Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 12:15 29 Mar 2024
* Delays at Dover as millions begin Easter getaway
- Attempted murder charge after man stabbed on train
- KFC Nigeria sorry after disabled diner refused service
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
13:21 Newbury to Bedwyn
13:48 Bedwyn to Newbury
14:12 Newbury to Bedwyn
14:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
14:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
15:28 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
15:50 Bedwyn to Newbury
16:15 Newbury to Bedwyn
16:23 Westbury to Swindon
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
16:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
21:16 Westbury to Swindon
22:30 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
12:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
13:55 Paignton to London Paddington
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:04 Paignton to London Paddington
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:10 Penzance to London Paddington
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:20 Penzance to London Paddington
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
etc
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 12:24:27 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[124] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[53] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[49] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[48] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[43] Return of the BRUTE?
[30] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Actual journey times much increased by complexity of fares.  (Read 7027 times)
John R
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4416


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2017, 07:39:59 »

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.
Logged
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18895



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2017, 15:37:15 »

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.
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40692



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2017, 15:58:33 »

From National Rail Conditions of Travel

Quote
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?

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18895



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2017, 15:59:45 »

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"...
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 16:12:02 by bignosemac » Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2017, 16:34:03 »

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.   
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40692



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2017, 16:44:08 »

Right. See attached rail industry guidance.

Thanks for that:

Quote
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!)

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18895



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2017, 17:21:53 »

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.
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2017, 21:49:34 »

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?  Shocked Roll Eyes Grin

Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830.  Many more have died in the same way since then.  Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.

"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner."  Discuss.
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18895



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2017, 22:08:09 »

An autocorrect I failed to spot.  Embarrassed Embarrassed

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

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
Trowres
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 751


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2017, 22:22:55 »

An autocorrect I failed to spot.  Embarrassed Embarrassed

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

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.
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2017, 10:39:28 »

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.   
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page