Great Western Coffee Shop

From Express and Star (https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/walsall/2020/06/15/call-for-discounts-for-railcard-users/)

My daughter has just had her Longleat annual ticket extended by 5 months.

Twitter ... with Campaign for Better Transport, Transport Focus and the BBC on the case.

Can we call up the big shot ... get Marcus Rashford onto the case?

https://twitter.com/CBTransport/status/1273206784015114240

One for Meet the Manager I'd say!

Something from The i newspaper on railcards https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/railcard-refunds-extensions-operators-options-uk-train-travel-plummets-coronavirus-lockdown-448512 (https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/railcard-refunds-extensions-operators-options-uk-train-travel-plummets-coronavirus-lockdown-448512)

Yep  ;D ;D

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=23666.msg290251#msg290251
In summary "Not sometime we can do"


These cards are so much of an encouragement to people to use the train and once that encouragement is needed again, a generous additional period would be a huge marketing boost.    Something as simple as "all railcards expiring after 1st March 2020 are valid until 6 months after the date shown on them" perhaps?

Here's another way to encourage traffic back

From the Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgium-free-train-journeys-tourism-coronavirus-lockdown-ends-a9554006.html)

It would seem they've still not worked out whether or not to offer anything.  From this morning ..



Good way to build up a database of active users ... or perhaps a good way to divert the writer away from the fact this has been on their plate for a while and they've not really moved forward - at least in what they're telling the people who have paid them money ...

They have all your details from when you renew!

Exactly - "let's look as if we're taking an interest in our customer by asking him to provide lots of data about his case ..."

I took a rather jaundiced view of the original quote, as I always do when I see the word "working" immediately preceding words like "with" or "towards."

It can usually be translated as: "we're doing sod all or next to nothing but this phrase both sounds good and stops you whingeing about it"

It could be worse - they could have said they're "having a review." That confirms thay they've done sod all and are kicking it into the long grass

Well ... I renewed soon after the posts above.  "Allow 5 working days for delivery" and it took a couple longer. 

Terms and conditions on new card clearly state "Train Companies will not issue refunds on unused/unwanted railcards or extend their validity period".   Nothing at all about the train companies actually providing a service that (not being a key worker) I can actually use. In fact it's all about conditions on the senior and very little on the rail industry!

Also interesting to note "these railcard conditions are valid up to and including 05 September 2020" which presumably means that they can change the terms and conditions thereafter.   Should the Ts and Cs be through the lifetime of the product - i.e. apply until the card expires because it was purchased prior to 5th September?   Is in usual for a company such as ATOC Ltd to sell a product / service on which it can change the conditions later?

Please excuse "pedant mode".  Ts and Cs seem biased to wards ATOC though the product is a good one.

We have had a £25 refund (I think it was) on car insurance
We have a 25% reduction in next year's National Trust subscription
We have an extra 25% added to money being held over from a cancelled cruise
We have saved ourselves £25 many times over by not eating out
We have not had anything offered for our railcards even though we have not been able to use trains

We note, appreciate, and will speak kindly of those organisations who have been considerate of their customers and have gone beyond their terms and conditions in these exceptional circumstances.

Insurers, cruise operators and the National Trust don't have the DfT sitting on their shoulder directing their every move. Ultimately Railcards are a marketing tool so I wouldn't be surprised to see some incentives being offered once we reach the stage where travel is actively being encouraged. Despite some cautious moves that's not yet the case. It would certainly make sense not to throw away an expired Railcard quite yet.

Had an email from Railcards today stating that the government has decided that no extensions or refunds will be given as the cost would be too great

I have received that too .. full text as follows:

It's really the 'luck' of the timing of the Pandemic, my D&C card expired in May, and I therefore benefitted from a few weeks without one before taking out my current card in the second week of July. This effectively gave me a discount of a couple of pounds or 16pct.

That had made my mind up not to renew for this year, I only used it a few times the previous year and so I don't see the point.

FAQ on "why not" at https://www.railcard.co.uk/faq/ (saying "no" in six different ways?)

From The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/oct/01/millions-of-british-railcard-holders-denied-covid-refunds)


Indeed - it was an opportunity to encourage people back.

This appeared on Twitter this evening. It seems clear that this was not a decision made within the industry. Apparently it is part of an email


https://twitter.com/_railcards/status/1311363986240274432?s=21

It's from the FAQ (too), linked above:


Twitter reaction predictably negative




An opportunity lost, and a very cheap way of disappointing 5 million people / public transport supporters, quite out of proportion to the cost.   Yet in practise, the problem needed nipping in the bud.  An announcement in late March that railcards would be extended for an in indefinite period (until optional travel allowed again) would have been easy enough.  However, by now many of us have had to make the decision whether or not to buy another railcard and any sort of concession that I can imagine would have created more anomalies and issues than it would have solved.

A very short sighted decision by the government that will cost the industry in the longer term as people decide not to renew their rail cards and choose another mode of transport.

The comparison is with National Express which has added 6 months validity on all of its coachcards issued or valid in March 2020.

