Great Western Coffee Shop

Under the present fares system, the only affordable fares for many journeys are those booked in advance and restricted to a particular train.
If this train is missed (other than by the fault of the railway) then a very substantial "fine" is payable to use an alternative service. To avoid this, it is generally advised that ample time be allowed for delays en route to the station.
This does, IN EFFECT extend journey times by an hour or more.
This considerable extension to the total journey time is a very considerable backward step if compared to the good old days, not only are many services a little slower according to the timetable, but the actual "door to door" time is now often an hour or two longer for ticketing reasons.

Take as an example.
If I wish to travel from Taunton to London on the 13-34 departure, originating in Dunster. Back in the day, I would have got the 12-18 bus from Dunster, arriving Taunton 13-24 and allowing ten minutes for the short walk from bus stop to platform.
Had I missed the train due to bus problems, waiting for the next fast train at 14-24 was no big deal.

These days however I would probably hold a "booked train only" ticket which would be worthless if the train was missed, I would in effect be "fined" about £180 for the bus delays.
To avoid this, it would be sensible to allow for one bus being cancelled and the next one being delayed. I could perhaps therefore take the 11-18 bus from Dunster, which if on time means wasting an hour at Taunton.
A bus delay of more than an hour is possible and to mitigate against that would require leaving even earlier.

So what should be a 3 hour journey is now at least 4 hours, maybe  longer. Isn't progress wonderful !

In the case of my Sister who lives in south west London, the position is still worse if travelling to Taunton. Getting to Paddington involves a bus, south west trains, and London underground. Allowing a generous margin for delays means that what should be a 4 hour journey actually takes 6 hours, one third of which is wasted but must be allowed to avoid huge expense in case of a delay.

This sort of thing makes discussion as to whether or not the new trains will be a few minutes faster, or not, than the HSTs seem rather academic.

The 'fine' has now been reduced significantly recently hasn't it, as with a small admin fee you can just pay the difference between the advance ticket and the next cheapest flexible ticket?  Prior to that recent change the advance ticket was worthless.

Sweeping generalisation.

Many, many folk have a journey time to their local station that isn't affected by anything other than the speed their legs can take them.

And your example from Dunster is way off the mark. If you miss your booked train, the additional cost (it's not a fine, not even in inverted commas) will be a Super Off Single at £44.20.

As for your Sister in South West London, she can buy an Advance Purchase fare from the SWR station nearest her, for travel via Paddington (including cross London transfer by Underground) to Taunton. Any delay at any stage of that journey (including the Underground) is covered by the T&Cs of the ticket and later trains can be taken. The bus at the start of the journey isn't covered for delays, but I can't believe the frequency of bus services where your Sister is is as bad as Dunster. So buy the AP from the nearest station, then exposure to delays is mitigated.

If you want absolute cover for every possible transport eventuality outside the control of National Rail, before you even get to a station, then buy the appropriate walk-up fare when you get to the station.

Otherwise there's Advance Purchase. A cheaper, more restrictive product.  One that requires a little more care and planning on the part of the purchaser to ensure they can make their booked train. I'd certainly think twice about buying AP if my journey started with over an hour on a bus.

Interesting. Is that the case after the booked train has departed?

I was going to post this. I live a 5-10 minute walk. saying that i'd probably allow myself 20 minutes in case I see anyone to have a chat with.

If I'm in London and returning on an advance ticket then I will typically leave at least an extra 20 minutes to get from the City to Paddington than if I am on a flexible ticket, just in case of delays. So in that sense, yes my journey time has been extended. As my rail ticket only covers me as far as Paddington, I've always presumed I couldn't use a delay on the tube as a valid excuse.

Those TOCs that offer single fares only £1 cheaper than the return (eg Cross Country) make missing your booked train much more costly relatively speaking. In that sense GWR is not too bad.

You can use delay on the tube as a valid excuse if you buy an Advance Purchase ticket to a National Rail (not a terminus) station in London. If you're headed for the square mile then you could buy an AP from Nailsea & Backwell to Stratford International, then walk out of London Liverpool Street. The AP fare to Stratford is only typically £1-2 more than to Paddington.

A bit cheeky, but zero chance of any comeback from TOCs.

