Why is Harrow-on-Hill to Stoke Mandeville cheaper than to Aylesbury?

[eroded]

Shorter journey - £14 - https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=SKM&dest=HOH&rte=1000&tkt=SDS

Longer journey - calling at Stoke Mandeville(!) on the way - £13.40 - https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=AYS&dest=HOH&rte=1000&tkt=SDS

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's all manner of anomalies around there, including some splits on Anytime Day Singles (if there are splits on Anytime Day Singles on a service where all trains call at at least most stations something has gone VERY wrong in the pricing department).

 

[Somewhere]

Because the fare structure is so complicated, the humans and computers making up the prices make mistakes and things like this creep in all over the place

 

[yorkie]

Shorter journey - £14 - https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=SKM&dest=HOH&rte=1000&tkt=SDS

Longer journey - calling at Stoke Mandeville(!) on the way - £13.40 - https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=AYS&dest=HOH&rte=1000&tkt=SDS

The problem with exposing these sorts of anomalies is that there is no guarantee that the cheaper fare will be deemed to be 'correct'; indeed, it is often the case that pricing managers deem the cheaper fare to be too cheap, and there have been instances of the cheaper fares rising to match the more expensive fares.

I regularly make shorter journeys using 'longer' distance fares; it is more common than you might think!

 

[maniacmartin]

Chiltern's website will sell a ticket for Stoke Mandeville to Harrow on the Hill via Aylesbury if you add Aylesbury as a via point.
In terms of the Routeing guide, this is a local journey as Aylesbury is the common routing point.

The Routeing Guide in Detail (section F) says at the top of page F7:

Finding a permitted route when the origin and destination stations have a
routeing point in common.
If there is a common routeing point, the permitted route is the shortest route or a
route which is longer by no more than 3 miles. Also permitted is the route followed
by direct trains to and from the common routeing point if the journey is made on
those trains.

(italics mine)

This is a general rule in the Routeing Guide. The "local part" to and the nearest appropriate routeing point of the origin and destination can double back with the mapped route between appropriate routeing points; but the mapped route between ARPs cannot itself contain a double back.

As the Stoke Mandeville ticket permits this double-back, it is actually valid over a longer route than the Aylesbury ticket, not a shorter one. So one could argue the pricing is correct. Usually stations in this situation are put in the same cluster and end up with identical prices though.

 

[yorkie]

Although many booking engines take the view (correctly in my opinion) that a double-call at origin or destination is not permitted, so travel would only be valid via Aylesbury if a valid itinerary was found that did not go via Stoke Mandeville (i.e. via Princes Risborough), unless there was a service which did not call at Stoke Mandeville.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although many booking engines take the view (correctly in my opinion) that a double-call at origin or destination is not permitted, so travel would only be valid via Aylesbury if a valid itinerary was found that did not go via Stoke Mandeville (i.e. via Princes Risborough), unless there was a service which did not call at Stoke Mandeville.

I've never noticed a service that didn't call at all the stations north of Amersham, the variation tends to be omitting one or more stations south of and including Amersham.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Because the fare structure is so complicated, the humans and computers making up the prices make mistakes and things like this creep in all over the place

Indeed. It's almost certain that Chiltern's Pricing Manager forgot to apply an increase to the cheaper fare one year, but it's not been picked up until now.

That said, as it's anticipated that Phase 2 of Project Oval (not that Phase 1's gone live yet, other than for traditional tickets) will see Contactless extended to Aylesbury Vale Parkway via both Amersham and High Wycombe, they may well wait until then to rectify the situation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. It's almost certain that Chiltern's Pricing Manager forgot to apply an increase to the cheaper fare one year, but it's not been picked up until now.

That said, as it's anticipated that Phase 2 of Project Oval (not that Phase 1's gone live yet, other than for traditional tickets) will see Contactless extended to Aylesbury Vale Parkway via both Amersham and High Wycombe, they may well wait until then to rectify the situation.

On the south WCML it created new ones, so I'd not be confident!