I am not criticisng your post when I say this, but I would like to know what the figures are. How many railcards are actually issued? How many discounted journeys are made? How many of those kourneys would not be made if people decided not to renew their railcards? I accept the last question is unanswerable (or at least unpredictable at the moment) but is yet another factor that will affect the bottom line in the long term.

I too am disgruntled. I have a three year Senior Railcard that expires in July next year, and the only times I've used it in the last 6+ months were for a day return to Paddington and another to Henley on Thames. However, those two journeys alone saved me ?25.75 on the normal fare and the railcard cost me ?70 for three years. I have got far more than my money's worth out if it since 2018 including, as an aside, a saving of ?272.05 in one go on a 14-day All Line Rover last year. That was my UK holiday for 2019!

So yes I'm disgruntked, but unless we are all still in a semi-lockdown in July next year, that disgruntled me will still be buying a new one. And if we are still in semi-locjdown I will buy one again when it ends.

I doubt that I am alone.

My railcard expired in June.  At the moment I cannot see that I will renew it until normality is resumed.  My frequent journeys to London justified it in the past, but at the moment all those meetings are on-line.  We will have to see what happens - will they ever go back to being in-person meetings? I don't know.  Also I might have retired by then anyway. 

Your 3 year senior railcard probabable cost you 70.00.   And you probably bought it in anticipation of getting a discount for journeys that you wished to mske in any of the 36 months of its validity - that anticipation being part of your purchase decision.  You probably took a "perseonal circumastance" risk - that yor health would be good for travel throughout, for example, and that you would not decide to emigrate to Burkino Faso during the three years, where the card would be of little use other than wedging s table leg up in the "English Cafe" in Ouagadougou.   However, a product sold to you with a three year life / guarantee really should be available to you for three years and the supplier really should not withdraw the availability to use his product from you for more than a tiny part of that time. For indicidual train services, 2% is regarded as pretty much the limit for cancellations, and that works out very roughly at one week a year - three weeks on your three year ticket. That's the standard sert by the DfT for reliability on TOCs, and it really should stick to its own standards!

I do agree - railcards give an excellent deal, and many of us will (or will already have) renewed / purchased new ones when the old ones expire.  But "once bitten, twice shy" - the decision this time will involve a calculation "what if the government - the very organisation that sells us this card - then denies us use of the very services on which it can be used, and offers us nothing but two fingers in return?" and there will be some who don't take that risk.   There will be others who go ahead and take the risk.  And there will be others who leave a gap in their purchase of the card until trust in the goverment not (having to) take the same action again.  For those who do not purchase, or do not leave a gap, there is a calculation to be made whether or not to travel; if two out of three journeya are still made but at full price, the goverment's decision is immediately monetarily justified - but the longer term damage of repeated business and loss of confidence, and the miffed feeling of just about everyone who would have used the card remains.   I suspect - to answer your questions, Robin, 5 million, 75 million journeys per year of which perhaps 50 million would not be made if there were no railcards; those guesses pre-covid.

Think of the railcard as a loyalty card which you purchase.  Company goes bust and you probably just shrug your shoulders.   Company ceases to sell the products you've signed up for you feel more than a bit put out - especially if its roduct range becomes very limited indeed.   Many months later, it starts to offer the products again, wants you back, but doesn't even make a gesture towards extending yor loyaly card in compensation for the lost months.  Forget the money, ask what had happened to your trust and loyalty.

I have bought a new loyalty card. But I am no longer as loyal. In the past few days, I have used bus, car and coach as well as the train where in the past I might have waited that extra bit of time.

My experience over the years is that one gets a better perspective on many problems if one stands back and looks at the bigger picture, rather than concentrate on individual circumstances. They should be examined of course, but in the context of that wider picture. This is certainly the case in the matter of railcards.

?I have paid an amount of money for the railcard and I haven?t been able to use it for x period of time, means I am entitled to my money back for the proportion of time I couldn?t use it? seems over-simplistic when looking at the wider picture. Even the answer to the apparently obvious question? why exactly did you buy a railcard?? may not be as straightforward as one might expect.

The simple answer is to get a one-third discount on a rail far, but quantity is not specified. It may be the purchasers intention to use it regularly but, bearing in mind that a ?30 railcard gives that one-third discount, any ordinary fare over ?90 would make it cheaper to buy r=the railcard and get the discount rather than pay the headline fare (bear in mind that an off peak return PLY-PAD costs 106.20 whilst with a railcard discount it would be 73.20 plus railcard costs). Some railcards might never be used at all, for example a well meaning relative buying someone a card for Christmas.

So where is the justification for issuing a refund to someone who only bought the card for one journey or hasn?t used it at all?

I would be interested to read Tony Ks thought on what would happen if somebody brought a civil action for their ?10 refund. Who would they claim against ie, who was at fault? Were they physically prevented from buying a ticket or boarding a train? If their journey was essential why did they not travel? If it was not essential what would they have done when they got there bearing in mind that everything would have been closed?

