Great Western Coffee Shop

I cannot provide a link to this but there is an article on page 6 of the November 2011 Railway Magazine headlined "Split ticketing could be stopped"

The article says train operators and ATOC have been discussing the practice because more and more people are doing it following publicity on the Internet ( ;D) and the press.

It says no decision has been reached but does point out it might be hard to stop as a passenger is under no obligation to say how far they plan to travel.

The only way to stop it would be the need for stamping all tickets at the point of departure. Introducing the need to Compost at point of departure (as stated on the ticket) would effectively stop the practice. Having to disembark and wait for a subsequent service would seriously impact on the user of the split ticket.

No - you could also stop it by changing the fare system so that it became very rare for a cheaper journey to be achieved by buying in multiple segments.   And I think that it would cost less in admin to issue one ticket rather than two as well ... much cheaper than having boarding checks at every station!

Wholly agree with your sentiments, but if the exisiting fare regime is to stay then composting seems to be the easiest way of resolving the matter.

P.S.  If the fares were set up so that split ticketing didn't save money, it would allow the removal of the "must stop at" rule, which is rather silly ...  ;)

Imagine that you live in Chippenham.    You wife's hairdresser's boyfriend offers you a lift to Didcot, which you gratefully accept.  And you buy a return ticket from there to London, expecting to get a lift home too.   But during the day, your wife calls you to let you know that Colin (that's the hairdresser's boyfriend) has unexpectedly been called away from Didcot to do a job in Queen's Camel and can't offer you a lift home from Didcot after all.   So when you get to Paddington, you buy an extra Didcot to Chippenham ticket so you can go straight home. Why on earth should you have to travel on a train that actually stops at Didcot in such a circumstance?  It's adding insult to injury to force you to do so!

Christian Wolmar mentioned the same thing in a recent article of Rail (mentioned here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9533.msg99268#msg99268)), although it was unsourced.

His take on the issue was that the sweetener here would be allowing passengers who have already purchased an advance ticket and miss their train/want to upgrade to a flexible fare/get on the wrong train for whatever reason would have the fare already paid taken into account when purchasing the new ticket, rather than the advance ticket becoming worthless as it does at the moment.

What would happen if tickets needed to be Composted at Didcot would be that people would leap off to get tickets stamped (perhaps leaving a mate holding the door open) and then rush back to the platform and try and get on the same train. 

Result -> an increase in slips and trips, people missing their train (and causing staff agro) and people joining at the last minute thereby holding trains up and damaging the performance statistics.

Also the reputational damage would be large.  Think of all the negaative news stories. It would only make TOCs look like the spivs (sorry "thinly-capitalised privateers") that they are.     

Not if composting was required pre-barrier and not on the platform. Incidentally I'm not defending the existing ATOC ticketiing policy at all. I'd much prefer an adjusted kilometric system, amemded for very busy routes (and by inference time of travel related as well).

So given that many ticket types offer what are essentially unlimited breaks-of-journey during their validity, how do you propose to adapt the continental-style 'composting' system to accommodate that? Not required in mainland Europe as fares are calculated by the kilometre so if you want to go from A to D stopping at B and C you simply buy tickets from A>B, B>C and C>D. Doesn't work in the UK though!

Composting works with a distance-based fares system but that's not going to happen any time soon. It would only make the UK system more complicated than it already is. I agree that it would be very difficult to enforce a ban on split ticketing otherwise (unless a train manager with an incredible memory can remember exactly whose tickets they've already seen and where they got on!) but there are plenty of other rules in the conditions of carriage already that are nigh-on impossible to enforce - non-transferability of tickets springs to mind, for example.

I agree with Tim. The existing fares structure is so fragmented.

ATOC as an organisation are in total denial about the reality of this situation. I've just read a reaction of theirs to this month's Which? piece about public understanding of fares conditions. They haven't understood any of the issues raised.

Or alternatively ATOC have understood Which only too well, and know themselves that the entire fare system is f@$%*d. Therefore they bury their head in the sand, stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that everyone understands the system perfectly well and nobody ever gets diddled through over-caution and buying a more expensive ticket than the needed. Therefore they don't address any of the issues raised.

