Great Western Coffee Shop

Would it be possible to change the origin on the advance before travelling (subject to the administration fee)?

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10103.msg113841#msg113841

I suspect that FGW were correct in how they interpretted their own rule ... but their rule's rather mean and a bit silly in this cirumstance.  But then it's much more pragramtic for FGW to apologise and move on rather than defend the rule that gives rise to the sillyness. 

Reminds me of the person who got off a station early (Eastleigh) on a London to Southampton ticket.

While you might think the rule is "mean and a bit silly", it is nevertheless a rule - and one which they have rigorously enforced in the past. The reason why they apologised and gave a refund in this case may not be entirely unrelated to this:
http://www.devon.gov.uk/councillor_profile_district.htm/councillor_profile-47

Indeed, travelling short on an Advance ticket is definitely not allowed.

Usually done to avoid paying a higher Advance fare to the station they actually want to travel to. Its fare evasion....

So whoever Dan Paynes is, all he's just proved is that HE doesn't know the rules.  As this stands, he's letting his colleagues (and staff of other TOCs) in for a whole load of grief...

Also, contrary to what Grahame seems to imply, this is most definitely not an 'FGW only' rule, as the T&C for Advance are standardised nationally, and do not allow any deviation from the start and end stations the fare is for.

Paul

Break the terms and conditions that you signed up to saying you agree with them, change your plans, get rightly asked to buy a new ticket, go running to the media (possibly using your political clout), and get a profuse apology.

FGW have done nothing wrong in this case except run scared of adverse publicity. I'm disappointed that they've refunded someone who broke the terms and conditions for the ticket they purchased.

Mr Connett should have excessed his ticket to the available walk-up fare for the train he was booked on, prior to its departure from Newton Abbot, then he would have been free to join that service, or later ones with the same TOC, at Exeter St Davids. I have no sympathy for those who disregard terms and conditions they've signed up to and then try to wing it.

What he said.

Sets a very bad precedent.

I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse but millions of people, probably the vast majority of people do not read the condistions and if they did they would not realise the implications. The real problem is that the rules and conditions on ticket sales are so complex is that the whole ticket regime is so complicated. Remember the days of BR 50+ years ago when fares were a penny a mile for travel at any time and probably the only exceptions were workmens fares and cheap day returns, half day returns and evening returns. Most rail travellers could understand that range.

I've taken a quick look at the FGW website & single fares Newton Abbot - Paddington are ^13.00 - ^102 (absurd range but heh-ho) the Exeter - Paddington fares are ^12.50 - ^98 so he actually paid MORE than he would have had he booked the journey he took (on the same train).

It bewilders me why the 'rules are rules' brigade cannot understand the passengers point of view. He is in no way trying to cheat the system.

There are too many rules and a vacuum of common sense in the rail industry.

Appreciating that people may not get round to reading the T&C at all, but surely anyone who does would easily understand the T&C? 

The wording is: "You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary".

It isn't exactly ambiguous is it?

Paul

Agreed.  It is a rule on advanced tickets and therefore should be adhered to.  By everyone.

However - I'm sorry but I still find it rather silly that buying a product and only using / consuming part of it is an offence when you've paid for the whole thing.  Imagine going into a restaurant, ordering fish and chips (4.95), not noticing that there were mushy peas too.  So you leave the mushy peas, and when you're given your bill, it's for 8.95 ... because you left the peas.

Graham - exactly.  I was going to write a plus 1 but you summed it up perfectly, but of course you are in business trying actually to please the customer.

I think the mistake that many ordinary pax (i.e. non-professional, non-enthusiasts) make is to assume that the normal, commonsense rules of trade and consumption (as outlined by by grahame in his fish 'n' chip analogy) when purchasing a rail ticket.  They have yet to grasp that in order to travel by train and avoid a second mortgage you need to understand a plethora of T&Cs, which will of course have been read, for each choice of ticket offered.  This error needs more publicity in order to stop the sort of nonsense outlined above continuing and so intending pax understand the power relationships in the contract between them and the railway company.  This should lead to more contented (if fewer) 'customers'. ;)

I don't have the time to look for examples at the moment but I was once told the reason for the rule was to even up loadings on trains.

