Another fare check please ...

[whole diary]

[thetrout]

But then ... that's based on interchange and passing through figures.  Entering / leaving station it's far lower, and I think my Taunton comment applies.

That's true... Didn't consider that at the time, but it's probably much more than Taunton. However I am in complete agreement with you. I'm wondering if FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are being slightly pedantic with this by installing that Gates and then not using them...? But I'm probably being far, far too cynical.

Did it leave Paddington from a gated platform?   Were there other operation matters to deal with (disruptive passengers, updating colleague who had just returned from leave on what had happened in last two weeks, standing at defective door as health and safety monitor, checking NCoCs for awkward passenger who had referred him to 19(c) )?

I don't think any of these were applicable on this train... First Class contained a dozen people, The train did leave from Platform 5 so was gated at the concourse but not the footbridge.

Anyway, you could do worse than unmanned ticket barriers at Clapham Junction. How about platforms 11/12/13/14 at Paddington, which are often left open in the evening peaks, or the barriers on the bridge for platforms 2/3/4/5?

I have also seen this. It's often the same at Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa.

With regards to Penalty Fares. I look towards them rather dis-pleasingly if I'm honest. It seems some of the RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context))'s can apply a guilty until proven innocent method as per BNM Bracknell story.

Indeed I've had a few close shaves where I have been sold tickets for a journey which is not valid, but I assumed would be as a Conductor sold me the ticket on an Avantix^▸ (Ticket Issuing System used on board trains). See my c2c story

I have been reliably informed by a Gateline Assistant that if I were to ask for a ticket from say Warminster - Bath Spa. It would be issued. Because if I were a Fare Dodger I could have said Oldfield Park or Freshford. The fact I have been honest about origin would show I had intent to pay the fare due.

I've also been told that upon asking for a First Class ticket on-board a train the chances are this will be issued as fare dodgers don't normally ask for it. In relation to that if I have travelled the journey without purchasing a ticket for a legitimate reason. It would look favourably to declare I had travelled First Class at the end of the journey, something I always do and takes some Gateline Assistants by complete surprise.

I understand the aims of Penalty Fares, however I think the guilty until proven innocent attitude stinks.

Incidentally the same Gateline Assistant said one of the tickets I buy is probably not valid on a particular route I use which is mainly for preference on Rolling Stock. Slightly worrying that in nearly 5 years it's only just been picked up on. Although they said that to buy a ticket and use it on a route that's technically not valid is a rather easy thing to do and the chances are it's accepted unless it was a ludicrous route. Say Reading - Bristol Temple Meads via Birmingham New Street

[Trowres]

...unless it was a ludicrous route. Say Reading - Bristol Temple Meads via Birmingham New Street

I once travelled South Wales - Birmingham via Westbury (Hawkeridge Jn) and Reading: normal tickets accepted. This was a Sunday when this was the best route available. Ludicrous=whatever suits the railway 

[grahame]

When tickets were checked, I handed the conductor the two tickets for the North Downs line, and showed him the season ticket and also the Didcot - Melksham.    He only looked at the two tickets, and told me they were not valid on that train as it didn't stop at Farnborough North.   I showed him my season ticket, and said I understood that the train did not have to stop at the split point if one of the tickets was a season.   He took a closer look at the season, and said that did not apply for the split I was trying to make at Farnborough North, and did so in a loud voice so that the who compartment was made aware that I was being told I was breaking the rules and trying to travel on a ticket that wasn't valid.

I know all the assurances I had here, but the only official word from FGW^▸ (First Great Western) - in the form of the conductor - was "you broke the rules" (and loudly to an audience).  So I thought I would check to be 100% sure (rather than just the 99% sure I already was).  From customer services, just received - a confirmation:

Dear Mr Ellis

Thank you for your email of 6 June 2013, regarding your recent journey. I was sorry to learn that you were advised your tickets weren't valid.

I have checked the details of your email, and if you held single tickets from North Camp to Farnborough North, Farnborough North to Cholsey and then your season ticket from Cholsey to Didcot Parkway, the tickets would've been valid for the journey being made. As you are aware, from the National Conditions of Carriage, the combination tickets are valid for a through service when a season ticket is held.

I am sorry staff weren't aware of this, but it does appear that the tickets you held were valid for the journey being made.

Thank you once again for contacting me.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
Customer Services Advisor

[JayMac]

It's good to see a Customer Service Advisor appearing to be aware of the nuances of National Rail Conditions of Carriage condition 19, and the differences when just one ticket is a Season.

