When using an advance ticket, do you have to use it EXACTLY as specified....

[4SRKT]

There may be the case for people moving to public transport in the next few ways not due to the attractiveness of trains/buses etc but due to the price of running a car going even higher. I don't see petrol prices going below the £1 mark ever again and if plans for charging people to park at work are implemented we might see higher demand for public transport.

For journeys to work maybe, in London (where driving's totally unattractive) or PTE areas (where public transport isn't [yet] scandalously expensive). For the sort of journey I'm talking about it'll never happen en masse. It's not just economics, it's cultural. The TOCs and BR before them have simply accepted the dominance of the car for at least a generation and now it'll be difficult to fight back even if parity of pricing existed because people are just so conditioned to use the car for everything.

People also tend to cost their car journeys only on the marginal cost of the fuel consumed, and not on the wear and tear. This may be wrong, but it'll be hard to crack. Company car drivers (and we are legion) can think in this way quite legitimately.

 

[MikeWh]

Well I must admit to being puzzled as to why they will sell advance tickets from Prestatyn but not from Flint. If they did both then the fare from Flint might be slightly cheaper. You could then buy the advance from there and if by some chance you ended up at Prestatyn you could buy a single to Flint and board the same train. It would probably cost more than the advance from Prestatyn, but would give you the flexibility you desire.

Your location suggests that you come from Shipley so how are you getting to North Wales and/or how would the car you use to get home get back to North Wales if you see where I'm coming from. Is it totally unreasonable to say to your friend (assuming it's their car you'd be travelling in that evening) that you need to get to Prestatyn? I've no idea how close the two stations are, though if the train journey takes 13 minutes it's maybe ten miles.

While he's maybe not saying it in the most diplomatic fashion, RJ is right in that the price of a cheap ticket is no flexibility in travel plans. If you really want to use the train then perhaps you need to firm up plans on the day to allow maybe half an hour extra to drive to Prestatyn. Surely ten miles in your friend's car would not cost that much.

As I said at the beginning, the real question is why can't you buy advance tickets from Flint?

 

[4SRKT]

The stipulation that passengers are not allowed to join or leave a journey at a later or earlier stop on a journey for which the passenger has already paid is clearly nonsense and the railway does itself no favours in persisting with it. Ultimately it is without common sense because buying a ticket and not taking up part of the journey is no different from buying a ticket and not taking up any part of the journey. The railway has still got it's money for that journey.

Exactly. If I buy a Mars Bar on special offer at Asda, I don't expect the manager to breathe down my neck making sure I eat every mouthful. If I try and eat a mouthful of another one I haven't paid for, that'd be theft, but once I've bought a Mars Bar at whatever price the retailer has agreed to sell it to me, I can eat as much or as little of it as I please.

Surely ten miles in your friend's car would not cost that much.

Actually you're probably right about this, and it's probably the answer. Doh! I'm obviously not conditioned enough to thinking car all the time! My initial alternative would have been to go both ways in the car, still coming in cheaper than £16 advance both ways, but like I said I prefer to travel by train if the price is right. An advance one way and an anytime single the other would just be too difficult to justify in the face of no more than £25 fuel from Shipley to this dude's house near Prestatyn and back.

 

[87 027]

Agree with the above. Personally I find it a bit depressing not to look at the "bigger picture" when common sense suggests the OP wants to do something which is clearly not unreasonable and has no material impact on revenue to the TOC.

 

[Deerfold]

Obviously what we need is some sort of anti-ticket we can buy so that we don't have to travel the full distance on our ticket.

Incidentally, I'm afaid I break this rule on about 20% of all advance purchase trips I do because I live between two stations. If I get the bus I go to one. If I get a lift from my wife to the other. I always buy my tickets to the furthest and Northern don't seem at all bothered. I would only do this on the +connections part of the journey though.

 

[4SRKT]

Obviously what we need is some sort of anti-ticket we can buy so that we don't have to travel the full distance on our ticket.

Incidentally, I'm afaid I break this rule on about 20% of all advance purchase trips I do because I live between two stations. If I get the bus I go to one. If I get a lift from my wife to the other. I always buy my tickets to the furthest and Northern don't seem at all bothered. I would only do this on the +connections part of the journey though.

