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

[whole diary]

[bobm]

There are two separate conversations developing here.

1) Are the conditions relating to Advance Tickets spelled out enough?

2) Are the conditions relating to Advance Tickets fair?

I think the answer to question 1 is yes.  Open to more debate is question 2.  FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in the quote in the opening post have muddied the waters somewhat - they should really be attempting to defend why the conditions are as they are.  The fact they haven't - at least as quoted - lets them down.

[thetrout]

So I read that as the following:

I buy a Return from Barnham - Winchester online because Ladyfriend Trout wants to go out for the day with thetrout. So the ticket is bought for the use of Ladyfriend Trout.

However 2 days before travel, Ladyfriend Trout is informed that she is needed at University or somewhere for some unknown reason. So I take sister trout instead. The ticket was bought for ladyfriend trout but sister trout used it instead...

Using your / the term: "Must be used by the person for whom they were bought" Errr... Can someone please explain to me how on earth it could be proved that sister trout was not the original intended user??

That is nothing short of ridiculous...

Mods if my comment here sparks an off topic tangent, please split (No pun intended )

[JayMac]

If a passenger was allowed to start/end short on an advance ticket under the T&C as long as they travelled on the train they're booked on (with a caveat that they might not have their reserved seat) what potential revenue would be lost by the operator, and how would capacity on the train and/or advance purchase quotas be affected?  

Looking at Weds 1st May 2013, I can get an Advance Purchase fare Paddington-Westbury on the 1406 for ^9.00. If I want to travel to Reading or Newbury on that service I will have to pay ^17.10 or ^22.30 respectively.

Is it right, if the rule were changed to allow an intermediate end to the journey, for someone who wished to travel to Reading or Newbury to be allowed to purchase and use the Westbury Advance Purchase? If the rule is changed, more and more people would be buying the tickets to Westbury, they'd be selling out quicker and the price points would no doubt rise to cover the lost revenue. Leaving folk travelling to Westbury losing out.

I've just picked one random date and one random route. There are, I'm sure, thousands more journey opportunities, where a relaxing of this condition on AP tickets could be exploited.

Advance Purchase tickets are yield managed and the vast majority are sold to fill up spare capacity. If folk are to be allowed to use them more flexibly, then the prices will have to rise and those longer distance travellers who currently benefit from them may well find they are losing out to canny folk who have no intention of actually travelling between the two stations printed on the ticket.

I don't know how much grahame paid for his Bradford-on-Avon to Newport AP ticket. But five of the AP price points are below the cost of the Anytime Single to Bristol Temple Meads. Allow ending short and someone actually wanting to travel to Newport may lose out as all the cheaper APs have been snapped up by people only wanting to travel to Bristol.

[John R]

You've hit the nail on the head as to why the restriction is imposed. However, this is one of those arguments that, whilst theoretically correct, is very difficult to explain to the public. By giving in on this occasion, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have undermined the railway's position somewhat. Those of us that use split tickets, or have an unaccountable desire to travel to Droitwich prove that travellers will cotton on to such loopholes when they exist, hence the need for the restriction, and why the railway's position appears unreasonable when people genuinely have reasons why they wish to change their travel plans from that set out in the ticket.

Maybe the information on the reservation that is compulsory to hold when travelling with advance tickets should be changed to make it clearer.

[grahame]

Is it right, if the rule were changed to allow an intermediate end to the journey, for someone who wished to travel to Reading or Newbury to be allowed to purchase and use the Westbury Advance Purchase?

Yes, it is right.  Just as it's right for me to sell someone a standard plate of fish, chips and mushy peas and for them to choose to leave the mushy peas.

Yes, it is right.  Just as it's already right to allow someone to purchase a Shirehampton to Waterloo ticket (which could also be bought on the day) at 32 pounds return via Warminster and Salisbury and use it short.

So I read that as the following:

I buy a Return from Barnham - Winchester online because Ladyfriend Trout wants to go out for the day with thetrout. So the ticket is bought for the use of Ladyfriend Trout.

However 2 days before travel, Ladyfriend Trout is informed that she is needed at University or somewhere for some unknown reason. So I take sister trout instead. The ticket was bought for ladyfriend trout but sister trout used it instead...

Using your / the term: "Must be used by the person for whom they were bought" Errr... Can someone please explain to me how on earth it could be proved that sister trout was not the original intended user??

That is nothing short of ridiculous...

I agree ... but them's what the terms says.   It allows me to buy a ticket for my son and give it to him, but techically if my daughter goes instead I should take the ticket back and exchange it for an identical one.

A ticket may only be used by the person for whom it has been bought. It may not be resold or passed on to anyone else unless this is specifically allowed by the terms and conditions which apply to that ticket and which are set out in the notices and publications of the relevant Train Company.

[IndustryInsider]

It's a mess isn't it!  A good example BNM, though I can't find any train at 14:06 to Westbury, your example does work with other trains, such as the 12:18.  Though personally, I'm not convinced there are enough people out there who would choose to take advantage of the journey you describe to make much of a difference in terms of the overall impact on revenue, and perhaps a modest rise in the cheapest advances (countered by a modest decrease in walk-on fares) is exactly what's needed anyway?  After all, the gulf widens every year.

Again, if I asked my five random non-train travelling chums whether they thought it fair that if you know your travelling from London to Westbury in advance then you can get tickets well over twice as cheap than if you know you're travelling in advance the much shorter distance to Newbury on the same train, I know what the answer would be.

