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

"Chris Tolley" <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net...


>>> Well, the fact is that you have entered into a contract (and it is a
>>> contract with restricted and quite specific terms, in consideration of
>>> which you have received a substantial discount on the fare) with the
>>> railway, and you are seeking to break that contract ...

> ... The OP asked a question of morality. The morality of the situation is
> clear, in that if he wanted the facility to change his travel plans, he
> could have parted with the extra cash up front. He chose not to do that,
> but still wants the benefits as if he had done. ...

> ... There's no evidence whatsoever that the railway is trying to sell the
> same seat twice.


My initial reaction was that I completely agreed with you (and I would
normally argue that the terms and conditions of a ticket ought to be
respected). But on further reflection - I'm not quite so sure in this
particular case.

Supposing I'd purchased a discounted advance ticket from A-C (passing
through B) and was then prevented (e.g. by illness, or some other reasonable
cause) from travelling anywhere at all on that day. Would that count as
breaking my contract with the company? After all - they'd still have
received revenue for a journey from A-C at a level which they were willing
to accept at the time of booking. And they wouldn't have been able to sell
that same Advance Ticket to anybody else - the seat on that train would just
remain empty.

Morally, would anybody then still expect me to send the company the price of
a full-rate ticket from A-C, to compensate them for my breach of the initial
contract? If not - how would it differ from the scenario raised by the
Original Poster?

It seems that he wants to leave the seat empty from A-B, and then to use his
Advance Ticket to travel from B-C? Would that still be morally wrong?

AJ

"john doe" <easyhome@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hexak.202786$1B6.94762@newsfe21.ams2...

> I find it incredible that someone is penalised for not being present for
> the whole journey, how could the railway possibly justify this?

The answer is "for all sorts of legitimate commercial reasons". Most of
these have been explained here numerous times over the years. But the most
obvious one (see the Paddington/Reading thread on this point) is that the
railway may wish to be competitive on route A-C (passing through B) where it
has no similar need to stimulate business from A to B. And where B is
Reading General, that is certainly true.

At least the new conditions leave no room for doubt. Strict enforcement of
them for Advance tickets is the best defence against the risk of imposition
of similar (and less justifiable) conditions for Savers and Open tickets.

Regards

Jonathan

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.

Paul Harley

On 01 Jul 2008 16:25:45, Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>Boarded a FGW HST yesterday. TM was 'Mr Grumpy', who at every station
>proceeded to reel out reams of dire-sounding threats including a long list
>of tickets where you had to take the specified train (I thought there was
>only one type now, called 'Advance'?), exhortations to leave tables free for
>families, and stated that holders of Advance, First LEI, etc, etc had to sit
>in their specified seat.

He had a cheek to ask that tables be left free for families! If FGW
had not reduced the number of tables in their refurbished HSTs, there
would be enough for most passengers.

Paul Harley

On 2008-07-01, Chris Tolley wrote:

>> Being required to pay twice over - once for the journey that you can't
>> make and then all over again for the new journey - looks like an
>> attempt by the railway to sell the same seat twice over - and that
>> should be made an offence, superseding any restrictive terms that you
>> are obliged to sign up to in order to get the discounted fare.
>
> Your argument would be fine if that were the only ticket the railway
> offered, but the railway also offers tickets which do enable people to
> change their travel plans. They just cost more. People can freely choose
> to buy a restricted or an unrestricted ticket, to suit their needs.

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. 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.

In message <uprm64hhm76evqg06sj6922qq8j898cei5@********>, at 13:09:51 on
Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Tony Polson <docnews2011@***************> remarked:
>>I didn't catch any of the conversations, so maybe this was
>>justified but he did announce that AP tickets must be used on the specified
>>train and a full single fare would be charged... announced after we'd got
>>underway at each station so people making an honest mistake had no option.
>
>Why is it "an honest mistake" to travel without a valid ticket?
>
>There is nothing "honest" about it. If people have accepted strict
>conditions on the validity of a ticket in order to obtain a
>significant discount on the cost of travel, they are surely obliged to
>comply with those conditions.
>
>Not to do so is not "an honest mistake".

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.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tlbsj5-b3i.ln1@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:16:13 on Wed, 2
Jul 2008, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>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.

This was my reasoning, when I made a claim recently for a train that was
31 minutes late. Some might think that 1 minute (beyond the 30 minute
threshold) is a pedantic thing to base a claim upon. But if I'd missed a
train by 1 minute (and was travelling on an AP ticket, or it was at the
start of a peak-travel blackout period) they would have told me I needed
to buy a new ticket.
--
Roland Perry

In message <12av4wjxxk7i2.r7k14la0d1pc.dlg@40tude.net>, at 14:49:05 on
Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Chris Tolley <cjt.7@supanet.com> remarked:
>> many of the travellers simply didn't understand the concept of "booked
>> train only". Especially at Leicester
>
>How sad, considering that's where the concept started.

Do tell.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cOSW2jUrt6aIFA5E@perry.co.uk...
> In message <12av4wjxxk7i2.r7k14la0d1pc.dlg@40tude.net>, at 14:49:05 on
> Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Chris Tolley <cjt.7@supanet.com> remarked:
> >> many of the travellers simply didn't understand the concept of "booked
> >> train only". Especially at Leicester
> >
> >How sad, considering that's where the concept started.
>
> Do tell.
Thomas Cook's first excursion, 5 July 1841, ran from Leicester.

Peter

Tony Polson <docnews2011@***************> wrote:
> Buying a cut price ticket means that the ticket holder must take great
> care to use only the train, or trains, that the ticket is valid for.
> These restrictions are clearly explained when the ticket is purchased,
> and the purchase is made subject to terms and conditions that include
> complying with those restrictions.

For AP tickets they are. For off-peak tickets they aren't. I was sitting
on the 1645 at Paddington, a few mins before departure. The TM announced
that 'Savers, CDRs and Network Awaybreaks are not valid on this train'. I
was holding a Saver. The 1645 has previously been the last Saver-available
train before the evening blackout. I was about to grab my stuff and head
for the door, thinking they'd changed the rules in some way I hadn't noticed
(after all, it's only by reading this group that I hear of most of the
changes) when after a pause the TM added 'to Reading and Didcot'. Breathe
out.

On the way back I phoned NRES to find out the restrictions on my ticket.
Past experience taught me not to ask NRES the question 'can I use ticket X
on train Y' because the answers are frequently wrong. So I asked for the
restriction code and time restrictions for my ticket. Asking for the code
meant they had to look it up in the Fares Manual and quote me the
restrictions verbatim, which I could then apply myself.

This is all stuff that a 'normal' wouldn't know how to do. Nor should it be
necessary.

Theo