Why do I need two tickets?

Discussion in 'Fares Advice & Policy' started by alexl92, 4 May 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,313
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    I'm travelling later today from Huddersfield to Cottingley. There's no direct train during the day so my options are as follows:

    13:59 HUD - DEW (nt)* and then 14:41 DEW - COT (nt), arr 14:54
    or
    14:27 HUD - LDS (ftpe) and then 15:56 LDS - COT (nt), arr 15:02

    The latter is a better fit for me time-wise, but apparently I'd have to buy two separate tickets for it - one to Leeds and then one back to Cottingley. This seems crazy to me - why is it like that? Why can't I just buy a HUD - COT single and travel that way?


    *The 14:12 FTPE service from Huddersfield which would have got me to Dewsbury at a better time is cancelled today.
     
  2. najaB

    najaB Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,324
    Joined:
    28 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    Usually when journey planners offer two tickets rather than one it's because the the itinerary isn't a permitted route for the direct A to B ticket.
     
  3. Crossover

    Crossover Established Member

    Messages:
    6,835
    Joined:
    4 Jun 2009
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    On the cancellation, there are signalling problems in Standeege Tunnel - we have just seen a backlog of trains waiting for the signal
     
  4. 34D

    34D Established Member

    Messages:
    6,011
    Joined:
    9 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    The simple answer is because going through Cottingley to Leeds and then back to Cottingley is a 'double back' which isn't allowed (in general). See section 3.5 of this forums ticketing FAQ
     
  5. Crossover

    Crossover Established Member

    Messages:
    6,835
    Joined:
    4 Jun 2009
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Agreed. The problem is the way Northern are screwing around with the service pattern, a double back really isn't all that unreasonable IMO
     
  6. najaB

    najaB Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,324
    Joined:
    28 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    If the service pattern means that it's not possible to make a journey without a double-back for large parts of the day, then the TOC(s) concerned should request an easement be added to the routeing guide. It might take Transport Focus or similar to put some pressure on them.
     
  7. clagmonster

    clagmonster Established Member

    Messages:
    1,895
    Joined:
    8 Jun 2005
    The trouble is that the journey can be made without using the double back by changing at Dewsbury all day, however doubling back increases the range of journies available. I would suggest the appropriate thing to do would be:
    1) make the current tickets route 'not Leeds' at the current fares
    2) introduce a new easement allowing the double back
    3) introduce a new Huddersfield-Cottingley route any permitted flow, priced the same as Huddersfield-Leeds.

    This would give passengers the flexibility to double back without causing any fare anomolies, and also allow the journey to be done at the current fare using the current permitted routes, thus avoiding a fare rise. Everyone's a winner.
     
  8. kieron

    kieron Established Member

    Messages:
    1,697
    Joined:
    22 Mar 2012
    Location:
    Connah's Quay
    It would work the same if the new route was "via Leeds", except that no new easement would be needed.

    This wouldn't have helped alexl92 in the original case, though. The 14:27 he mentioned was 15 minutes late at Huddersfield, 21 at Leeds, meaning that he'd have missed his connection at Leeds and got in an hour later had he taken the later train.

    If I was in that situation, I think I would get the first train I saw to Morley and walk from there. While it's a shame that Cottingley gets Leeds-Huddersfield trains in one direction and Leeds-Brighouse ones in the other, this isn't quite as big a problem as the original post might suggest.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page