Tut tut. Very naughty. Expect a visit from RJ very soon explaining that it doesn't matter if rules are ridiculous, you must obey them without question, and even pointing out how ridiculous they are is not allowed. If you do not obey, the TOCs have ways of making you walk.

 

[Deerfold]

Tut tut. Very naughty. Expect a visit from RJ very soon explaining that it doesn't matter if rules are ridiculous, you must obey them without question, and even pointing out how ridiculous they are is not allowed. If you do not obey, the TOCs have ways of making you walk.

I've been told by a Northen guard (who I shall not identify) that so long asI don't travel further than allowed they're not overly bothered. Besids it's quite possible for me to catch a train going to the wrong destination from my furthest station so it'd be only natural for me to jump off at the next one to get the right one.

 

[RJ]

Tut tut. Very naughty. Expect a visit from RJ very soon explaining that it doesn't matter if rules are ridiculous, you must obey them without question, and even pointing out how ridiculous they are is not allowed. If you do not obey, the TOCs have ways of making you walk.

Here we have another one who reveals a pitifully juvenille attitude upon being told like it is. The rules are the rules. You're confusing the discretion of some railway staff with the idea that you may be immune against being requested to purchase the correct ticket by a member of staff doing things by the book. Your, mine or anybody's ideals of what the rules *should* be are completely irrelevant. If you wanted a discussion on whether the rules are silly or not you should have said so. You were made aware of how rigid the terms of the Advance are and chose to be childish about it. Too bad if it's not what you wanted to hear.

 

[Username]

Given the number of conditions on the advance ticket, at which point do you draw the line?

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket from A to Z and that you've in fact boarded at B, but that's okay"

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket for the 14.30 service and yet you're travelling on the 12.30 service . . . but that's okay"

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket for travelling on the 14.30 service but dated for travel tomorrow . . . . but that's okay"

So when does it become "not okay"?

In each of the above cases it can be argued "what's the harm?". You've still paid for one journey, you're only making one journey. You're not asking for anything extra. It's not like the company is losing anything right?

Bottom line, if the company wanted to give the passenger the flexibility of picking up the service at an intermediate station then they wouldn't prohibit it in the first place. If no-one respects that particular restriction then why should any restriction on any ticket be any different?

Just as aside, where the Mars bar comparison falls flat on it's face is when you realise that there are no conditions attached to it's purchase. None. Not a one, unlike any rail ticket which will have conditions up the wazoo.

If you want to make a food related analogy at least pick something like the Apache Spurs' 64oz steak challenge. If you complete the challenge you eat free, but leave a bite and you'll pay the £59.99.

 

[TEW]

You've still paid for one journey, you're only making one journey. You're not asking for anything extra. It's not like the company is losing anything right?

By that logic the cheapest ticket I could buy would be valid from Penzance-Wick.

 

[87 027]

RJ and Username are, of course, technically correct. But another way of looking at it is to make a distinction between behaviour which abuses the system by attempting to circumvent restrictions which are in place for a good reason, as opposed to behaviour which really makes no difference because the rules lack any coherent underlying logic, or are just so complicated that they are full of unintended anomalies

I think most people would accept that advance tickets are rationed in number and sold on the basis that you sacrifice flexibility for the cheaper price, and so attempting to use them on a different service would be regarded as abusive. I think most people would also accept that pricing is not just based on distance but is used to manage demand on particular flows or at particular times, so intending to join or alight short to circumvent this when the ticket validity clearly does not allow it is also abusive.

But the original question remains - why is the cheaper fare available from one station but not the other a short distance away? I would be interested to know whether this a deliberate decision of the TOC, based on a sound business rationale, or is it just a quirk?

 

[yorksrob]

Given the number of conditions on the advance ticket, at which point do you draw the line?

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket from A to Z and that you've in fact boarded at B, but that's okay"

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket for the 14.30 service and yet you're travelling on the 12.30 service . . . but that's okay"

"Sir, I see you have an Advance ticket for travelling on the 14.30 service but dated for travel tomorrow . . . . but that's okay"

So when does it become "not okay"?

