Threat to "split ticketing" according to today's Daily Telegraph.

[Alasdair]

I read in today's Daily Telegraph that the Association of Train
Operating Companies (ATOC) is pressing the government to make the
practice of "split ticketing" illegal or to find some way of stopping
it. particularly now that various internet sites have sprung up
advertising it and telling travellers how to do it.

Because of the complexity and illogicality of British train fares and
ticketing, it is possible to save considerable sums of money by
splitting a journey into two or more sections.

For example, buying a return ticket from Nottingham to London costs
say ŁX but if I buy a ticket from Nottingham to say Kettering and then
another ticket from Kettering to London, I not only spend less money
overall but may avoid the bar on peak hour trains leaving London on
the way back. I may also get an all-zones LU travelcard thrown in.

The only proviso to this is that the trains in both directions must
stop at Kettering to allow me to get off and kiss the platform in true
papal style before getting back on board to continue my journey.

I think it will be extremely difficult to ban the practice and police
it in view of the number of people on the trains and with the amount
of potential criminal offences travelling by rail leaves one open to,
perhaps every train should carry a mobile "jail car" for those
unfortunate enough to fall foul of the rules intentionally or by
mistake!

--
Alasdair.

[Paul Scott]

"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:ceaks7t9c2v5mscou...@4ax.com...

> The only proviso to this is that the trains in both directions must
> stop at Kettering to allow me to get off and kiss the platform in true
> papal style before getting back on board to continue my journey.

No, you don't have to get off when splitting. That has never been the case.

That's not to say that the odd dozy member of staff can't get it wrong on
occasions...

Paul

[allantracy]

Of course, there are perfectly valid reasons, totally unconnected with
obtaining the best value fare, where someone might want to split their
tickets.

For example, you travel from London to Doncaster (on a return ticket)
but decide to begin your return journey, for some unforeseen reason,
from Leeds (requiring a Leeds to Doncaster single by way of excess)
would this also be outlawed.

Anyway, I believe there are even mobile phone applications that will
arrange (work out) the best split ticketing fares nowadays and
presumably order the tickets online as well.

It seems the genie has been well and truly let out of the bottle and,
short of tearing up the existing fare structure, no way of stopping it
either.

As for the idea of validation, how do you prove it and how do you stop
passengers offering just the one ticket, as necessary, when the ticket
inspection takes place?

Besides, there’s bound to be legal challenges and that means UK, EU
and even Human Rights nowadays so, whatever they do, they had better
get it right and that almost certainly means not flying into the face
of natural justice.

I mean, it’s not as if there isn’t more serious stuff going on, on the
railway, to concentrate minds on.

But surely, the biggest laugh is whatever is being saved by split
ticketing is nothing compared to the TOCs own book ahead deals.

So, why would an operator like EM be worried about a bit of split
ticketing, saving ten pounds, when they’re offering book ahead deals,
maybe even on the same train, saving sixty or seventy quid.

Then let's not even go near the subject of railcards.

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 2, 4:51 pm, allantracy <allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> Of course, there are perfectly valid reasons, totally unconnected with
> obtaining the best value fare, where someone might want to split their
> tickets.
>
> For example, you travel from London to Doncaster (on a return ticket)
> but decide to begin your return journey, for some unforeseen reason,
> from Leeds (requiring a Leeds to Doncaster single by way of excess)
> would this also be outlawed.
>
> Anyway, I believe there are even mobile phone applications that will
> arrange (work out) the best split ticketing fares nowadays and
> presumably order the tickets online as well.
>
> It seems the genie has been well and truly let out of the bottle and,
> short of tearing up the existing fare structure, no way of stopping it
> either.
>
> As for the idea of validation, how do you prove it and how do you stop
> passengers offering just the one ticket, as necessary, when the ticket
> inspection takes place?

That's where the necessity of not using non-stop trains comes in.

Taking your example of the return from Leeds to London. If you were on
a train that did not stop at Doncaster then it would be no use
presenting a single ticket to Doncaster because that ticket would be
invalid on that train. Similarly it would be no use presenting a
ticket from Doncaster to London because that would be invalid for the
same reason.

However, as you say, if the train does stop at Doncaster, there is no
way the any such ploy could be prevented.

[Mrcheerful]

The one that I thought was ludicrous was the train cos. trying to say that
you could not get off at an earlier stop than your ticket ended at.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315587/Professor-slapped-155-railway-fine-getting-OFF-train-stop-early.html

[Tim Richards]

On Jun 2, 5:53 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> The one that I thought was ludicrous was the train cos. trying to say that

> you could not get off at an earlier stop than your ticket ended at.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315587/Professor-slapped-155...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well for a professor he seems remarkably dim to have signed an invoice
stating he'd pay later.