For example a train coming from London to Cornwall would be priced higher east of Plymouth than trains which terminated at Plymouth to encourage people to use the latter if they were not going into Cornwall and thus spread the numbers and give Cornwall travellers a chance to get a seat. 

I am sure someone can prove or disprove this theory.

Or a very good one from a customer service point of view.


And where are these conditions set out?  On the small print on the back of the ticket?


Couldn't agree more


Yes customers - aren't they what running a railway is all about?

I suspect Mr. Dan Paynes is acutally the alter ego of Mr. Dan Panes the Communication Development Manager.

I'm not sure I agree with the rule based on grahame's theory either...

Lets look at it in terms of public transport:

I booked a First Advance from Waterloo - Frome via Salisbury on Sunday. Paid ^11.90 However I found myself at Clapham Junction for 20:45

Now my train departed Waterloo at 21:20 and called for Pick Up Only at Clapham Junction. So common sense, I've paid from Waterloo - Salisbury so why couldn't I get on at Clapham Junction? Save going all the way up and back again

Well because the rule said so. In fact the rule says I have to take at Train from CLJ to WAT to catch a train 45 minutes later from WAT that is going to come back through CLJ again!

Well of course, having a Travelcard, I did exactly this and went up to Waterloo so my ticket was valid on that train :o

Talk about inefficiency.............

However I do admit in the past (unknowingly as I was in my younger years) to joining a train short on an Advance Ticket... However as trainer pointed out... I wasn't aware of the rules. My understanding at the time was simple: On 10:00 train or buy new ticket. However fellow posters on this forum brought the extra rules to my attention of which I have been forever grateful :) ;) ;D

There have also been occasions (the amount I can count on one hand) where I have missed a booked train and the staff onboard have shown excellent discretion and passed it.

The only occasion where no such discretion was shown when it really ought to have been was when I missed a booked train at Paddington because of a late inbound cancelled and next train very late inbound National Express East Coast service meaning I missed I well and truly missed the booked train... I asked the TM if they were not happy to check it with control (they refused to call them) to write me up an Unpaid Fares Notice (That was refused as well). Needless to say a formal complaint was sent off which had more than the desired effect... ;) :-X

Of all the possible justifications for the advance fare rule, this would be the one likely to invoke the most passenger sympathy. However a quick check of a suitable peak time - Friday 1st March at  17:00 - reveals that the Paddington-Penzance departures feature advance fares to Taunton, Exeter, Plymouth in addition to Penzance. The fares rise with distance, so there's no need to invoke the "no stopping short" rule.

The Penzance services don't stop at Westbury, but there are advance fares available on the services that do (including the solitary example via a change at Swindon)... EXCEPT the PAD-Frome service, for which the anytime fare of ^76.00 is quoted. Much better to go for ^24.50 on the 18:33 Plymouth service.

So not much sign there of alleviating overcrowding.

So the reason that the conditions are not printed (in readable text) on the back of the ticket is that the ticket would no longer go through the automatic barriers - given that they are 30 pages of A4!

I can download them from a website, or I suppose someone will tell me that they are on a poster in some dark corner of my local station.  

Have I missed large notices saying how it important that I get a copy and read them?

Perhaps, to quote from Douglas Adams:


Are conditions of carriage that are so closely guarded a secret really enforceable in law?  I suspect they are, but I suspect they should not be!

Now if some key points were printed on the ticket e.g. "only valid when joining the train at Newton Abbot" or "Not valid from intermediate stations" then the condition might seem more reasonable. 

Don't passengers get the ticket in a small folder that sets out the conditions of Advance tickets very clearly? And if booking on line they are set out clearly there and in the confirmatory email?

Nope... Well not in my experience anyway:

• Ask for Advanced Ticket.
• Accept ticket price* and proceed to book.
• Told I must catch yada yada train or new ticket.
• Pay.
• Request Receipt and Take Tickets.
• Leave.

   
* If ticket price is fairly near a walk-up price. Decline and purchase on day of travel.