In each of the above cases it can be argued "what's the harm?". You've still paid for one journey, you're only making one journey. You're not asking for anything extra. It's not like the company is losing anything right?

Bottom line, if the company wanted to give the passenger the flexibility of picking up the service at an intermediate station then they wouldn't prohibit it in the first place. If no-one respects that particular restriction then why should any restriction on any ticket be any different?

Just as aside, where the Mars bar comparison falls flat on it's face is when you realise that there are no conditions attached to it's purchase. None. Not a one, unlike any rail ticket which will have conditions up the wazoo.

If you want to make a food related analogy at least pick something like the Apache Spurs' 64oz steak challenge. If you complete the challenge you eat free, but leave a bite and you'll pay the £59.99.

No, but the point is, on all the other examples you state, the passenger has attempted to travel on a train and occupied a seat for which he has not paid or booked. In the case of buying a ticket from a to c, if the passenger detrains at point b, he has still purchased and booked a place on the train between a and b by way of having the ticket between a and c. The train company hasn't lost out - it has still sold the place between a and c as it would have done if the passenger had detrained at c. Infact it gains because it has a seat between b and c which can accomodate another paying passenger who may not have been able to sit down.

This is entirely different from buying a ticket from a to b then detraining at c because the passenger has not booked a place on the train between b and c.

I really don't see why people can't grasp the distinction.

I realise the rules are are the rules but they are completely nonsensical and as interested parties it is right for us to point out when the railway is making a laughing stock of itself.

 

[87 027]

@TEW

What about Thurso?!

 

[4SRKT]

I really don't see why people can't grasp the distinction.

I realise the rules are are the rules but they are completely nonsensical and as interested parties it is right for us to point out when the railway is making a laughing stock of itself.

Well, the fact is that some people just accept rules because they have no imagination or personality of their own and just accept what is told from above. Nobody on here has advocated breaking these absurd rules, but many have pointed out why they are absurd. It must be very reassuring for someone of no intellect to be given rules to work by in a confusing world.

People who don't challenge absurd rules (as distinct from people who actively break them) are profoundly dangerous individuals. They are typically busybodies who enjoy lording it over others, particularly if those others are intellectually more gifted than them. Irrational 'rules' give power to the stupid, or to unimaginative clods, and allows them to feel important in world that would otherwise be unsympathetic to their failure to see and apply common sense. A failure to differentiate between 'rules' and 'sense' is what gives rise to things such as the Third Reich, and those who advocate such things need to be avoided, or given jobs as clampers maybe.

 

[Username]

No, but the point is, on all the other examples you state, the passenger has attempted to travel on a train and occupied a seat for which he has not paid or booked. In the case of buying a ticket from a to c, if the passenger detrains at point b, he has still purchased and booked a place on the train between a and b by way of having the ticket between a and c. The train company hasn't lost out - it has still sold the place between a and c as it would have done if the passenger had detrained at c. Infact it gains because it has a seat between b and c which can accomodate another paying passenger who may not have been able to sit down.

This is entirely different from buying a ticket from a to b then detraining at c because the passenger has not booked a place on the train between b and c.

I really don't see why people can't grasp the distinction.

I realise the rules are are the rules but they are completely nonsensical and as interested parties it is right for us to point out when the railway is making a laughing stock of itself.

Good points, well made. However, the question I asked was simply one of where does one draw the line between which conditions to follow and which to ignore?
The popular consensus seems to be to ignore the pesky ones we don't like.

To some, the restriction on boarding or alighting at intermediate stations is nonsensical.

To others, the restriction of only travelling on the booked train may seem equally nonsensical. As far as they see it, they have paid to get from point a to point b, so what does it matter which service they are on when both services are going there anyway? They genuinely don't see where the company is losing out so why should the company care? After all, it just means that the seat they would have occupied on their correct service will be vacant and some other passenger can use it instead of perhaps having to stand.

In practice, well let's face it, so long as you're on the service you're booked on then joining at a station later down the line than you should have is not a major issue as far as most guards are concerned.

But it's not the best idea to confuse a little discretion on behalf of the guards with an automatic right to have a condition waived just because you don't like, agree or understand it. And note that I'm not saying that you personally do, but it's evident that there are some who are prone to this expectation.

