BBC News: Apology after man told to pay for London train trip twice

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

I said that fares where not wholly based on distance. I don't see your logic in suggesting the fare between Paddington and Reading is valued at ^2 merely because that is the difference between specimen APS from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-WSB^» (Westbury - next trains) and RDG^‡(resolve)-WSB.

Look at different dates and times and the difference will be, er, different.

[basset44]

Hi Andy W

I believe that other people would not have had the same treatment, I remember somebody being fined for travelling short etc.

Yes he should have paid the walk up fare for the ticket because he broke the rules of the advance ticket. So is ticket was not valid

Basset

[Andy W]

Hi Andy W

I believe that other people would not have had the same treatment, I remember somebody being fined for travelling short etc.

Yes he should have paid the walk up fare for the ticket because he broke the rules of the advance ticket. So is ticket was not valid

Basset

Hi Basset,

I understand the point that you and BNM are making regarding rules & BNM has rightly pointed out that there are certainly times when shortening a journey could save money and the AP system could be abused. However in this case he had not underpaid he had overpaid for the journey he was taking and therefore could in no way be attempting to cheat / abuse the system. While I understand rules are rules there should surely be a level of common sense that prevails. ie same train, paid more, not out to cheat the system?

Quote from: bignosemac on July 09, 2012, 05:13:52 PM
My advice. If travelling from Pershore to London on the 1017 or later then ask for the Super Off Peak Single (SSS), Worcester - London Terminals (route: Evesham/Stroud) at ^28.60. Starting short is permitted with this ticket and you should have no problem buying it on board. There are no ticket facilities at Pershore so the full range of tickets should be sold on board. This ^28.60 fare is the cheapest valid ticket for your journey. Do make it clear though that you boarded at Pershore and not Worcester SH/FS else you may be asked why you didn't purchase your ticket from those stations.

Hi BNM. While I understand the 'it's within the rules' game - surely this example is blatant manipluation with respect to their fares policy. If I ask the TM^‡(resolve) for the cheapest ticket should I therefore get the Worcester fare & not the Pershore one? If I am charge the Pershore fare am I being diddled?

Regarding the ^2 Paddington - Reading all I did was extrapolate your example and on the train you selected that is the value put on that sector by FGW^▸ (First Great Western). I genuinely don't understand how that fits into the market driven / regulated strategy on that train on that day.

[Jason]

On that last point II, I'll just suggest you explain to your five friends that rail tickets are not priced solely by distance. The fares are also market led or government regulated.

I suspect one might be explaining for quite some time. As a complete lay-person I don't get that and will never get that.

[grahame]

Quote from: bignosemac on July 09, 2012, 05:13:52 PM
My advice. If travelling from Pershore to London on the 1017 or later then ask for the Super Off Peak Single (SSS), Worcester - London Terminals (route: Evesham/Stroud) at ^28.60. Starting short is permitted with this ticket and you should have no problem buying it on board. There are no ticket facilities at Pershore so the full range of tickets should be sold on board. This ^28.60 fare is the cheapest valid ticket for your journey. Do make it clear though that you boarded at Pershore and not Worcester SH/FS else you may be asked why you didn't purchase your ticket from those stations.

.... If I ask the TM^‡(resolve) for the cheapest ticket should I therefore get the Worcester fare & not the Pershore one? ....

If you ask for "the cheapest Pershore to London ticket that I can use on this train", you should be offered a Pershore to London ticket.  But if you ask for "the cheapest ticket that will take me from Pershore to London on this train", you should be offered a Worcester to London ticket. Alas - you won't in my similar experience; you'll still be offered a Pershore to London ticket, which is not the cheapest ticket that will take you from Pershore to London.

Rather naughtily, I've approached the ticket desk at Paddington and told them that I wanted to go on the 17:30, change at Swindon to Melksham at the lowest possible cost, and would they sell me the appropriate tickets? At today's prices what I was offered was 76 pounds;  I then asked if a split at Didcot would be valid, and bought that at a considerable saving.   It's naughty because it puts pressure on the sales person involved who (a) may not have the tools to hand to answer my question about the lowest cost way of making the journey and (b) is not supposed (as I understand it) to let customers know about such options, even when it makes him tell a blatant lie.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I think, to be honest, all of this is going to be blown out of the water with an elephant gun in the next year or two.

As of this week, rail fares are open data. The timetable has been for a few months. It is now possible - not easy, granted, but possible - for someone to write a web-based ticketing engine that finds you the absolute cheapest fare using split tickets, local Rovers, stopping short/starting late, and so on. Set up an affiliate deal with one of the retailers (or even an independent sales agent, such as the guy at Ledbury) and you'd have quite a lucrative business.

The days of "premium pricing through obscurity" are numbered. Open data is going to make sane, transparent pricing inevitable.

(Well, I think so anyway. )

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

I don't think I have seen so many blogs on a single topic in just 48 hours on the coffee shop. It just goes to show what a hot potato this topic is. Perhaps all the above comments should be forwarded to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), Rail Reg, local MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament), Consumer Focus, Which? and Uncle Tom Cobley and all to highlight this major problem.

But what other commodity would anyone buy that has so many conditions of service attached? I can only think of domestic appliances such as a vacuum cleaner that the manufacturer says should be used for domestic purposes only. I think Grahame's comment on eating mushy peas in a meal illustrates the stupidity.