But I guess asking a Ticket Clerk for a First Advance on the 21:50 for tomorrow probably implies you know the restrictions already ;)

The T&Cs for Advance Purchase tickets are neither a closely guarded secret nor 30 pages of A4. They are contained in a small ticket sized 2 page leaflet if you purchase from a station, and are less than one full webpage of text if buying online. If for some reason you don't get, or fail to check, either of those then I'm afraid caveat emptor comes into play. Ask before travel (and not at the intermediate station!) Don't subsequently try and wing it.

https://tickets.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/gw/en/tickettandc/W/WAS.aspx

I assume the 30 pages of A4 you are referring to is the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. If you comply with the few lines of text provided when being sold an Advance Purchase ticket then there's no need to to even look at the NRCoC.

When you are provided, at point of sale, with the following...


... I see no need for 'some key points' to be printed on the ticket.

Not if collecting from a TVM  ...


Not got the booking screen in front of me, but from my confirmation email for last Sunday:


Nothing ANYWHERE in that email to say I couldn't have gotten on to the same train at Bath instead .... and not really sure why it says "First Great Western Trains Only" when the only train its valid on is ... a specific FGW train.

Seeing as all that lot appears in the email, I hate to disagree with BNM but I think it would be fair for a reasonable person to ensure that what's stated is all the rules.   Nowhere does the email say that it's just a summary of some of the terms and I can find the rest at your URL  ;D

Just gone most of the way through a booking on the FGW site:


Clear again ... nothing to say I can't get on at Reading instead ... in fact "only on your chosen service" rather suggests that I can join and leave any time from 21:40 when they announce the platform at PAD to 23:03 when that particular train gets to Chippenham

There's nothing in that summary that says you can get on at Reading either. What it 'rather suggests' is open to interpretation. That's why there are clear Terms & Conditions, where what you can and can't do is laid out in fairly plain English with little room for any interpretation you may wish to make.

Did you not look at the the Terms & Conditions, grahame? It takes but one click.

Should the T&Cs (or a link to them) be in your confirmation email? Perhaps. But they were there to be read before you agreed the transaction.

I'm all for exploiting loopholes and anomalies to save money or work around restrictions, but with Advance Purchase tickets it is quite clear. Origin to destination as shown on the ticket, no breaks, no starting/ending short, and only on the service as booked. If more flexibility is required, then a more flexible ticket should be purchased.

Except that the only advance tickets you can get from a TVM are the ones you collect after you book on line where you are told what the conditions are.

Just to be awkward and for a different outlook...

What if you didn't book the tickets but collected them from the station or TVM to make the journey yourself?

That being said, isn't there a T&C Clause that states that the one who books the tickets must be making the journey... I'm sure I've seen that somewhere??!

Moving away from the discussion about whether enough warnings are given when you buy the ticket, I'll ask the obvious question:

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?  Is it really a big issue as long as they travel on the same train they're booked on?  Surely if their are any gains they would be exploited by such a small number of individuals as to make it pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things, in the same way that split ticketing has a tiny effect on overall revenue?

From a customer service standpoint, I can pretty much guarantee that if I asked five random friends of mine that don't travel regularly by train for their opinion, they would all think it's pretty ridiculous that starting/ending short isn't allowed.

If you've clicked on the "i" button and scrolled all the way down  :D  

I know / agree that the conditions are "full bought journey only" ... I just think (and clearly not everyone agrees) that's not obvious from what pops up on the screen in the course of a booking procedure the way most people probably do it.  But then most people buy from "A" to "E" an wouldn't normally consider getting on at "B" or off at "D" instead.


No - the tickets can be bought by anyone.  What you mustn't do is buy them for one person and let another use them. "Must be used by the person for whom they were bought" I think is the term, with an exception allowing a company to buy them and the decide later which employee is travelling.  Never make it simple if you can make it complex!  :D
 

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 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.

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 ;D )

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.

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 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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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.

Here is the pricing for the 1st May 2013 as per bignosemac' example ;) :D :)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/253125_4628580348453_1479023373_n.jpg)

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.


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.

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.


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

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.

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


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.

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

Hi All

I think FGW 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).

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

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?

I said that fares where not wholly based on distance. I don't see your logic in suggesting the fare between Paddington and Reading is valued at ^2 merely because that is the difference between specimen APS from PAD-WSB and RDG-WSB.

Look at different dates and times and the difference will be, er, different.

Hi Andy W

I believe that other people would not have had the same treatment, I remember somebody being fined for travelling short etc.

