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

"The Real Doctor" <ian.groups@btinternet.com> wrote
>
> There used to be two 1703 trains from Birmingham New Street to
> Edinburgh: one WCML and one ECML. I regularly saw people travel by
> accident on the wrong one. Although announcements were made, many
> people would simply think "Ah good. The 1703 Edinburgh train" and not
> even consider the possibility that there might be two. Come to that,
> I'll be many people going Birmingham to Edinburgh wouldn't know what
> route to expect.
>
There are still several examples of two departures at the same time from
Birmingham New Street to Edinburgh, or in some cases, Glasgow Central. But
they are now distinguished as the e.g. 1803 Virgin trains service to
Edinburgh (via WCML) and the 1803 Cross Country service to Edinburgh (via
ECML).

Peter

"Neil Williams" <pacer142@**********> wrote in message
news:7ba9892d-c8e9-4dd8-a1b9-b501b58709e8@d45g2000hsc.************.com...
> Ross wrote:
>
> > What we should have done back in BR days was gone totally ATB
> > ticketing (as per SNCB), with the time restrictions printed on the
> > ticket in plain English:
> > "On your outward journey, you cannot use this ticket to travel to
> > London before 10:00"
> > "On your return journey, you cannot use this ticket to leave London
> > between 15:30 and 18:30"
> >
> > But it's too late for that now.
>
> Something like that could be printed on a separate bit of card now.
> But the problem is that it isn't always as simple as you have above -
> the full set of restrictions are somewhat more complicated in most
> cases.
>
> The solution is probably to simplify them[1] *and* to provide a
> printout.
>
One possible source of confusion is that the Journey Planner may show
several trains at the same Advance fare, which could lead a passenger to
think that if he bought that ticket it would be valid on any of those
trains. It may also show several trains at the same Saver fare, and in that
case a passenger who bought that ticket would indeed find it valid on any of
those trains.

Peter

"Stephen Furley" <furles@mail.croydon.ac.uk> wrote
>
>You seem to think that the passenger simply has to accept whatever
>ridiculous conditions the may be imposed, and there is nothing they
>can do about it. This is most certainly not the case, they have the
>option to reject these conditions, and refuse to use the trains. If
>enough of them do this then the train operators themselves have a
>choice, either remove the ridiculous conditions, or go out of
>business. Train operating companies need passengers to survive,
>people do not need trains, they can travel by other means, or not
>travel at all. We need to make the train operators very aware of this
>fact.

Most passengers who purchase a discounted ticket are happy to accept the
discount in return for whatever loss of flexibility may be involved. An Open
(or Day) ticket is available for those who need the flexibility; a Saver or
Cheap Day ticket is for those who are not prepared to commit to a specific
train, but do not wish to travel in the peaks. It is ridiculous to think
that a heavily discounted Advance ticket should at the whim of the passenger
have the status of a Saver or Open ticket - indeed the likely outcome of a
concerted campaign to insist that the conditions and restrictions should not
apply is that discounted tickets would no longer be offered.

Just try purchasing one of Ryanair's penny fares and presenting yourself for
a completely different flight.

Peter
> The original ticket he bought is not valid for that journey.
>
> The OP signed up to the rules by buying the ticket in the first place.
> If he wants to change his plans, that's fine. But he bought an
> inflexible ticket to obtain a significant saving in price, and it is
> no good bleating that the inflexible ticket he bought is inflexible.
> Those are the restrictions that it came with, after all. All the OP
> needs to do is buy another ticket(s) for the outward leg(s) of the
> journey.
>
> And he still gets to use the return portion of the heavily discounted
> ticket, as long as he is prepared to abide by the conditions he has
> contracted to accept.

On 2008-07-04, Stephen Furley wrote:

> You seem to think that the passenger simply has to accept whatever
> ridiculous conditions the may be imposed, and there is nothing they
> can do about it. This is most certainly not the case, they have the
> option to reject these conditions, and refuse to use the trains. If
> enough of them do this then the train operators themselves have a
> choice, either remove the ridiculous conditions, or go out of
> business. Train operating companies need passengers to survive,
> people do not need trains, they can travel by other means, or not
> travel at all. We need to make the train operators very aware of this
> fact.

I don't think most rail commuters have a practical choice. They're
largely a captive market.