And how do you propose to stop split ticketing in the instance that my split is a location where I have to change trains anyway.

I buy a First Class Single Ticket from Bath Spa to West Ham via route: Warminster/Salisbury. When I arrive at West Ham, I already have another ticket to continue onto Chalkwell from West Ham. I haven't bought a through ticket as you cannot get tickets to c2c line stations via Warminster/Salisbury. When I get to West Ham, I could just walk up the stairs onto the c2c Platforms, or go out of the ticket barriers and then in again. The chances are that by the time I get to West Ham when I normally do, the ticket barriers will be open anyway

Now here's an interesting technique. I could even use the excuse that I "split" the tickets at West Ham for a toilet break where in the case of West Ham, the toilet is located outside of the station near the entrance. So I could argue, that although I hold 2 seperate tickets, so therefore I am "splitting", I could argue that I am making 2 entirely seperate journey's as technically I have left the station premises to use the toilet outside the station.

It's a catch 22 situation for both sides of the forces on this one I think.

Another example is where I had to buy a ticket from Warrington Bank Quay to Crewe and then Crewe to Chester, as there wasn't a through First Class ticket to Chester from Warrington, Despite FC being available on both legs of the journey at the time I was travelling. Would I be penalised then for "splitting" because the original ticket I wanted for the class of travel required wasn't available...?! One would hope not :o ::)

the new smart cards for online booking will do something to help when they come in

One of the main reasons for split ticketing is that some fares are regulated and some are not.  If you abolished  regulated fares TOC's could then adjust the fares so splitting the tickets would not save you ant money.

In the same edition of Rail magazine when Wolmar floated this idea, about 6 weeks ago (and where's his evidence anyway?), Barry Doe explained why it wouldn't be fixable - and as you say it is down to certain fares being commuter fares and regulated.  The DfT and TOCs are extremely unlikely to reduce unregulated fares to the levels of the regulated ones, and would be damned all round if they ever released the cheap fares from regulation to put them up to levels where splitting would have no benefit.

Paul

Just to follow up on this, Barry Doe in his RAIL column squishes the ideas that ATOC is trying to ban split ticketing or that a National Railcard is in the works. The issue is a few weeks old now, may be 682 from memory but I couldn't swear to it.

_{Edited to insert name of magazine!}

According to The Telegraph (can't find a link), split ticketing is to be BANNED.

It means that savvy commuters who currently save thousands by splitting at Didcot or Westbury will be fleeced even more by TOCs.

The rules are:
*One ticket per journey;
*The passenger has to get off at the station where they change tickets & cannot reboard the same train.

I feel sorry for the guards who will have to enforce this. Or will it be done using PAYG Smart Cards?

Article has certainly appeared in the print edition of The Telegraph but has yet, as far as I can ascertain, to make it online. Closest I've found is a picture of the article taken from a 'Kindle':

(https://p.twimg.com/AuZfIO6CIAAP96r.jpg:large)

Thanks and credit go to RailUK Forums member BrownE (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1104897&postcount=28) (EBrown of this parish??)

A tad sensationalist to state '...to be BANNED' though.  ::)

Quite a few TOCs have seemed to be against split ticketing, FGW doesn't seem to have been one of them though, but I don't see any practical way of enforcing a ban on split ticketing.

Simplest way to reduce / get rid of split ticketing is to price rail fares so that it's rarely worhwhile using them.  No need to ban them.

For most purchases you make, you pay a fixed price per unit, or you get a discount if you buy in quantity. Next week, I'm staying three nights away in a hotel, and each night costs 15% less than the rate for a single night.  That's a price that more fairly matches the costs to the hotel - there's "light tidy" needed on the intermediate nights rather than full changes, and the hotel isn't left with awkward bits of the accommodation unlet. [[We run a hotel (http://www.wellhousemanor.co.uk) and much prefer one booking for 5 nights than 5 bookings for 1 night!]]