Yes he should have paid the walk up fare for the ticket because he broke the rules of the advance ticket. So is ticket was not valid

Basset

Hi Basset,

I understand the point that you and BNM are making regarding rules & BNM has rightly pointed out that there are certainly times when shortening a journey could save money and the AP system could be abused. However in this case he had not underpaid he had overpaid for the journey he was taking and therefore could in no way be attempting to cheat / abuse the system. While I understand rules are rules there should surely be a level of common sense that prevails. ie same train, paid more, not out to cheat the system?

Hi BNM. While I understand the 'it's within the rules' game - surely this example is blatant manipluation with respect to their fares policy. If I ask the TM for the cheapest ticket should I therefore get the Worcester fare & not the Pershore one? If I am charge the Pershore fare am I being diddled?

Regarding the ^2 Paddington - Reading all I did was extrapolate your example and on the train you selected that is the value put on that sector by FGW. I genuinely don't understand how that fits into the market driven / regulated strategy on that train on that day.

I suspect one might be explaining for quite some time. As a complete lay-person I don't get that and will never get that.

If you ask for "the cheapest Pershore to London ticket that I can use on this train", you should be offered a Pershore to London ticket.  But if you ask for "the cheapest ticket that will take me from Pershore to London on this train", you should be offered a Worcester to London ticket. Alas - you won't in my similar experience; you'll still be offered a Pershore to London ticket, which is not the cheapest ticket that will take you from Pershore to London.

Rather naughtily, I've approached the ticket desk at Paddington and told them that I wanted to go on the 17:30, change at Swindon to Melksham at the lowest possible cost, and would they sell me the appropriate tickets? At today's prices what I was offered was 76 pounds;  I then asked if a split at Didcot would be valid, and bought that at a considerable saving.   It's naughty because it puts pressure on the sales person involved who (a) may not have the tools to hand to answer my question about the lowest cost way of making the journey and (b) is not supposed (as I understand it) to let customers know about such options, even when it makes him tell a blatant lie.

I think, to be honest, all of this is going to be blown out of the water with an elephant gun in the next year or two.

As of this week, rail fares are open data. The timetable has been for a few months. It is now possible - not easy, granted, but possible - for someone to write a web-based ticketing engine that finds you the absolute cheapest fare using split tickets, local Rovers, stopping short/starting late, and so on. Set up an affiliate deal with one of the retailers (or even an independent sales agent, such as the guy at Ledbury) and you'd have quite a lucrative business.

The days of "premium pricing through obscurity" are numbered. Open data is going to make sane, transparent pricing inevitable.

(Well, I think so anyway. :) )

I don't think I have seen so many blogs on a single topic in just 48 hours on the coffee shop. It just goes to show what a hot potato this topic is. Perhaps all the above comments should be forwarded to DfT, Rail Reg, local MPs, Consumer Focus, Which? and Uncle Tom Cobley and all to highlight this major problem.

But what other commodity would anyone buy that has so many conditions of service attached? I can only think of domestic appliances such as a vacuum cleaner that the manufacturer says should be used for domestic purposes only. I think Grahame's comment on eating mushy peas in a meal illustrates the stupidity.

Why do we in fact have all these complex rules? I think, recalling my student days of studying economics, it is what is called in economics (or was in my day nearly 50 years ago but may now be called something very different) as "fractioning the market". i.e. you have one basic commodity to sell but some people need it more than others and are therefore prepared to pay more for the same product, such as business and leisure travellers. You, as a vendor, impose as many conditions in your terms of sale to prevent that part of the market buying your product at less than they are prepared to pay, i.e. the business traveller, but encourage the less afluent traveller to buy on terms more suited to that part of the total market. In those days, some 50 years ago the prime example of "fractioning the market" quoted was BR fares for standard and cheap day returns. Now with even more fractioning of the market over sometimes dozens, or more, differing fares for the same basic journey, the conditions have had to become even more complex. The simple answer would be to have a much simpler fare structure. However if I recall, Mcnulty was suggesting an even more complex fare structure with another band of fares between peak and offpeak for travel in the just after peak period with offpeak fares starting later so not much hope for simplification there!

The Trainline.con advertising savings up to xx% (while taking their extra charges) probably encourages more "lay" people to get sucked into the wonderful world of Advance tickets.