It strikes me that the only body one could make a case against is COVID 19. And given that Rule One of civil proceedings is that there is no point in suing someone who hasn?t got any money, well, draw your own conclusions...

I have read the terms, Robin, and there is no commitment on the part of the issuer to actually run any trains at all on which a discount is offered.  Legally, the railway could have shut totally from 1st April to 1st October and would owe nothing back.  The reading was a few weeks back, but all the commitments needed were requirements on the customer with **** all on the rail industry. 

Morally, the question is more interesting advertising that "you can save money on visits to the grandkids, trips into town to catch a show, or weekends by the seaside ? as many times as you like" isn't really correct if you're then banned from taking those trips ...

I sense either goalpost moving or a healthy dose of devils advocay here  ;D

If, as you say, the commitments needed were requirements on the customer with **** all on the rail industry, it begs the question why, if the deal is so bad, anybody would buy a railcard in the first place?.  The answer of course is that the deal is not so bad. I have already given examples of me saving over a third of the cost of my three year railcard on just two journeys since March, and a saving of over three times the cost of that card in one transaction last year. If that is a bad deal, Id like to see what a good one looks like in your opinion!

I thnk the argument about advertsing deliberately misses the point. The railway did not ban us from using trains and neither, come to that, did the government. We were told to only make essential journeys. If your journey was essneial than there was nothing stopping anyone from making it or using their raicard. I suspect hundreds, possibly thousands of people nationwide, did just that. Should they get a refund too?

And of course all the points you list, visits to the grandkids, trips into town to catch a show, or weekends by the seaside were either not possible due to theatres being closed and/or social distancing rules, neither of which are the railways fault. They were the fault of the pandemic and the government introding measures to arrest its spread  to save my life, your life and everybody elses life. So now you appear to be supporting a call for refunds to be given to people who didnt make journeys they would otherwise have made to do things rhey couldnt have done anyway because of the restrictions.

Hmmm...

My Senior Railcard was due for renewal 25/03/20, as was my wifes.  Normally we would have expected to receive an e-mail reminder with a link etc.  This year nothing. Something in the system guessed that days out by train were not going to be on our agenda.

There were major problems with the railcard website around the turn of the year, which I do not think were sorted by the time lockdown was announced, so I doubt you would have received a reminder at the time.

No extension for railcard holders after lockdown, but safeguarded staff travel card gets three month extension (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/train-railcard-lockdown-discount-staff-travel-perks-b830297.html?fbclid=IwAR2CFEd4OsDAF32HLfNu-FpDgILoRfpSTjWv5kC-Pv2fTygfFVtqhIuYxH8)

I fully support those who think there should be a railcard extension, though this three month safeguarded rail extension isn't quite the same thing.

Passes are issued for use from 1st April every year, and are valid for the following 15 months until 30th June the following year.  The next passes are issued 1st April the following year, so there is a three month overlap of validity.  This change means that the usual three month overlap becomes a six month overlap next year.

...also, although rail travel was for "essential travel only" railcards could still be used whereas the use of the leisure staff passes were suspended.

...and...

The 2019/20 entitlement had no extension, so ran out on 30th June this year during the period usage was barred.

From Christian Wolmar (https://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2021/05/railcard-scam-is-nothing-short-of-theft-by-the-state/)

I think you have the wrong government to think that applies.

From the Mirror (https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/pensioner-who-couldnt-travel-due-25008446)


I ... still ... feel that the denial of an either an extension or a refund of some sort sends out the signals "mean" and "immoral" and fails to take up what could have been a marketing opportunity.

This is another occasion that those in charge should have refunded the amount and then kept quiet.

Now its been in the papers,

stand by for an "error of judgement"

Then their will be refunds for all of those that request their monies back,and sales of senior railcards COULD suffer.

Considering that "mature persons" get off peak bus travel

It is a difficult one to get right. Morally, I believe there should have been some sort of compensation. However, to give you an example......

I renewed my Good Lady Wife's [one year] railcard just before the first lockdown and it was not used during the subsequent twelve months as she had no need to use the railway and had no wish to use it out of lockdown because of severe overcrowding on the services she would have used. However, both of us recently celebrated our ruby wedding anniversary by treating ourselves to First Class travel from Exeter to Edinburgh, via London. Our railcards earned us each a saving of significantly more than the cost of a 3-year (let alone a 1-year) railcard on our return journey. So, we have more than made up for lack of use last year.

However, there will be others less fortunate, who bought their railcards just to cover their weekly visit to relatives twenty miles away and would not have been able to do so. They certainly deserve some sort of compensation.

That's the difficulty isn't it?

You couldn't really embark on an exercise to ascertain every individuals circumstances and level of use, it's really got to be all or nothing?

I am going to disagree with the need to work out how much people would have lost.

In the normal (let's call it positive) direction, it's £30 for one year or £70 for three, irrespective if the holder saved £10 or £1000 - no benefit testing in the fee.   So why are we talking about some sort of benefit testing when we look at the reverse (negative) direction?     The difference in benefit relates not to the standing charge, but to the incremental (34% of fare) element - paid close to the time of travel and not the same issue on refunds.