I am always VERY wary of advance tickets ... been caught out a couple of times, most recently on my return from Scotland earlier this month.    Really good price on train from Glasgow very early on 12th, but then had to get home overnight on 11th for a funeral I heard about late.  Even that's not a valid reason to get anything back or to be allowed a transfer onto the sleeper.

I don't think you can say that advance fares increase effective journey times. What they do though is reduce effective frequency.

I can. I am heading to Blackpool tomorrow, possibly the last of many such journeys by rail. I will begin with a 10-minute bus ride to Stapleton Road, thence to Temple Meads, to get the 0830 Plymouth to Glasgow Central. I could go the other way and change at Parkway, but don't have a reserved seat, and reckon I will stand more chance of sitting this way.

Change at Cheltenham Spa, with time for a coffee before the 10.01 XC Cardiff to Nottingham, which I leave at Birmingham New Street, before getting the 11.15 to Preston, then the next Blackpool North train, arriving around 13.25. That gives me a total rail journey time of around 50 minutes longer than the fastest route, but by doing it all with Advance Purchase tickets I pay under £25. I am in no rush, so don't mind.

The return this time involves a prolonged stop in Birmingham, during which I shall dine.

It went wrong on me only once, which meant I was on a later train from BHM to CNM than I should have been because of a failed train en route. The TM merely shrugged his shoulders and said "It happens" or words to that effect, even though I did not have a through ticket.

My point is that I have the flexibility to choose to travel this way, so can take advantage of significant savings in cash, at the expense of time. Not everybody can.

Well, yes. But that's a somewhat different point to the one that started the thread.

The problem is that it's not an either/or. GWR have deliberately chosen to replace affordable, flexible, walk-up tickets with restrictive Advance tickets. That's what happened here on the Cotswold Line: new, draconian peak restrictions were introduced for flexible tickets, and Advances introduced as a sweetener.

Advances don't generally suit my circumstances, so since these fare changes, I simply travel less frequently to Paddington using GWR. On the occasions that I do, I either split my ticket to get round the off-peak restrictions, or go to Marylebone instead (thank you, Chiltern, for retaining sane fares). Oxford Parkway is becoming surprisingly popular for passengers from the Charlbury area, more than I originally expected, and GWR have only themselves to blame.

I am not against cheap advanced restricted tickets and more expensive more flexible ones, but the difference in price between  them ought not to get out of hand,  It always bothered me that vast quantities of tax payer money was used to increase the WCML Manchester to London frequencies to every 20 minutes, but that the key benefit of that - the turn up and go convenience- is very substantially undermined by a ticketing policy which has very cheap advanced fares and expensive flexible fares for the same train. 

Also against the rules, isn''t it?   I didn't think advanced fares allowed for shorter journeys, though there's nothing against longer journeys by using them as part(s) of a split.

Updated guidance to rail staff is to not punish those ending short on Advance Purchase, unless there is clear unequivocal proof of an attempt to deprive a TOC of revenue.

Paying extra for a fare to Stratford but leaving the network at London Liverpool Street is hard to justify as fare evasion. 

You're still advocating purchase of a ticket with a clear intent to use it against the rules, notwithstanding any guidance that may have been issued to staff.  And moreover, you're suggesting that if you get delayed on the return to Paddington you could use that as an excuse as to why you should be let on a later train, when you haven't actually used the ticket properly and taken the journey from Stratford.

To my mind that is gaming the system unacceptably, and at the very least being very economic with the truth when having a discussion with rail staff at Paddington.  And I wouldn't do it.

No wonder ticket (and barrier staff) sometimes have a jaundiced view of people offering explanations as to why they are travelling without a ticket/want to board a train for which their ticket is not valid etc, etc.

It also reduces the cost of the overall ticket, and thus does deprive at least one transport operator (probably TfL) of some revenue, if as you say, it is only a couple of pounds more than a ticket to Paddington. Perfectly valid with a non-restricted ticket, but not an advanced ticket.

Further research prompted by the preceding holier than thou response has highlighted fares I was unaware of.

I used Stratford International because I was under the misapprehension that GWR didn't offer Advance Purchase fares to Underground Zones, only Greater London National Rail stations. Advance Purchase fares are available to and from Zone U1* London, Zone U12* London... and so on. These are not listed on BRFares and I didn't check other sources. Apologies for my lack of due diligence.

So if you want to be covered for delays on the Underground you can buy, for example, an Advance Purchase from London Zone U1* - Nailsea & Blackwell. If Underground delays mean you miss your booked train from Paddington you are permitted to take a subsequent departure.