It never ceases to amuse me how some people, whilst they are aware of the conditions, just seem to feel that they shouldn't apply to them. And that if they are ever disabused of this notion then it's somehow the other persons shortcomings.

By that logic the cheapest ticket I could buy would be valid from Penzance-Wick.

Sorry, as we were discussing joining at an intermediate station then I considered it understood the journey to be undertaken to be limited within the boundaries of the origin and destination on the ticket. My bad for not making that clear.

@TEWWhat about Thurso?!

Er . . . it's a hole?

 

[RJ]

It must be very reassuring for someone of no intellect to be given rules to work by in a confusing world.

People who don't challenge absurd rules (as distinct from people who actively break them) are profoundly dangerous individuals. They are typically busybodies who enjoy lording it over others, particularly if those others are intellectually more gifted than them. Irrational 'rules' give power to the stupid, or to unimaginative clods, and allows them to feel important in world that would otherwise be unsympathetic to their failure to see and apply common sense. A failure to differentiate between 'rules' and 'sense' is what gives rise to things such as the Third Reich, and those who advocate such things need to be avoided, or given jobs as clampers maybe.

Oh please, talk about throwing toys out of the pram .

If you want to use/travel on somebody else's property then you abide by their rules, simple. I have never had a grievance with the ticketing system on my side because I follow the rules. You can attempt to lord your alleged intellectual superiority over frontline staff but it certainly does not indemnify you if you elect to travel without a valid ticket.

Whereas my biggest problem is staff who don't do their job properly, yours seems to be the staff that do. Your attitude is reminiscent of many who've ended up getting Penalty Fared for carrying out their belief that they should not have to buy an appropriate ticket at the earliest opportunity. See places like Money Saving Expert and The Consumer Forum where aggrieved passengers issued with PFNs spout off about jobsworths and all the rest of it. Most of them didn't hold a valid ticket then abuse those employed to protect the TOC's revenue. Truly pathetic.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Well, the fact is that some people just accept rules because they have no imagination or personality of their own and just accept what is told from above. Nobody on here has advocated breaking these absurd rules, but many have pointed out why they are absurd. It must be very reassuring for someone of no intellect to be given rules to work by in a confusing world.

People who don't challenge absurd rules (as distinct from people who actively break them) are profoundly dangerous individuals. They are typically busybodies who enjoy lording it over others, particularly if those others are intellectually more gifted than them. Irrational 'rules' give power to the stupid, or to unimaginative clods, and allows them to feel important in world that would otherwise be unsympathetic to their failure to see and apply common sense. A failure to differentiate between 'rules' and 'sense' is what gives rise to things such as the Third Reich, and those who advocate such things need to be avoided, or given jobs as clampers maybe.

Well, since you've invoked Godwin's Law - you've lost the argument!

 

[87 027]

This is turning into a very interesting philosophical debate about whether one should obey every rule to the letter in every circumstance regardless of the wider context!

 

[RJ]

it neatly exposes what the railways are up against - i.e. far cheaper to travel by a company car.

By persisting with these silly rules, as well as the high prices for walk on fares, then the railways are never going to persuade people out of their company cars and on to public transport.

Hmm. My Zone 1-6 monthly Travelcard costs £91.40. That's about £3 a day. I also have access to a company car. Let's talk about Congestion Charge. Let's talk about parking, inner city fuel costs and invariable gridlock. It would not make business sense to fund the expenses unless absolutely necessary. If it was my car, I'd have to factor in insurance, general wear and tear, tax and the rest of it.

Or I can take the bus/train/tube which drops me 2 minutes from my warm office for £3 a day or £1.something if I only bought the zones to cover the commute. You're not going to see me using a private car. If I had a choice between having a company car or being given privilige rate travel, I'd take the priv anyday.

 

[yorksrob]

Good points, well made. However, the question I asked was simply one of where does one draw the line between which conditions to follow and which to ignore?
The popular consensus seems to be to ignore the pesky ones we don't like.

To some, the restriction on boarding or alighting at intermediate stations is nonsensical.

