Travelling short: Would this be wrong, and would I get caught?

Peter Masson wrote:

> The new conditions apply to Advance tickets. AFAIK the new conditions for
> Savers (Off-peak tickets) which will apply from September haven't been
> published yet. I would hope that the new conditions for Off-peak tickets, at
> least Off-peak Returns, will allow starting long or ending short on both
> outward and return - there are often good reasons why the return journey is
> not made between exactly the same stations as the outward, for example the
> actual available train service, or the availability of local transport to
> and from the stations.

Could the industry do with working on the fact that a ticketing
transaction is hopefully not a one off?

While it's relatively easy in the world of transport to gouge an
individual for a distress purchase on a one-off transaction, its better
to take rather more money from them in repeat transactions and use the
income to create a wider customer base and a better product, especially
as we live in interesting times.

Mark

In article <j4gl645u7otpsmvg5ustumhcu6m545hrt5@********>,
pwharley@geekmail.com says...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:21:05, david_r98@************ wrote:
> >
> >And the practical question: how likely is it that the ticket collector
> >will notice that I had not been on the train for the first hour of my
> >journey? Bear in mind that there are not that many passengers in first
> >class. And is s/he really likely to mind that much? (The train company
> >is Cross Country.)
>
> If you're joining the train at Bristol Temple Meads, there's a good
> chance you won't be noticed, as XC usually change train crew there.
> Just try to make yourself inconspicuous to the relief crew whilst they
> (and you) wait on the platform for the incoming service.

The other approach is to go and talk the guard to explain your situation
before you board.

Previously I've travelled on a later XC service as my mate had picked up
the wrong ticket before leaving home. We spoke to the guard at Reading,
and he had no problem with us travelling an hour late.

It will really depend on the guard on the day. Personnally I suspect
that most XC guards won't mind, especially as I've never had the
reservation coupon checked when travelling on XC with advance tickets.
Unlike other TOCs, Virgin and now XC seem far more pragmatic and
flexible when dealing with ticket issues to retain happy customers who
will then travel again.

Duncan

On 2008-07-02, Roland Perry wrote:

> There are a few scenarios that might constitute an "honest mistake". For
> example, turning up at the station when there were delays, and getting
> on a train that departed to the correct destination at the same time as
> you were originally expecting to. Only to find it was the train for
> 30|60 minutes before, running late.
>
> It was also pretty clear from the announcements made, and the
> conversations I overheard on board, that when MML first introduced AP
> tickets about three years ago, that many of the travellers simply didn't
> understand the concept of "booked train only". Especially at Leicester
> where there are typically a pair of trains heading for London a few
> minutes apart.

Good points, and the man on the street may not see why it should make
any difference which train he takes in those situations. But as you
say, the passenger is always wrong.

On 2008-07-02, Chris Tolley wrote:

>> Your argument would be fine if the conditions were symmetrical.
>>
>> If for some reason the train doesn't go all the way, will the TOC pay
>> the OP more than his original ticket price as a penalty for stopping
>> short? No.
>
> No, but when it has happened to me, the TOC has stumped up for a taxi.

Lucky you. When they give you the price of a standard open return for
the whole journey, that will be symmetrical.

>> If the train is 20 minutes late, will the compensation
>> equal what he has to pay (a new ticket at a higher price) if he
>> arrives at the train station 20 minutes late? No.
>
> Not always so clear. If the point of making one journey is to connect
> into another, then the fact that the railway caused the delay will be
> taken into account for later legs, IME.
>
> But if a passenger really *is* worried about missing a train and having
> to pay a higher fare, presumably he could either take out insurance
> against it, or ask Ladbrokes what odds they will give him, or even
><whisper it> buy a more flexible ticket in the first place.

Why should he? If the TOCs want all their conditions to have moral as
well as legal force, the public is entitled to a fair set of them.

On 2008-07-02, Paul Scott wrote:

>> Thomas Cook's first excursion, 5 July 1841, ran from Leicester.
>
> I guess in those days they had to travel on the Cooked train only.