On 2008-07-03, G wrote:

> Hmmm. I wonder if anyone has the urge to contest the advance ticket
> T&Cs in court on the basis that prohibiting stopping short is an
> unfair contract term? That's using the argument that the seat for
> that journey is paid for, satisfying the financial requirements of the
> TOC, regardless of whether it is occupied for the whole of that
> journey by the ticket holder.

It does sound rather like the situation with penalty clauses and
liquidated damages in contracts.


>>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.
>
> Except you would under the logic that says 'you are being sold this
> drink on condition that you complete the drinking of it before leaving
> the premises'. If you breach that contract it may be deemed void and
> you will have to buy a 'standard pint' instead.

....and that analogous case is obviously crazy!

In message <DPadnZNWQPIXhfPVnZ2dnUVZ8qvinZ2d@bt.com>, at 13:33:38 on
Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Peter Masson <peter.masson1@privacy.net> remarked:
>Just try purchasing one of Ryanair's penny fares and presenting yourself for
>a completely different flight.

To be fair, the thing which started this thread was using *less* of a
service than had been paid for, but using *some* of exactly the right
service.

So a better analogy (in some ways) would be paying for a Ryanair flight
*and* the extra charge for a bag, and then being refused boarding on the
flight because you hadn't checked a bag. (Even though by not having that
bag you've saved them money in not carrying it, and given them more
space to fit everyone else's bags into).
--
Roland Perry

Peter Masson wrote:

> It is ridiculous to think
> that a heavily discounted Advance ticket should at the whim of the passenger
> have the status of a Saver or Open ticket - indeed the likely outcome of a
> concerted campaign to insist that the conditions and restrictions should not
> apply is that discounted tickets would no longer be offered.

Would it not be reasonable, though to allow someone to pay
the difference between their advance fare and the Saver or
Open fare rather than having to buy a completely new ticket?

That does seem rather draconian.

Charlie

"Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote
>
> Would it not be reasonable, though to allow someone to pay
> the difference between their advance fare and the Saver or
> Open fare rather than having to buy a completely new ticket?
>
That is allowed, as long as it's done at a ticket office before the
departure of the 'Advance' train, and subject to a GBP10 administration fee.
Indeed, if an Advance ticket is available for the journey the passenger now
wishes to make, the original Advance ticket can be exchanged for the new one
(but no refund will be paid if the new ticket is cheaper, and the
administraton fee is still payable).

This thread started with the concept of starting long, by when of course the
reserved seat may have been reallocated by the conductor, or by a passenger
who sees that it has not been claimed). However, in practical terms, at
ungated stations how is a passenger going to be prevented from finishing
short?

Peter

In message <486f2ded.653580899@news.individual.net>, at 08:17:39 on Sat,
5 Jul 2008, Neil Williams <wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>>Just try purchasing one of Ryanair's penny fares and presenting yourself for
>>a completely different flight.
>
>Though you can, if you purchase one of easyJet's
>slightly-more-than-a-penny fares, take an earlier plane home for free
>or take a later one for a small fee.

The small fee for admin (a few tens of pounds perhaps) is the start, but
they'll also charge you the difference between what you paid for your
fare and their "last minute" fare - which in contrast to the eponymous
website will be the highest fare there ever is.

For example, when I tried to change onto an earlier flight flying *away*
from home) the total was about £100. Looking at the same flight for next
Monday (Gatwick-Geneva on Easyjet), they are asking £102 for the ticket
[on Sunday it would be £152]. My original ticket was £32 inc tax (I
assume they carry the tax element forward, rather than making you pay
twice).
--
Roland Perry

On Jul 4, 6:45 pm, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Charlie Hulme" <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote
>
> > Would it not be reasonable, though to allow someone to pay
> > the difference between their advance fare and the Saver or
> > Open fare rather than having to buy a completely new ticket?
>
> That is allowed, as long as it's done at a ticket office before the
> departure of the 'Advance' train, and subject to a GBP10 administration fee.
> Indeed, if an Advance ticket is available for the journey the passenger now
> wishes to make, the original Advance ticket can be exchanged for the new one
> (but no refund will be paid if the new ticket is cheaper, and the
> administraton fee is still payable).
>

When I enquired, the only option I was offered was to exchange my AP
ticket for another AP ticket for exactly the same journey on a
different day or time.