To others, the restriction of only travelling on the booked train may seem equally nonsensical. As far as they see it, they have paid to get from point a to point b, so what does it matter which service they are on when both services are going there anyway? They genuinely don't see where the company is losing out so why should the company care? After all, it just means that the seat they would have occupied on their correct service will be vacant and some other passenger can use it instead of perhaps having to stand.

In practice, well let's face it, so long as you're on the service you're booked on then joining at a station later down the line than you should have is not a major issue as far as most guards are concerned.

But it's not the best idea to confuse a little discretion on behalf of the guards with an automatic right to have a condition waived just because you don't like, agree or understand it. And note that I'm not saying that you personally do, but it's evident that there are some who are prone to this expectation.

It never ceases to amuse me how some people, whilst they are aware of the conditions, just seem to feel that they shouldn't apply to them. And that if they are ever disabused of this notion then it's somehow the other persons shortcomings.



Sorry, as we were discussing joining at an intermediate station then I considered it understood the journey to be undertaken to be limited within the boundaries of the origin and destination on the ticket. My bad for not making that clear.



Er . . . it's a hole?

All fair points. All I'm saying is that in this instance discretion should become convention, preferably backed up by a change in the conditions of carriage in effect making it always allowable to stop or start short on any ticket at any scheduled station stop.

 

[87 027]

Starting a station or two short shouldn't be a problem, although I can see some TOCs having an issue with alighting short if it means getting round a restriction. A few years ago, I used to do a lot of travelling between Newcastle and London and GNER (as was) relaxed the evening peak restriction for on trains out of KX for destinations north of Alnmouth - presumably because not many trains stop there and you'd never get home otherwise. But I imagine they would have thrown the book at me had I tried to get out at Newcastle on a peak train using a cheap Alnmouth ticket.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I don't know why there is no advance fare for the shorter journey, but there isn't, so you haven't actually paid for that shorter journey have you? I mean if you asked for that journey in the first place you'd pay more for it and the cheap ticket isn't actually valid for that shorter journey.

If you buy the cheaper advance fare for the longer journey, the restrictions are that you cannot start short (BoJ) and changes to travel plans incur a £10 fee plus the difference in cost of the new ticket.

If you then start short with the arguement that the journey is covered because it is shorter and along the same lines, are you not attempting to avoid paying the correct fare?

Is that not something people might call FARE EVASION????

So, could all those who say it is definately fine for that reason, say at what point fare evasion is acceptable?

 

[87 027]

Hard to disagree with HHF. As various people have said, the issue is with the rules themselves.

 

[yorkie]

If you then start short with the arguement that the journey is covered because it is shorter and along the same lines, are you not attempting to avoid paying the correct fare?

Define "the correct fare". I could argue that the TOCs rarely charge the "correct" fare, given that a fare from A to C can essentially be the sum of A to B, and B to C, and yet cost more than that sum. If you are going to say a passenger going A to B on an A to C ticket is not paying the "correct" fare, then surely the TOC is doing likewise and the TOC should be prosecuted as a result of overcharging?

Is that not something people might call FARE EVASION????

Buying a 4-pack multipack for £1, and consuming only 3 cans, when each can normally costs 40p each, is shoplifting then?

So, could all those who say it is definately fine for that reason, say at what point fare evasion is acceptable?

My opinion is that, the way the rules are, it is not 'fine' however it is my belief (IANAL) that if we had enough cash and access to good, experienced lawyers, we could present a very good challenge to numerous unfair terms in the courts. I also believe that when TOCs catch people doing things that are technically against the terms but outrage the general public, they will back down (evidence here and here) and, as Kevin Keegan once said, I "love it" when that happens.

Fact is, people have started short, been given an unfair (but technically within the rules) fare that is a fine in all but name, and the TOC was forced to make a u-turn to avoid further negative publicity.

The TOCs do not always win against the general public.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is turning into a very interesting philosophical debate about whether one should obey every rule to the letter in every circumstance regardless of the wider context!

People who do that will be asked to explain their actions by their managers, they will have complaints made against them, they will be at greater risk of assault, they will suffer more stress, they will cost their company more money and they will put their own customers off... in my opinion. In a decent organisation, they'll soon learn not to do that.