To Crewe?

> /getting coat now...

Mine too, please.

Neil Williams <wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> The trouble is that there is only one way to make it *really* obvious,
> and that is compulsory reservation. I don't think most of us would
> want that.

Depends on your definition of 'really', but this would help a lot:

When you book online, you're told the restriction code of your ticket and
given a print of the relevant page of the Fares Manual giving the
restrictions.

A website where you can enter your ticket details and be told the
restrictions. Optionally it might list permitted routes, or have a journey
planner that only gives trains valid on that ticket.

Theo

In message <ARd*OfWgs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:48:02 on Wed,
2 Jul 2008, Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>A website where you can enter your ticket details and be told the
>restrictions. Optionally it might list permitted routes, or have a journey
>planner that only gives trains valid on that ticket.

A map please. On walk-up tickets not everyone is necessarily trying to
get to their destination as quickly as possible. They might want to
choose (eg) a more comfortable train or more convenient step-free change
on a slightly longer (but still valid) route.
--
Roland Perry

In message <cssn645736dfonvgmdvgqjg6biuu1hjl4a@********>, at 22:33:53 on
Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Tony Polson <docnews2011@***************> remarked:
>Where restrictions have recently been tightened, I would expect TOCs'
>ticket office staff (and web site designers) to ensure that the
>changes are clearly communicated to people buying tickets.

You would be disappointed. Not just in general, but in specific cases.

When I bought my off-peak tickets to Birmingham last week, the clerk did
ask me if I really wanted an off-peak ticket, but gave me no information
on its validity. I have yet to see any poster/leaflet etc about the new
evening-peak restrictions on XC, but it could exist I suppose.

The XC website merely says:

"Please note the definition of off peak services depends on the
journey being made. Please check when purchasing your ticket."

If you download a timetable (eg for Birmingham-Nottingham) from the XC
website, there is no indication which of the trains are regarded as Peak
or Off-peak.
--
Roland Perry

In message <fpnp649rtsak609f5lki98k93002to0igt@********>, at 15:48:56 on
Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Simon <bouncingaddy@aol.com> remarked:
>I would find it (not paying the correct fare) morally wrong. Others
>may have different moral values which do not match my own. I would not
>judge them on that basis. To me it is a legal issue but does the
>scatty granny need to be in a prison cell?

I think we should be using the DfT rules for Penalty Fares as a
benchmark here. They clearly state that PFs should not be made against
various sorts of "vulnerable" traveller, who may be unaware that they
have done anything wrong. This principle should also apply to people
making genuine mistakes with AP tickets.

It's clearly difficult to sort out these people, and make sure they
aren't scammers, but the Polson "hang'em" approach isn't acceptable.
--
Roland Perry

On 2008-07-03, G wrote:

>>Lucky you. When they give you the price of a standard open return for
>>the whole journey, that will be symmetrical.
>
> Eh? Surely the primary reason for buying a ticket for a specific
> journey is to complete that journey.

Of course, but if you later change your mind in a way that doesn't
cost the other party any more, it's unreasonable to be penalized for
that.

If you ordered a pint then decided you weren't as thirsty as you had
thought and left some of it on the bar, you wouldn't expect to be
charged for a PD (Penalty Drink) to get out of the pub.


> The couple of times I've been stranded at Preston because my incoming
> train is delayed I have been most grateful for the offer of a taxi.
> (Which would probably have cost more than the price of a standard
> return)

Good for them. Central Trains dumped an entire trainful out at a
station in a small town in the Peak District in the evening and made
absolutely no effort to arrange transport for anyone. Then they took
the empty train back in the other direction (after stopping for
something like 45 minutes, mostly without any attempt to advise
passengers what was going on --- there was a faulty train stuck on the
line ahead, but they didn't bother to inform us).


> And why, even in your universe, should it be compensation to the cost
> of a *return* ticket if one leg of a journey is delayed? Surely half
> the return (i.e. single) would be the more equitable solution. Or a
> pint of milk ;)

Oops, that's what I meant.