Why do we in fact have all these complex rules? I think, recalling my student days of studying economics, it is what is called in economics (or was in my day nearly 50 years ago but may now be called something very different) as "fractioning the market". i.e. you have one basic commodity to sell but some people need it more than others and are therefore prepared to pay more for the same product, such as business and leisure travellers. You, as a vendor, impose as many conditions in your terms of sale to prevent that part of the market buying your product at less than they are prepared to pay, i.e. the business traveller, but encourage the less afluent traveller to buy on terms more suited to that part of the total market. In those days, some 50 years ago the prime example of "fractioning the market" quoted was BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) fares for standard and cheap day returns. Now with even more fractioning of the market over sometimes dozens, or more, differing fares for the same basic journey, the conditions have had to become even more complex. The simple answer would be to have a much simpler fare structure. However if I recall, Mcnulty was suggesting an even more complex fare structure with another band of fares between peak and offpeak for travel in the just after peak period with offpeak fares starting later so not much hope for simplification there!

[Fourbee]

The Trainline.con advertising savings up to xx% (while taking their extra charges) probably encourages more "lay" people to get sucked into the wonderful world of Advance tickets.

If you missed the booked depature as a result of a delayed connection is it mandatory or only advisory to get the Advance ticket endorsed?

[JayMac]

Advisory. Although an endorsement won't do any harm.

[Trowres]

I am rather surprised at the extent of support / apology offered for the current system, with more concern being shown over abuse of the advance fare rules than over abuse of customers.

If we had true competition, the fares system might eventually sort itself out. But we do not, and the advance fare rules are a licence for operators to create an arbitrary array of advantage and disadvantage.

Why have we reached a situation where there are no advance fares from Westbury to places west of Cardiff, when such fares exist from Salisbury or Bath? Does it bother the operators?...probably not. But at least if the start/stop short rule was relaxed there would be some relief from this ridiculous situation.

[swrural]

I agree with Trowres.  I bow to the encyclopaedic knowledge of colleagues on these matters, but could not the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) be given powers (or exercise them if they already have them) to ensure that advance fares are offered equitably over all Os and Ds so that the ludicrous situations earlier described do not arise?

Either that or FGW^▸ (First Great Western) start behaving like someone in business (in fairness the PR^▸ (Public Relations) man did his best) and less like the commercial wing of the Bob Crow Foundation for Keeping Po-Faced Britain Alive and Well.  It is not the staff's fault; they simply have to do their best with what they are given as instructions.

After that last comment, I think I'll put on 6 stones in weight and become a right-wing radio jock. Aha!

[paul7575]

... advance fares are offered equitably over all Os and Ds...

Define all please?

Should there really be 'Advance' fares available for any or every station pair you can come up with?  In which case how about Acton Main Line to Paddington?  Of course if this isn't necessary, where do you draw the line - and how do you make it fair nationally?

Paul

[vacman]

Only skimmed through this thread but find myslef in the rather unusual position of being on the side of Bignoesmac   , FGW^▸ (First Great Western) staff, via the weekly retail circular, were given STRICT instructions to enforce this rule and now are backpedaling in the form of Mr Panes to make a local councillor happy. The staff are happy to enforce the rule or are happy to let people travel against this rule they just do what they are told to do! And i really dont know where the ^144.00 new ticket came from, a little mouse told me that he bought a Super Off-Peak Single which was nearer ^44.00, maybe a 1 was put in front for the extra bull sh1t factor.

[vacman]

I agree with Trowres.  I bow to the encyclopaedic knowledge of colleagues on these matters, but could not the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) be given powers (or exercise them if they already have them) to ensure that advance fares are offered equitably over all Os and Ds so that the ludicrous situations earlier described do not arise?

Either that or FGW^▸ (First Great Western) start behaving like someone in business (in fairness the PR^▸ (Public Relations) man did his best) and less like the commercial wing of the Bob Crow Foundation for Keeping Po-Faced Britain Alive and Well.  It is not the staff's fault; they simply have to do their best with what they are given as instructions.

After that last comment, I think I'll put on 6 stones in weight and become a right-wing radio jock. Aha!

The fact that a ticket from A to C can be cheaper than from B to C isn't actually that stupid, I will give Cornwall as an example, now there are certain AP fares from Cornwall that are cheaper than Plymouth for the simple reason that Cornwall have less choice of services and therefore less potential flexibility for people to book on quieter trains, it is fairer on those people living in more rural parts, the danger of making a one size fits all type rule is that those people will suffer, at the end of the day they wont all of a sudden reduce the Plymouth fares. If you buy a ticket from Exeter to London thats exactly what you have bought, a ticket to travel from Exeter to London, not Taunton to London, not Bristol to London.

[grahame]

The fact that a ticket from A to C can be cheaper than from B to C isn't actually that stupid, I will give Cornwall as an example, now there are certain AP fares from Cornwall that are cheaper than Plymouth for the simple reason that Cornwall have less choice of services and therefore less potential flexibility for people to book on quieter trains, it is fairer on those people living in more rural parts ...

Noble idea .. but it's not uniform / doesn't work where I live. Taking a random example ... I need to arrive in London at or before 12:30 on Thursday 21st March - for an afternoon meeting, and I'm going on elsewhere.   Best advanced purchase from Chippenham - 11.00 pounds.  Best advanced purchase from Melksham, about 7 miles further, a town half the size and with fewer trains - 64.50. I think I SHOULD pay a bit more for a longer journey ... but 53.50 is one heck of a penalty / price for 7 miles.  Have all the lower price Melksham to Paddington tickets for that morning sold out already?

The suggestion that fares should be cheaper where there are less trains is interesting - does that mean that there's likely to be a big increase in London to Bristol Temple Meads fares when the service increases from 2 an hour (diesel) to 4 an hour (electric)?