Actual journey times much increased by complexity of fares.

[whole diary]

[John R]

A bit cheeky, but zero chance of any comeback from TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company).

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^» (Transport for London - about)) 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.

[JayMac]

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^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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^» (Transport for London - about)) 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.

[grahame]

From National Rail Conditions of Travel

Notwithstanding Condition 9.2 (b) above, if you are using an advance Ticket and you miss your booked train because a previous connecting train service was delayed, you will be able to travel on the next train service provided by the Train Company with whom you were booked without penalty.

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?

[JayMac]

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"...

[Tim]

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.

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.   

[grahame]

Right. See attached rail industry guidance.

Thanks for that:

Once the journey has begun. If the passenger is delayed and the rail industry or its partners (as shown below) is at fault, which should be checked with your Control Office, change to another train of the same company is allowed to get them to their destination with the least delay.***
This is irrespective of combinations of rail tickets held.

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!)

[JayMac]

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.

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.  

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^» (Swindon - next trains) has no advance fares. BWT-DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) 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.

[Chris from Nailsea]

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

... you can buy, for example, an Advance Purchase from London Zone U1* - Nailsea & Blackwell.

How very dare you? 

[JayMac]

An autocorrect I failed to spot. 

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

[Trowres]

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.

[Tim]

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.

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.  

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^» (Swindon - next trains) has no advance fares. BWT-DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) 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.

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.