Although witnessing the educational standards of your average Brit,
many of whom he will have taught, I can understand why.

What next? Beefeater Restaurants pursuing you for a meal that you've
paid for but left because you left the restaurant due to other
reasons?

FFS.

[Graham Harrison]

So, why would an operator like EM be worried about a bit of split
ticketing, saving ten pounds, when they’re offering book ahead deals,
maybe even on the same train, saving sixty or seventy quid.

==========================

It's a bit more then ten pounds in some cases!

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 02/06/2012 16:51, allantracy wrote:
> Of course, there are perfectly valid reasons, totally unconnected with
> obtaining the best value fare, where someone might want to split their
> tickets.
>
> For example, you travel from London to Doncaster (on a return ticket)
> but decide to begin your return journey, for some unforeseen reason,
> from Leeds (requiring a Leeds to Doncaster single by way of excess)
> would this also be outlawed.
>
> Anyway, I believe there are even mobile phone applications that will
> arrange (work out) the best split ticketing fares nowadays and
> presumably order the tickets online as well.

It's called Tickety Split, BTW. It's in the early stages of its
existence, but it will get better eventually.

I am wondering when TfL plans to introduce an App which will push
real-time travel alerts, rather than having to wait for a text message
at a certain time or log onto social media.

> I mean, it’s not as if there isn’t more serious stuff going on, on the
> railway, to concentrate minds on.

Yes, I would tend to think that metal theft from live infrastructiresis
a much more pressing issue, as well as costly.

> But surely, the biggest laugh is whatever is being saved by split
> ticketing is nothing compared to the TOCs own book ahead deals.

I do regret not having jumped at Chiltern Railways' London-Birmingham
deal for 50p.

[Jake]

"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ec429f76-cc3c-4525...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

*****

All but one London Kings Cross to Leeds train stops at Doncaster, but I see
what point you are trying to make ;)

And yes, I know there are London-Leeds trains that go from St Pancras via
Sheffield, but they don't go anywhere near Doncaster, so they don't have the
option of running through that station without stopping.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

What if it is a stop that only sets down or picks up passengers, such as
on certain up or down trains at Watford Junction?

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Kind of like using the regional rail in Germany, rather than the ICE.

[Roland Perry]

In message <T5ednSmcXKkl1lfS...@bt.com>, at 18:21:53 on
Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Graham Harrison
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:

EMT have cause to be worried, because their pricing is severely
discriminatory to those making longer trips.

And the much-vaunted Advance deals have largely rotted away, with few
savings over walk-up tickets - which to some extent is what you'd expect
because Advance tickets are supposed to bring in new revenue rather than
abstract revenue on trips the passenger would have made anyway.

Squaring that circle is clearly more of an issue on EMT than some other
franchises.

One thing's sure though - I don't see why passengers from Leicester and
beyond should be subsidising the travel for people from Market
Harborough, Kettering etc.

If EMT don't want me to buy a seat on their not-very-full train from
Nottingham to Kettering, ahead of buying the same ticket from Kettering
as Kettering folk can (to London) then I'll probably deprive them of
that revenue by *driving* to Kettering first.

And is that really what they want?
--
Roland Perry

[S]

On Jun 2, 5:53 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> you could not get off at an earlier stop than your ticket ended at.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315587/Professor-slapped-155...

I think the maximum penalty in such a case should be at most the price
of a single ticket from the destination on the ticket to the station
where he actually got off. After all, he could have gone all the way
to Durham, buy a single ticket back to Darlington and would have been
perfectly legal. As there are automatic ticket barriers, he would
probably have been able to get through them even with a ticket from
the nearest village to Darlington. If the train companies don't want
to eliminate customers, especially customers travelling in 1st class,
they should change the terms of the tickets to make them more customer
friendly.

[Alex Potter]

On 02/06/12 19:27, S wrote:
> If the train companies don't want
> to eliminate customers, especially customers travelling in 1st class,
> they should change the terms of the tickets to make them more customer
> friendly.

what, run the railway as a public service? Whatever next!

--
Alex

[Recliner]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:33:56 +0100, "houn...@yahoo.co.uk"
<houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>I do regret not having jumped at Chiltern Railways' London-Birmingham
>deal for 50p.

Yup, it really was as good as it claimed, and there weren't any extras
added, like booking fees. The print-at-home tickets worked the
barriers at Marylebone, but not Moor St, and were accepted without
query or comment by ticket checkers.

Of course, my Oyster fares to and from Marylebone dwarfed the 50p,
which was galling as my local station is actually on the Chiltern
line.

[Deux]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:01:03 +0100, Alasdair wrote:

> Because of the complexity and illogicality of British train fares and
> ticketing, it is possible to save considerable sums of money by
> splitting a journey into two or more sections.

I don't get it. If a person buys a ticket for a long journey then surely
they should pay less than the cost of individual tickets between stations?