So if Swindon to Melksham costs 7.20 and Melksham to Salisbury costs 11.40, then Swindon to Salisbury on a direct train routed via Melksham should not exceed 18.60.  Through travellers Swindon to Salisbury need only one ticket, there will be fewer ticket checks necessary, they won't do the "wear and tear" thing on Melksham station so will help reduce the maintainance costs there, and they'll be helping load the train at the lighter end as well as the heavier end of the route.

I'm against split ticketing as a significant way to get lower fares too - but I'm for the carrot not the stick way of reducing it. In other words, by setting fares which render it pointless, except where someone has a ticket already for part of the journey. For example, let's say I had a day return from Melksham to Swindon, but wanted to carry on down to Salisbury in the evening to take in a show at the Playhouse, and come back on a late train ...

Would this ban the concept of excessing a ticket as well? For example I hold a season ticked from Farnborough Stations to Guildford. If I needed to go to Gatwick surely they wouldn't insist I buy a complete new ticket?

One and the same - That's not my picture either as it happens, I was sent that by a friend. :)

"BANNED" is a little strong Btline! :)

All Line Rover on rail forums raises an interesting point:

Does the article's Paddington to Taunton comparison actually stand up to scrutiny?

The ^105 fare is an Anytime Single - which you'd only buy if you wanted to leave Paddington on an early train - at short notice, else you'd look into Advance fares.   So to get the same flexibility and use the same trains surely the comparison must therefore start off by including an Anytime Single from Paddington to Westbury - and that seems to come up at about ^84?

If the cheap fare he's come up with by splitting doesn't allow exactly the same flexibility as the through Anytime fare, he's comparing chalk and cheese.  If he's prepared to include Advance fares as part of his split, he needs to check against the Paddington - Taunton Advance fare, and that can be done for as little as ^19 later in the month...

As an aside, isn't the Telegraph just regurgitating a story that was doing the rounds of the rail mags last autumn?   

Yes, it is: I've therefore merged the two discussion topics on the same 'rumour' here, in the interests of continuity and completeness.

Presumably it would make excessing a ticket compulsory if extending your journey, rather than currently having the choice to excess or buy a new ticket. Excessing will bring the cost up to the fare for the through journey rather than the split ticketing cost anyway though.

If it ever does happen, I can see a lawyer having a lot of fun at a TOC's expense.

This is what happens when people exploit the system, if the people who had been using spilt tickets had just shut up instead of shouting about it in the press etc then no one would be any the wiser, and i'm not defending the TOC's here as this will now mean that i have to pay more for Priv tickets, currently i buy split Priv tickets when travelling on XC in order to save money!

I see two possible options to resolve this issue:

Option 1 - Do what ATOC is reported to be proposing and ban them somehow; or

Option 2 - Remove the anomalies that make them popular.

Option 1 would probably result in an immediate outcry the like of which ATOC has not seen before. Petitions, questions in parliament etc. These would be followed by further bad publicity when a traveller has to pay the excess fare from Didcot to Paddington Day Return to extend their Journey to Swindon.  (^54 divided by 2 increased to ^112 divided by 2 = excess fare of ^29 for one way instead of ^9 for the normal single fare).  That would be over ^1 per mile I think.  It might be cheaper to get a taxi! It certainly would if there was more than one person.

Option 2 would take some work by the TOCs and it would have some loosers as well as winners but it could be phased in over time.  However at least it the TOCs could claim it was fair. 

I too would go for your option 2, ellendune.

With the caveat that the re-pricing necessary to iron out the split ticketing anomalies on relevant flows is done over a very long period of time so as not to see huge increases on one side of a split.

A truly independent (of both Govt. and industry) analysis and report would be needed.

Option 3. Scrap the fares system and start again.

Agree with Option 3 and simplify and standardise fares throughout the system instead of trying to hoodwink passengers into paying more than necessary by tje complexity..

Absolutely agree.  We need an independant analysis which produces a simplified and fair set of fares.  We then set out the criteria for fares to converge on the agreed fares over perhaps as long as ten years. 

It seems to me pointless to allow TOCs to set their own fares (expect perhaps cheap fares below the nationally agreed fares)  They have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to do this honestly and fairly and this privilege should be withdrawn from them