Is that more acceptable to the goody two shoes?

If you want to continue to live life on the edge you can stick with my original suggestion and save 50p-£1.50. Then asking GWR why their Advances to/from Zone U1* or U12* are £3 more, but only a maximum of £2.50 more to/from Stratford International, compared to the same AP tiers to Paddington.

With that pricing structure, who is depriving other operators (including TfL) of revenue? Seems to me the fare setters are at fault, not the passenger who has discovered or been told of the anomaly.

Recognising there are anomalies in the fares structure is why the industry decided to stop punishing those who were starting/ending short on Advance Purchase fares. When the revenue implications are inconsequential, either by amount, or by the disproportionate cost of prosecuting, it is an entirely sensible decision to tacitly allow.

From National Rail Conditions of Travel


This says nothing about the connecting train being on the same ticket.   If you were delayed by a connecting train being delayed (but not cancelled, I note!) you can travel on the next service provided by the same company. 

For the purposes of this, it would seem from the context of the thread that the Underground is treated as a train ... so if you turn up at Paddington having missed your Advance Purchase train because the tube was delayed, you can go on the next train. Right?

Right. See attached rail industry guidance.

I await being pulled up on the other issue raised by that document with regard to starting/ending short on Advances because it says "clear intent"...

Not sure that is quite why they decided to stop punishing in such circumstances.  Is it not for that the industry recognised that the structure is complicated and poorly understood by the customers and that making a mistake is therefore entirely possible and can therefor be forgiven.

I would draw a moral distinction between making a mistake and gaming the system.  It seems to me that someone with an advanced purchase ticket from say London to Manchester who decides to alight short at Stockport because the person who is picking them up texts them en route to say that he finds parking easier at Stockport than Manchester breaks the ticket rules accidentally (and should be forgiven when no ToC's revenue is harmed) is on morally stronger foundations than someone who buy a ticket with the intention of alighting short to game the system or to save a quid.  The later is morally wrong (although hardly the crime of the century) whereas the former is only technically wrong.   

Thanks for that:


Split tickets onto an advance fare later in the journey ... your advance ticket is NOT lost if you're delayed by the rail industry, even on a different ticket (assuming the delay was one attributable to the rail industry!)

Why is gaming a system that is complex, confusing, machieavellian and stacked in favour of the industry morally wrong?

Deciding to get off early because your lift has decided to go to a different station is a moral choice too. One that potentially deprives the industry of revenue. The absolutely correct thing to do in those circumstances is to complete the booked journey then buy a ticket back to the earlier station. Or say to your friend, "Sorry, has to be Man Picc."  And who's to say that, at the time of purchase, fares to the earlier station weren't more expensive than to the one chosen? That may not be the case in the example given but there are many other examples where it could be.

I could have a friend who lives equidistant between Swindon and Didcot deciding to pick me up at Swindon rather than Didcot on my journey from Bridgwater. BWT-SWI has no advance fares. BWT-DID does. Technical or moral?

There are many, many examples of what can be called morally or technically wrong. That has been understood by the industry and only 'clear intent' of fare evasion is pursued. 'Clear intent' is a high evidential threshold, precluding the majority of fare offences, which are strict liability.

Meanwhile, and in a light-hearted attempt to avoid this discussion becoming rather personal in its nature:


How very dare you?  :o ::) ;D

An autocorrect I failed to spot.  :-[ :-[

I have now expunged 'Blackwell' from my phone's dictionary.  ;)

You must have been very Crosse!

On a more useful note, brfares.com has various London zonal fares - if you put in, say, Oxford Circus as the destination, it will list a bewilderingly long list of fares including combinations of routes and zones.

I am still wondering what the Zone 12 TWLV SC and other odd destinations listed in brfares.com might be.

I think the distinction I am trying to make is that although both my examples are strictly wrong one is more "forgivable" than the other.  Forget that you are a relative expert on fares and put yourself in the shoes of the average customer someone who finds the fares system baffling.  One of my examples is someone who comes a cropper because the system is baffling (which is not their fault) and they don't understand it (again, not really their fault) and the other example is someone who does understand the system and uses that knowledge to gain an advantage.  If I were arguing these cases in front of a jury, I know which one I would be surest of an acquittal.