This is how it works in every other trade. For example hiring a car for
thirty days works out much cheaper than taking out thirty separate one-
day rentals.

[Charles Ellson]

Welcome to the privatised railway with it's improved "customer choice"
of take it (through the nose) or feck off.

[MM]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:51:41 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
<allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:

>Then let's not even go near the subject of railcards.

I've got a railcard. What is it that you don't want to go near?

MM

[MM]

Huh, I wouldn't put it past those rip-off merchants! They'll come up
with a plan somehow, to rip us off even more. The bloody railways
should be re-nationalised without compensation! This was a piece of
swansong Tory dogma that everybody said at the time was the worst
possible way of revamping the railways, yet they wouldn't listen.

How are all those visitors to Britain during the Olympics going to
make head or tail of the fares structure? They will hopefully
recognise the rip-off and return home to tell others not to come here.
Then, maybe, the government (i.e. Tories) will do another U-turn.

MM

[MM]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:35:16 +0100, "houn...@yahoo.co.uk"
<houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>What if it is a stop that only sets down or picks up passengers, such as
>on certain up or down trains at Watford Junction?

What happens to passengers alighting at Watford who aren't meant to?
Are they immediately arrested and carted away?

MM

[MM]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:11:11 -0500, Deux <de...@none.none> wrote:

Welcome to the wonderful world of ATOC logic! It only makes sense if
you charge the highest fares in Europe.

MM

[Scott]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:48:33 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:

For sake of argument, could the ticket examiner not carry a portable
device to check that the ticket has passed through a barrier, similar
to the checking that takes place by inspectors of Oyster cards on
board trains?

[Graham Harrison]

"Charles Ellson" <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aools7llc7e3ft9g2...@4ax.com...

But this all started with BR when they introduced "market pricing" to
replace mileage based fares. It must have been in the early/mid 70s
sometime because I started work in 69 as a travel agent and had to work out
mileage based fares but by the time I switched careers in 79 we had the
Pricing Manual. It wasn't until someone got prosecuted (which may well
have been in the 90s) and won his case that the whole situation came into
the open and the conditions of carriage amended to specifically recognise
the situation.

[Mrcheerful]

what, like a little hand held clipper?

[Mel Rowing]

There is but one way to deal with a rip off merchant, if you don't
like his price then leave him alone. It's not you that has billions of
pounds worth of plant dedicated towards carrying people from A to B.
There are plenty of ways of getting there.

However, something must be being done right. Since privatisation,
train usage has increased.

Nontheless, I would agree that the privatisation process was a dog's
breakfast. The system was neither privatised nor left as it was. It
amazes me that road transport companies can operate across a national
road network more or less free of intrusive regulation at any rate.
However, when we talk of railways in fact a much less complex network,
it seems to take us back to the days when we played with our train
sets on the hearth rug.

There's somehow something different about a railway. It need
cosseting. It needs regulation, it needs continuous and massive
injections of public cash, franchises. subsidies and all the rest of
it.

IMV you can run a railway in two ways. The first and what most
countries in fact do is through a nationalised system. If you want a
system where everybody contributes towards all rail users' fares
whether they use the system themselves or not then surely
nationalisation is the answer.

The other way of course is private provision but if this is to be the
way the privatisation has to be just that. It hast to be different
companies (or even, ultimately one company) where the sole source of
revenue is users' pockets and the system(s) sink or swim on what they
can earn in the market. There is perhaps just an argument in favour
of nationalised rail tracks (after all the roads are nationalised)
but beyond that. Any company should be free to run trains on the
network. Rationalisations would come about through takeovers one of
the things that the present rail companies are not allowed to do.

One gets the feeling that a great opportunity was missed when the
railways were privatised.

[Roland Perry]

In message <6lams71r6ri331sa5...@4ax.com>, at 10:15:05 on
Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:

>>Taking your example of the return from Leeds to London. If you were on
>>a train that did not stop at Doncaster then it would be no use
>>presenting a single ticket to Doncaster because that ticket would be
>>invalid on that train. Similarly it would be no use presenting a
>>ticket from Doncaster to London because that would be invalid for the
>>same reason.
>>
>>However, as you say, if the train does stop at Doncaster, there is no
>>way the any such ploy could be prevented.
>
>For sake of argument, could the ticket examiner not carry a portable
>device to check that the ticket has passed through a barrier, similar
>to the checking that takes place by inspectors of Oyster cards on
>board trains?

Smartcard tickets could contain such an audit trail, and card tickets
could be stamped with old fashioned ink (in the composting machine), but
print-at-home and M-tickets (on mobiles) might be more of a challenge.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <R9Gyr.1533293$4z7.1...@fx08.am4>, at 10:24:02 on Sun, 3
Jun 2012, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>> For sake of argument, could the ticket examiner not carry a portable
>> device to check that the ticket has passed through a barrier, similar
>> to the checking that takes place by inspectors of Oyster cards on
>> board trains?
>
>what, like a little hand held clipper?