Also nice to see it confirmed that more than one non-Season ticket can be used in addition to the Season for one journey.

I don't know whether, in your correspondence with Customer Services, you identified the service on which you had the confrontation with a conductor who was in the wrong. Even if it was just a platitude it would have been nice to see in the response that the issue would be brought to the attention of the relevant manager to ensure that staff on the ground were corrected.

Purely anecdotal, and based on this response and a couple recent ones I've had from CS, but it would seem that customer service on the ground is getting worse, whilst that provided online, by phone, email and snail mail is improving. I wonder if there is a morale issue at the coalface.

grahame, I hope the experience hasn't put you off using condition 19(c) in future. As you found, it can mean the difference between taking the train or taking the car. The rail industry shouldn't be overly concerned about the revenue implications. If you couldn't have used the combination of tickets you had on that day, it was likely that the the cost of the through fare would have meant the balance was tipped in favour of driving. Better that the rail industry gets some revenue, with a combination of tickets allowed by the NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage), than none at all.

[John R]

My thought is that the condition is there to cover the situation whereby someone has a season from A to B, but on an ad hoc basis has to travel to C, further down the line, and is thus able to travel on a service that doesn't stop at B.

However, it hasn't been tightly worded enough, so inadvertently it has exposed the loophole that the Customer Service advisor has now confirmed exists. In fairness I can see why the original conductor took the view he did, without seeing the actual wording.

Presumably this means that whenever I continue my normal journey from Nailsea to Swindon onwards to London, I can now split at Didcot irrespective as to whether the train stops there, but maybe with a copy of the NCoC in hand.



 

[grahame]

My thought is that the condition is there to cover the situation whereby someone has a season from A to B, but on an ad hoc basis has to travel to C, further down the line, and is thus able to travel on a service that doesn't stop at B.

I think it's also there to cover the person who has - let's say - a Reading West to Bedwyn season but one Friday evening he's going to Pewsey, and the logical place to join that service is going to be Reading.

grahame, I hope the experience hasn't put you off using condition 19(c) in future. As you found, it can mean the difference between taking the train or taking the car. ...

I still find it vaguely sordid to split, and will still do so only where it makes a significant saving on a journey which would have been so overpriced on a single ticket to make it laughable.  That's where this thread started - 57.00 pounds Melksham to Farnborough, versus 22.30 Trowbridge to Farnborough - same train, joined 9 minutes later, single fare for that 9 minutes being 3.30.  Once I'm doing a split, I may as well look for the best one available.

[JayMac]

My thought is that the condition is there to cover the situation whereby someone has a season from A to B, but on an ad hoc basis has to travel to C, further down the line, and is thus able to travel on a service that doesn't stop at B.

However, it hasn't been tightly worded enough, so inadvertently it has exposed the loophole that the Customer Service advisor has now confirmed exists. In fairness I can see why the original conductor took the view he did, without seeing the actual wording.

Presumably this means that whenever I continue my normal journey from Nailsea to Swindon onwards to London, I can now split at Didcot irrespective as to whether the train stops there, but maybe with a copy of the NCoC in hand.

You can indeed do that John R. On more than one occasion I've added a Didcot split to a Severn Beach Line Weekly Season and travelled on a xx00 Paddington bound service (skips Didcot) from Temple Meads.

I'd disagree about condition 19(c) not being 'tightly worded' enough. If the intention is only to allow an ad hoc journey to C with an A to B season, then there should be be no need to say "....and the other ticket(s) is/are not." If the intention is to be only permitted one additional ticket then the condition could easily be reworded to reflect that.

As it is, it's quite clear that more than one additional ticket can be added to one Season. It's a positive condition which can be of great benefit to the passenger, both in terms of journey flexibility and cost. Although it has to be remembered that there are many journeys where adding more than one ticket to a Season will not yield a saving versus just adding the one through ticket.

I still find it vaguely sordid to split, and will still do so only where it makes a significant saving on a journey which would have been so overpriced on a single ticket to make it laughable. 

Whereas I don't find it sordid at all. I'll pay the absolute bare minimum allowed by the rules, conditions, loopholes, routeing guide etc etc. The industry has created the complex system, so I think my reward for unpicking it is to save a bit of dosh. 

