Most Wanted Improvements

[whole diary]

[willc]

As far as I know, the Oxford area carnets are simply a bunch of 10 tickets for the price of nine. No question of linkage to use by a specific person - you just write on the date of travel. Certainly no hint of any restriction on use in material promoting the Bicester Line carnet, recently given a bit of a push in connection with the extra Bicester branch trains - they are available in both anytime and off-peak format.

[eightf48544]

In fact, I wonder why a lot more tickets aren't transferrable.

Because BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))/TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) needed/need as much revenue as possible!

It's good to see that many Carnets are being issued and are transferrable, but as BTline says the old attitude  BR/TOC attitude still lingers; that by making them transferrable this  somehow dimishes revenue.

It would be interesting to work out how many carnets are issued and how many are actually used. I would bet a number get lost, mislaid or in my case put in a safe place, never to be found. Who knows it might be in the TOCs favour.

[willc]

Really not sure why there should need to be any question whatever about transferability - when the money has been paid up front, then why on earth would it matter who's using a ticket from a carnet purchase?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks, willc - I agree entirely!  When those 10 journeys have been paid for, up front, what does it matter when they are used - whether it's days or weeks later - and by whom? 

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Thanks, willc - I agree entirely!  When those 10 journeys have been paid for, up front, what does it matter when they are used - whether it's days or weeks later - and by whom? 

it may be that the toc's find it more difficult to measure passenger usage of certain services when this type of ticket is used, but then again same applys to season tickets rangers and rovers

[Henry]

 I would like to see an integrated, publicly owned transport network.
 Adequately funded by a government with a long term transport policy.
 
 Simple really. Not asking too much ?

[eightf48544]

 I would like to see an integrated, publicly owned transport network.
 Adequately funded by a government with a long term transport policy.
 
 Simple really. Not asking too much ?

Here here.

[Tim]

On the issue of transferability - As I understand it ordinary tickets are not fully transferable, but they needn't be bought by the passenger. So it is legal for me to buy a ticket for my mother-in-law or for a secretary to buy a ticket for his/her boss.  IMO^▸ (in my opinion) the non-transferability is to prevent touts abusing the system in two ways 1, selling tickets that have already been used but not gripped (or rovers etc) and (perhaps) 2, buying up AP tickets of resale at a profit.  Other transfers are unlikely to impact on the customer or company and are not something the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) worry about.

I know that plenty will disagree but I would prefer a system where all tickets have a long validity (say for a year) but only become validated by the customer writting the date in (or better still using a platform date stamping machine).  This would prevent ungripped tickets being reused and allow the complicating distinction between day returns and returns to be removed.  And you could make your own carnet by buying any 10 tickets for the same jounrey at once.  TOCs woudl benefit from tickets being lost mislade and from getting the cash upfront.  Customers would save time at the station and get a couple of extra minutes in bed in the morning.

[paul7575]

IMO^▸ (in my opinion) the non-transferability is to prevent touts abusing the system in two ways 1, selling tickets that have already been used but not gripped (or rovers etc) and (perhaps) 2, buying up AP tickets of resale at a profit.  Other transfers are unlikely to impact on the customer or company and are not something the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) worry about.

Of course that's correct, but the reason the 'non - transferability' is not elaborated on in publications aimed at the public is simply because it isn't in the railways interests to suggest means of fraudulent travel.

On a related subject, it's also why they don't explain in 'words of one syllable' why they don't sell tickets from C-D at the TVMs^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) at station A. The main reason is to stop what is known as 'dumb-belling', ie buying A-B-Big Gap-C-D tickets. But explaining this in the public domain would advertise the possibility.

Paul

[southsouthwest]

Further to previous posts, I would also like WiFi to be available on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) trains.  It need not necessarily be free, but I would hope it would be less than the ^4.50p/hr that The Cloud currently charge, which I simply won't pay.

Additionally, if automated ticket barriers are in operation at most stations, surely this must help with preventing revenue loss?  As a frequent traveller, I am sick-and-tired of witnessing passengers lying to on-train staff about which station they got on at, and then getting away with reduced fares.  It is us that then have to bear the cost of this fraud.

[tramway]

 I would like to see an integrated, publicly owned transport network.
 Adequately funded by a government with a long term transport policy.
 
 Simple really. Not asking too much ?

The 'rail' system was far larger when it wasn't, it's only the size it is because it became publicly owned. HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) would become HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), 3 etc if government and public funding were kept well away from it.

I agree that an integrated system is needed though.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Further to previous posts, I would also like WiFi to be available on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) trains.  It need not necessarily be free, but I would hope it would be less than the ^4.50p/hr that The Cloud currently charge, which I simply won't pay.

Additionally, if automated ticket barriers are in operation at most stations, surely this must help with preventing revenue loss?  As a frequent traveller, I am sick-and-tired of witnessing passengers lying to on-train staff about which station they got on at, and then getting away with reduced fares.  It is us that then have to bear the cost of this fraud.

the cloud is free to o2 customers, and to be honest mate by the time wifi was installed on trains laptops will have 3g built in or pay as you go usb dongles will be available

[broadgage]

PAYG^▸ (Pay as you go) USB dongles are available now for mobile internet access.
I have a USB dongle on a monthly tarrif, and a PAYG one on a different network.

[Btline]

Even NX manage to give all passengers free Wifi.

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should do the same. (even if chargeable in Standard)

[Chris from Nailsea]

Further to previous posts, I would also like WiFi to be available on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) trains.  It need not necessarily be free, but I would hope it would be less than the ^4.50p/hr that The Cloud currently charge, which I simply won't pay.

Additionally, if automated ticket barriers are in operation at most stations, surely this must help with preventing revenue loss?  As a frequent traveller, I am sick-and-tired of witnessing passengers lying to on-train staff about which station they got on at, and then getting away with reduced fares.  It is us that then have to bear the cost of this fraud.

Thanks for posting, southsouthwest - and a warm welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!