"Find cheapest rail fares yourself, passengers told"

[whole diary]

[a-driver]

If you read the Guardian version then it states it references to a passengers complaint by email.  Without seeing the whole complaint it's impossible to comment.

I'm guessing, it's along the lines of this:
If you buy a ticket for the 0828 Reading to Bristol Temple Meads it is a peak-time for the whole journey, however,
If you were to join the same train at Didcot or Swindon, it is classed as off-peak

If the individual is complaining that they should have been offered a peak-time single Reading to Didcot/Swindon and then an off-peak single from Didcot/Swindon to Bristol Temple Meads they would be incorrect and their complaint is not justifiable as TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s are not obliged to offer split tickets unless specifically requested by the customer.

[JayMac]

Rock up at Bristol TM^‡(resolve) at 0700 on a weekday and ask for the cheapest return to London returning around 1800 the same day, and you will be sold, without further queries from the clerk, the ^197.00 Anytime Return. That's despite there being a fare that matches the request for ^118 less.

Which would that be? struggling to get the online sites to produce a ^79 fare

I was rounding down. The cheapest fare matching that request is ^79.10.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

  see even forum members assume that by saying london they mean paddington :-p

[a-driver]

see even forum members assume that by saying london they mean paddington :-p

South West Trains into London Waterloo??  I would never had even considered that! 

[ChrisB]

online booking sites only offer singles at those times.....~I tried Wednesday next week

[a-driver]

I think the point is an online booking site doesn't automatically give you that option.  If you input BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) to London (all) it automatically lists Paddington.  If you want cheaper/slower you need to click onto another link and then on the site I looked at, for a first time traveller, it gets confusing.

[ChrisB]

I put London Waterloo in the booking engine to force it...

[grahame]

... I recently witnessed a passenger almost get sold an anytime return for a Saturday day return. I intervened/interrupted the sale and spoke with the passenger. The passenger ended up with the suitable cheapest ticket for his needs and shook my hand afterwards. He had simply asked for a return to x.

Historically, there's been an assumption that longer distance journeys are out one day and back another and if someone simply asks for a return ticket ... then they will sell maximum flexibility.   The same argument applies to someone asking for "3 returns to xxxx" not being sold Groupsave on the basis that they might not be coming back together, or returning on one of the rare blackout days.   Sell superoffpeak, sell groupsave and if the people coming back ARE on another day or not together, they'll get pretty upset when challenged by revenue protection.

Question, richwarwicker - was the sale being made from a railway company run ticket office, or from a ticket agent, or by a conductor?

[paul7575]

I put London Waterloo in the booking engine to force it...

You get exactly the same 'feature' if checking fares from Southampton to London Terminals.   The Southern services to Victoria that go round the houses via Gatwick are 'lost' to the basic enquiry because they are all overtaken by subsequent Waterloo services; journey times being broadly an hour slower, a bit like Exeter to 'London' ignores Waterloo.

I don't see an easy answer.  Should everyone who asks for a ticket to 'London' be assumed to want the cheapest option, or the fastest most direct option? 

What proportion of people asking to go to London from Exeter (or Southampton in my example) would realistically take the slow option if offered, and does that proportion really mean everyone should be asked?

Paul

[PhilWakely]

You get exactly the same 'feature' if checking fares from Southampton to London Terminals.   The Southern services to Victoria that go round the houses via Gatwick are 'lost' to the basic enquiry because they are all overtaken by subsequent Waterloo services; journey times being broadly an hour slower, a bit like Exeter to 'London' ignores Waterloo.

I don't see an easy answer.  Should everyone who asks for a ticket to 'London' be assumed to want the cheapest option, or the fastest most direct option? 

What proportion of people asking to go to London from Exeter (or Southampton in my example) would realistically take the slow option if offered, and does that proportion really mean everyone should be asked?

I know that if you ask at the EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) ticket office for a 'return to London', you will be asked whether you want PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) or WAT and also booking engines will list both options if you select 'London'

[ChrisB]

I don't see an easy answer.  Should everyone who asks for a ticket to 'London' be assumed to want the cheapest option, or the fastest most direct option? 

What proportion of people asking to go to London from Exeter (or Southampton in my example) would realistically take the slow option if offered, and does that proportion really mean everyone should be asked?

I do think you could be asked which London station you want to travel to at stations like these that have obviously two 'direct' (ie no change of train) services....and informed which is cheaper but longer.

I know that if you ask at the EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) ticket office for a 'return to London', you will be asked whether you want PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) or WAT and also booking engines will list both options if you select 'London'

good to see some are on the ball....

[JayMac]

If you ask at a booking office for the cheapest, you should be advised of the cheapest route. And informed about the journey time.

To not do so goes against impartial retailing rules.

From the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement that operators must abide by as part of their franchise agreement:

6-30 THE IMPARTIALITY OBLIGATION

Specific Requirements

(a) If more than one Fare is available that meets the requirements specified by a potential Purchaser and he does  not specify which of the Fares he requires, the Operator must seek any additional information from him that is necessary to enable it to recommend (in an impartial manner) which of them is suitable for him. 

(b)  Where an Operator is asked to recommend a suitable Fare or paragraph (a) above applies, it must request sufficient  additional information to enable it to make the recommendation. This may (for example) include any of the following:-

  (i) the departure and/or arrival time required; 

  (ii) how important it is to the person requesting the Fare to  minimise the journey time involved;

  (iii) the importance to him of the price of the Fare;       

  (iv) whether he minds changing trains;

  (v) (if a return journey is to be made) the extent to which he needs flexibility in his choice of trains for  that journey;   

  (vi) whether he wants the flexibility of an Inter-available Fare; and       

  (vii) any special requirements that he has.   

(c) If more than one Fare is suitable, the Operator must explain the  main features of the alternatives in an impartial manner.

Note the words 'obligation', 'requirements', 'must', in that extract from the TSA^▸ (Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.).

[broadgage]

I have long held the view that the present fares system is not only hugely over complex but is plainly daft in other ways.
It is clearly sensible to have lower fares at less busy times and higher fares at peak times, but I see no merit whatsoever in the fare being determined by when the ticket is booked, rather than by the time of travel.

I likewise see no merit in the present system whereby holders of cheap tickets get an automatic seat reservation, whilst those who paid the full fare have to stand.

I have previously suggested that for any journey, only 3 fares should be available (in each class).
Which of these 3 fares applies should be determined by how busy the train is likely to be, and never by when the ticket is purchased.
To contain the greed of TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company), they should not be permitted to charge the highest fare on more than 25% of the trains that they run, and they should be required to make the lowest fares available on at least 25% of their trains.
Subject to the above, a train could be re categorised as loadings change, but only at timetable changes.

I would not prohibit split ticketing, but with a more rational fare structure it should seldom produce any gain.

[phile]

Fares should be what they used to be, i.e 1st Single or Return, 3nd Single or return from to A to B.    It is the only way to escape from the complicated maze to try and plough through and which are deliberately complicated to make it awkward for the customer in the hope they will not understand them enough, thus not opting for the cheapest fare.

[JayMac]

When were fares ever like that?