If you missed the booked depature as a result of a delayed connection is it mandatory or only advisory to get the Advance ticket endorsed?

Advisory. Although an endorsement won't do any harm.

I am rather surprised at the extent of support / apology offered for the current system, with more concern being shown over abuse of the advance fare rules than over abuse of customers.

If we had true competition, the fares system might eventually sort itself out. But we do not, and the advance fare rules are a licence for operators to create an arbitrary array of advantage and disadvantage.

Why have we reached a situation where there are no advance fares from Westbury to places west of Cardiff, when such fares exist from Salisbury or Bath? Does it bother the operators?...probably not. But at least if the start/stop short rule was relaxed there would be some relief from this ridiculous situation.

I agree with Trowres.  I bow to the encyclopaedic knowledge of colleagues on these matters, but could not the ORR be given powers (or exercise them if they already have them) to ensure that advance fares are offered equitably over all Os and Ds so that the ludicrous situations earlier described do not arise?

Either that or FGW start behaving like someone in business (in fairness the PR man did his best) and less like the commercial wing of the Bob Crow Foundation for Keeping Po-Faced Britain Alive and Well.  It is not the staff's fault; they simply have to do their best with what they are given as instructions.

After that last comment, I think I'll put on 6 stones in weight and become a right-wing radio jock. Aha!

Define all please?

Should there really be 'Advance' fares available for any or every station pair you can come up with?  In which case how about Acton Main Line to Paddington?  Of course if this isn't necessary, where do you draw the line - and how do you make it fair nationally?

Paul

Only skimmed through this thread but find myslef in the rather unusual position of being on the side of Bignoesmac  ;) , FGW staff, via the weekly retail circular, were given STRICT instructions to enforce this rule and now are backpedaling in the form of Mr Panes to make a local councillor happy. The staff are happy to enforce the rule or are happy to let people travel against this rule they just do what they are told to do! And i really dont know where the ^144.00 new ticket came from, a little mouse told me that he bought a Super Off-Peak Single which was nearer ^44.00, maybe a 1 was put in front for the extra bull sh1t factor.

The fact that a ticket from A to C can be cheaper than from B to C isn't actually that stupid, I will give Cornwall as an example, now there are certain AP fares from Cornwall that are cheaper than Plymouth for the simple reason that Cornwall have less choice of services and therefore less potential flexibility for people to book on quieter trains, it is fairer on those people living in more rural parts, the danger of making a one size fits all type rule is that those people will suffer, at the end of the day they wont all of a sudden reduce the Plymouth fares. If you buy a ticket from Exeter to London thats exactly what you have bought, a ticket to travel from Exeter to London, not Taunton to London, not Bristol to London.

Noble idea .. but it's not uniform / doesn't work where I live. Taking a random example ... I need to arrive in London at or before 12:30 on Thursday 21st March - for an afternoon meeting, and I'm going on elsewhere.   Best advanced purchase from Chippenham - 11.00 pounds.  Best advanced purchase from Melksham, about 7 miles further, a town half the size and with fewer trains - 64.50. I think I SHOULD pay a bit more for a longer journey ... but 53.50 is one heck of a penalty / price for 7 miles.  Have all the lower price Melksham to Paddington tickets for that morning sold out already?

The suggestion that fares should be cheaper where there are less trains is interesting - does that mean that there's likely to be a big increase in London to Bristol Temple Meads fares when the service increases from 2 an hour (diesel) to 4 an hour (electric)?

Indeed.

I was wondering why he didn't walk to the ticket office and buy an off-peak, and assumed he must have been travelling before the 08:41.

Not sure where Melksham fits into this one but my point still stands, there are situations where it exists and should be protected for the reasons I posted.

Vacman, if you look at my earlier posts you will see that I acknowledged that the possible use of the advance restriction that you mention is one that would receive the most sympathetic response.

However, in reply #18, I posted my superficial investigation of peak time trains to Penzance on what I would expect to be a busy time - Friday pm peak 1st March.

In all cases there was a cheaper advance to Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth offered on the Penzance trains, so the "no break" rule achieved nothing.

This doesn't prove that there is never a case when the rule doesn't achieve the effect you postulate.  It does suggest that there are other priorities uppermost in the minds of whoever sets the fares.