ATOC says that in certain circumstances (not necessarily the ones described here!) they expect "discretion" to be shown.

 

[87 027]

People who do that will be asked to explain their actions by their managers, they will have complaints made against them, they will be at greater risk of assault, they will suffer more stress, they will cost their company more money and they will put their own customers off... in my opinion. In a decent organisation, they'll soon learn not to do that.

ATOC says that in certain circumstances (not necessarily the ones described here!) they expect "discretion" to be shown.

Actually I was coming at it from the perspective of the traveller rather than staff (I don't work for the railways), but fair point both ways. I would expect staff to crack down much harder on abusive attempts to circumvent reasonable restrictions, and take a common sense view in the face of technical breaches of counterproductive rules which really don't stand up to serious scrutiny. For example I would like to see an overriding rule that a Penalty Fare cannot be issued in circumstances where the ticket is technically incorrect but the fare for the journey actually made is no higher than the fare already paid (such as travelling beyond the validity of a ticket to the next station up the line when the fare from the origin to that station is the same).

As an aside I once had a very lucky escape at St Albans where through my own stupidity I managed to lose my ticket before getting off the train. Fortunately I still had the credit card receipt and the staff at the gateline were very gracious about accepting this as evidence of payment and let me through anyway. (That was in Thameslink days, I don't know if FCC are so benevolent!)

 

[yorkie]

As an aside I once had a very lucky escape at St Albans where through my own stupidity I managed to lose my ticket before getting off the train. Fortunately I still had the credit card receipt and the staff at the gateline were very gracious about accepting this as evidence of payment and let me through anyway. (That was in Thameslink days, I don't know if FCC are so benevolent!)

I once had a lucky escape at Hatfield, we had lost a member of our group (!) who validated GroupSave, so we cycled from Welham Green, as I am not sure the staff at Hatfield would have been gracious and may not have believed us, given what I've heard about FCC revenue staff.

 

[Username]

People who do that will be asked to explain their actions by their managers, they will have complaints made against them, they will be at greater risk of assault, they will suffer more stress, they will cost their company more money and they will put their own customers off... in my opinion. In a decent organisation, they'll soon learn not to do that.

I used to know of a guard like that!!
Sadly (for him) he just didn't seem able to 'learn not to do that'. I'm not sure where he's working now, but it's not for the railway.

Looking at this slightly askance, and from a passengers viewpoint. . . . take a situation where you have a journey to undertake. You try to buy an advance ticket but the quota for the service is exhausted. You can't change your plans so you bite the bullet, sell a kidney and stump up for the full fare.
On the day you travel, a group of ten passengers board, one stop down the line from you, all with advance tickets from the station where you started your journey.

Are you:
(a) philosophical - "Ah well they got in there first and bought up the advances. I should have been quicker"
(b) happy - "Well done lads, it's a silly rule, that's sticking it to the man!"
(3) aggrieved - "Bar stewards! My kidney!"
(iv) asleep - and drooling ever so slightly on the woman sitting next to you who, ironically, smells slightly of steak and kidney pudding.

 

[Lampshade]

(a) philosophical - "Ah well they got in there first and bought up the advances. I should have been quicker"

Yes because in hindsight they would have bought the same tickets anyway. If I'm making a long IC journey (Manchester - London for example) I book the tickets on the morning the advances for that day are released.

 

[87 027]

I am a fan of the Wrexham & Shropshire - simple, reasonable and uncomplicated fare structure.

 

[Dreadnought]

Hmm. My Zone 1-6 monthly Travelcard costs £91.40. That's about £3 a day. I also have access to a company car. Let's talk about Congestion Charge. Let's talk about parking, inner city fuel costs and invariable gridlock. It would not make business sense to fund the expenses unless absolutely necessary. If it was my car, I'd have to factor in insurance, general wear and tear, tax and the rest of it.

Or I can take the bus/train/tube which drops me 2 minutes from my warm office for £3 a day or £1.something if I only bought the zones to cover the commute. You're not going to see me using a private car. If I had a choice between having a company car or being given privilige rate travel, I'd take the priv anyday.

Wow:eek:, all I can say is you are one very lucky person in not only are you still able to use a Zip Card but also have access to a company car!