeit of the rest of the money you have paid. Which is totally reasonable, turn up on Night 2 of a 4 night stay stay and you won't get a refund for Night 1. Just like the guy in the OP wouldnt, under a sensible set of rules, receive a refund for the NA to Exeter portion of his ticket

 

[AlterEgo]

ATOC clearly believe they do. Unless the various ATOC views/opinions documented on their website are in fact not their views/opnions at all, in which case the documents are misleading at best

For the final time, and I am blue in the face now - ATOC are there to express the collective will of their members. Any "opinion" or policy they state comes not from individual ATOC members of staff but is distilled from their TOC members.

ATOC are there to ensure consistency and that there is a common standard throughout the industry.

TOCs dictate to ATOC. Not the other way round. ATOC are merely there to absorb the input of its members, form a common standard (signed off and agreed by its members!) and put material out as a trade association.

However, if it is more edifying and convenient for posters to blame ATOC (a faceless body that has no agenda other than to convey the wishes of its members), and not the TOCs themselves who have actually formed these opinions or policy, then be my guest. It's incredibly unhelpful though.

 

[island]

I share your pain, AlterEgo, in that what I say isn't being taken notice of. I'm going to stop posting here now.

 

[CC 72100]

I share your pain, AlterEgo, in that what I say isn't being taken notice of. I'm going to stop posting here now.

Oh dear, 10 pages later, and I'm wondering what I've created!

This is why I shouldn't make forays into the ticketing section too often! :roll: