ATOC in discussions over Split Ticketing

[whole diary]

[inspector_blakey]

Just to follow up on this, Barry Doe in his RAIL column squishes the ideas that ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies see - here) 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!}

[Btline]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company).

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^▸ (Pay as you go) Smart Cards?

[JayMac]

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':



Thanks and credit go to RailUK Forums member BrownE (EBrown of this parish??)

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

[Southern Stag]

Quite a few TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) have seemed to be against split ticketing, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

[grahame]

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 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 ...

[adc82140]

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?

[EBrown]

Thanks and credit go to RailUK Forums member BrownE (EBrown of this parish??)

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!

[EBrown]

All Line Rover on rail forums raises an interesting point:

Basically, it would be impossible to enforce. If you change trains, they can't possibly say that it is "one journey." You could exit the station and walk back in again! Even if you DO change trains, what about stations such as Birmingham New Street, where the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) guards change trains, or Preston, where the VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchise (or, possibly, in a France context, Versement Transport - a payroll tax on employers to fund local transport) ) guards change trains, or Newcastle, where the EC guards change trains? How would the new guard know what you've swapped tickets!?  What about crossing London terminals? How on earth would the guard on a train from Victoria know that you have come from Euston!?

[paul7575]

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?   

[Chris from Nailsea]

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.

[Southern Stag]

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?

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.

[TonyK]

If it ever does happen, I can see a lawyer having a lot of fun at a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s expense.

[vacman]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company)'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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) in order to save money!

[ellendune]

I see two possible options to resolve this issue:

Option 1 - Do what ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies see - here) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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. 

[JayMac]

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.