[Trowres]

This discussion is getting interesting. I was going to post some of my own comments, but decided instead to draw attention to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s response to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) consultation on fares and ticketing:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/dft-fares-ticketing-review-280612.pdf

Ultimately, the railway exists to benefit the people who use it. There are constraints, however, not least money. But delivering a service that leads to increasing passenger satisfaction and more use of rail means a sharper focus on what passengers want.

Unfortunately, after that, in my opinion, the ORR goes downhill; at least partly this is due to the constraint of the terms of the DfT consultation, which the ORR effectively suggests should go further. Complexity of the ticket system is considered mainly in terms of providing better information and, in spite of the percieved need for fairness, it doesn't lead to specific suggestions to remove anomalies.

[thetrout]

Here is the pricing for the 1st May 2013 as per bignosemac' example

[JayMac]

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.

Yes, it is right.  Just as it's already right to allow someone to purchase a Shirehampton to Waterloo ticket (which could also be bought on the day) at 32 pounds return via Warminster and Salisbury and use it short.

Or I could trade that flexibility and save money by planning ahead and buying singles from Shirehampton <-> Bristol Temple Meads, then Megatrain fares between Bristol and Waterloo. Knowing full well that I cannot break, start or end my journey anywhere between Bristol and Waterloo. You pays your money, you makes your choice.

Incidentally, I can't find anywhere on the line of route to Waterloo where I'd be saving money by travelling short on the SHH-WAT ^32.00 Off Peak Day Return. The fares to all the calling points are either less or the same.

Some may see the rule that you cannot break or start/end short on an AP as unnecessary. I think it is there for a reason. It's clear and unambiguous and I can't condone ignoring it. It's one of the few ticket restrictions for which there is no legitimate way round. Perhaps because I buy so few APs it doesn't bother me that there isn't a work around.

[grahame]

Incidentally, I can't find anywhere on the line of route to Waterloo where I'd be saving money by travelling short on the SHH-WAT ^32.00 Off Peak Day Return. The fares to all the calling points are either less or the same.

Salisbury to Waterloo I think - 42.30 return (London arrival 10:19, which is shown as valid as 32.00 from SHH); 36.10 return if you're happy to arrive in London after midday.

Some may see the rule that you cannot break or start/end short on an AP as unnecessary. I think it is there for a reason. It's clear and unambiguous and I can't condone ignoring it.

I cannot condone ignoring it either, and I don't. But I can still question whether it's necessary 

[ellendune]

There are two separate conversations developing here.

1) Are the conditions relating to Advance Tickets spelled out enough?

2) Are the conditions relating to Advance Tickets fair?

I think the answer to question 1 is yes.  Open to more debate is question 2.  FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in the quote in the opening post have muddied the waters somewhat - they should really be attempting to defend why the conditions are as they are.  The fact they haven't - at least as quoted - lets them down.

On 1) I disagree with you.  We all know the rules because we have discussed them here before, but the ordinary person in the street would never guess that they could not stop or start their journey short. Putting a simple message to that effect on the booking engine and even better on the ticket would at least make it more likely that people would know.

On 2) It depends what unfairness we are talking about. I do not think it unfair to impose the restriction on short use IF IT IS MADE CLEAR in this case it is the lack of information that is unfair. The principal unfairness of these tickets generally is the need to buy a new ticket rather than pay the excess to the cheapest valid walk on fair if the ticket cannot be used for reasons that are not the fault of the railway.

[IndustryInsider]

Here is the pricing for the 1st May 2013 as per bignosemac' example

Oh yes, I hadn't twigged it was a Bank Holiday on May 1st.

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.

Point taken and understood.  However if I did that they'd no doubt shrug their shoulders and say even market led and government regulated, it's still rather ridiculous that a journey on the same train for 53 miles costs ^22.30 when a journey of 110 miles can cost just ^9.

[Trowres]

...I think it is there for a reason.

That reason being to maximise fares revenue (or minimise subsidy if you prefer that point of view)?

[basset44]

Hi All

I think FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were wrong to refund the money and undermine they staff, and the customer is wrong to accept it. If I was living in a Conservative area I be writing a letter of complaint to Dave Cameron because if it was me or you we would not I belive be getting a refund.

Yes the rule is complicated I have ask before on this site if I could buy and advance from Swansea to Leominster and join at Cardiff because its cheaper. No i would be breaking the rule and if caught would not be treated like the councillor (yes I know its a different TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)).

If the councillor thinks like us that the rules are crazy then use whatever means he can to influence them to be changed.

Basset

[Andy W]

Hi All

I think FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were wrong to refund the money and undermine they staff, and the customer is wrong to accept it. If I was living in a Conservative area I be writing a letter of complaint to Dave Cameron because if it was me or you we would not I belive be getting a refund.

Yes the rule is complicated I have ask before on this site if I could buy and advance from Swansea to Leominster and join at Cardiff because its cheaper. No i would be breaking the rule and if caught would not be treated like the councillor (yes I know its a different TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)).

If the councillor thinks like us that the rules are crazy then use whatever means he can to influence them to be changed.

Basset

So out of interest is your gripe that he was leveraging his position as a councillor or that rules are rules and despite having paid for the journey he should pay a penalty (of over ^100) because he got on a train at a later station - ie he already overpaid for the journey he was eventually taking

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.

Hi there BNM. The Paddington - Westbury AP is ^9 as you state - the Reading - Westbury fare is ^7 on the same train. Can you please explain to my simple mind why the market led / government regulated fare on the Paddington - Reading section is valued at ^2? Not enough patronage between those 2 stations perhaps?