[stuving]

This whole area of using the rules to their limit is very much like paying tax (and avoidance and evasion). Both are fiendishly complicated for what are largely good reasons. Rules are written to cover a variety of genuine cases, like having a long-period season ticket (considered as an unlimited free pass over the line concerned) and needed to extend it as a one-off. However, complicated rules do tend to create loopholes - meaning unintended ways to pay less.

The tax laws have for some time contained a catch-all rule that an "artificial" transaction conducted solely to reduce tax can be disregarded. It has proved difficult to use this in practice, as smart lawyers and accountants can usually contrive a reason for anything. Hence the rather surreal sight a a Tory chancellor inveighing against aggressive tax avoidance.

I can see why some railway staff (like most HMRC staff) might see using the rules to the full when they were not put there to allow this specific journey as exploiting a loophole - basically cheating. However, when the rules say that Reading to Swindon is subject to evening off-peak restrictions, while Reading-Didcot and Didcot-Swindon are not, it is awfully hard to see what "deserving" users that was meant for.

I guess that people are divided into two camps over whether exploiting the tax laws to the full is   honest or not. The same may be true of rail fares, though I suspect fewer would disapprove. More, I think, would say both are too complicated; and that this means only a clever, motivated, or otherwise very limited group of people can benefit, which is itself unfair.

[thetrout]

Does anyone get the feeling that the complexity of the Fares Structure (and the Tax structure now that stuving mentioned it) Has been patched up in various places with "Hot Fixes" because of problems that should never have occurred or been allowed to occur in the first place?

[John R]

I can see why some railway staff (like most HMRC staff) might see using the rules to the full when they were not put there to allow this specific journey as exploiting a loophole - basically cheating. However, when the rules say that Reading to Swindon is subject to evening off-peak restrictions, while Reading-Didcot and Didcot-Swindon are not, it is awfully hard to see what "deserving" users that was meant for.

That raises a new point. Just because you're entitled to travel on a train that doesn't call at the splitting point, does it mean you're entitled to override any ticket type restrictions? I would have thought if "Off peak tickets are not valid on this train" then you can't use split off peak tickets.

[grahame]

That raises a new point. Just because you're entitled to travel on a train that doesn't call at the splitting point, does it mean you're entitled to override any ticket type restrictions? I would have thought if "Off peak tickets are not valid on this train" then you can't use split off peak tickets.

Restrictions surely apply on each split section and you need to read the rules and make sure you're OK.

Let's take a journey from Paddington to Melksham on the daily adverised train - 17:45 off Paddington, calling at Reading then non-stop to Swindon. Change at Swindon onto the 18:44 to Melksham, intermediate call at Chippenham, getting to Melksham at 19:11.   And let's split at Cholsey and Didcot, using a season ticket between those two.  Clearly the intended use of the plural in 19(c) as it's simply extending the season ticket at both ends.

From London to Cholsey, I cannot use a CDS^▸ (Off Peak Day Single [ticket type] (formerly 'Cheap Day')) at 20.80, as restriction J9 specifies "not the 17:45 off Paddington", and I must buy the more expensive anytime SDS ticket. In contrast, From Didcot to Melksham, the SSS has restriction 2W and that's valid on "Westbound - any train scheduled to leave at or after 10:30" and so I can use that rather than needing to buy a more expensive anytime ticket.

Slight paraphrase / trimming of very long conditions in my quote

... it has to be remembered that there are many journeys where adding more than one ticket to a Season will not yield a saving versus just adding the one through ticket.

Yes - and indeed I when I first started looking at this, I expected to find that it wouldn't be possible to find a lower valid fare for just one journey by purchasing unlimited 7 day travel for part of the route and extension ticket(s) - the whole thought defies common sense.   But I am now aware of a handful of cases where it can be the cheapest valid fare set, including one or two where the saving is significant over a fare which would put me into "I should really drive" mode!

Edit to add second part of reply

[grahame]

Does anyone get the feeling that the complexity of the Fares Structure (and the Tax structure now that stuving mentioned it) Has been patched up in various places with "Hot Fixes" because of problems that should never have occurred or been allowed to occur in the first place?

The ideal answer would be a much simpler system that doesn't have the same degree of complexity ... even though it would put threads like this out of business.   Not easy to do from where we are today; in order to continue to generate the same income, it would create winners and losers.   The winners would quickly forget their good fortune (or rather the fact they weren't overpaying any more) and the losers would complain right up to the next election, and in the ballot box too ...