A clipper with a built-in mag stripe reader?
--
Roland Perry

[MM]

The fundamental problem with this kind of privatisation is that there
is no true competition. Privatising coal means you can buy your coal
from Supplier A or Supplier B, the two being completely independent of
each other and not govered by any kind of ATOC-like entity. But with
the railways there normally is only ONE track connecting A with B and
you're therefore obliged to take that track if you want to travel by
train. If there were completely independent railway systems
duplicating routes across the country, a ridiculous scenario, but bear
with me, then at least one could truly compare the tickets: Travel
from A to B with Company C and the ticket costs £10. Travel with
Company D and it costs £20. It's a no-brainer. (Unless Company D threw
in free food and 30 minutes of lap dancing, for example.)

But that true competition cannot be achieved with the railways,
therefore its privatisation was a complete farce.

A similar kind of thing happened with water, when there is only one
pipe supplying water in any particular neigbourhood.

MM

[Jonathan Morton]

"Graham Harrison" <edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:i7SdnQ8835eRsFbS...@bt.com...

>
>> Welcome to the privatised railway with it's improved "customer choice"
>> of take it (through the nose) or feck off.
>
> But this all started with BR when they introduced "market pricing" to
> replace mileage based fares.

- I'd like some beer, please - how much is it?

- Certainly, sir - it's £5 a pint, or £2 for a half.

- Excellent, I'll have two halves please.

We have many virtues in this country, but one area where we are not good is
in our tendency to treat the symptom rather than the disease. It isn't split
ticketing that is "trying to beat the system", but rather the railway's
operating a system in which - contrary to intuition and all normal
commercial practice - one does not get a bulk discount but a bulk premium.

Personally I cannot see that an attempt to outlaw the practice can be made
without huge expense and risk. The biggest risk is that a lot of money is
spent on some kind of system but at the end of the day the court - when it
has stopped laughing - will say "don't be so silly".

Regards

Jonathan

[Graham Harrison]

"Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.morto...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:UfCdnT5GqKSPo1bS...@bt.com...

I don't know about beer but I often come across supermarket pricing along
the lines of "special offer" 200g = £2.00 whilst 100g packs cost 75p each.

And, I agree, the railways let this particular cat out of the bag. I
suspect that at the time of the prosecution they felt it was a small
(minuscule even) risk against the benefits of market pricing and now,
particularly with the rise of electronic communication allowing people to
pick up on this much more easily than old fashioned word of mouth, they've
suddenly realised the size of the problem they've created.

Even if the government introduced a new law (or tried to) to outlaw split
ticketing the cry would go up.

[Bruce]

allantracy <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>But surely, the biggest laugh is whatever is being saved by split
>ticketing is nothing compared to the TOCs own book ahead deals.

There is no reason that the two cannot be combined - split tickets and
book ahead deals. You can book a journey using split tickets, each of
which is a very cheap Advance.

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 3, 10:15 am, Scott <newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:48:33 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing

> >However, as you say, if the train does stop at Doncaster, there is no
> >way the any such ploy could be prevented.
>
> For sake of argument, could the ticket examiner not carry a portable
> device to check that the ticket has passed through a barrier, similar
> to the checking that takes place by inspectors of Oyster cards on
> board trains?

That would eliminate the practice entirely yes.

[Bruce]

Tim Richards <t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 2, 5:53 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The one that I thought was ludicrous was the train cos. trying to say that

>> you could not get off at an earlier stop than your ticket ended at.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315587/Professor-slapped-155...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Well for a professor he seems remarkably dim to have signed an invoice
>stating he'd pay later.
>
>Although witnessing the educational standards of your average Brit,
>many of whom he will have taught, I can understand why.
>
>What next? Beefeater Restaurants pursuing you for a meal that you've
>paid for but left because you left the restaurant due to other
>reasons?


There have been instances of restaurants offering self service buffets
on an "eat as much as you like" basis charging people for food they
had served on to their plates but did not eat.

I recall going to one that stated explicitly on the menu that there
would be a charge for food taken but not eaten. The charge also
bought you a container to take the food home.

[Bruce]

If that was introduces, all that would be needed is a dash for the
barriers, exiting on one ticket and re-entering on the next. So it
might be slightly inconvenient for the passenger but certainly would
not eliminate the practice.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:21:30 +0100, Bruce put finger to keyboard and typed:

That does make some justification, though, because uneaten food is, in at
least some meaningful sense, wasted. And the argument that it's no more of
a cost to the restaurant than the same amount of food taken and eaten fails
for two reasons: Firstly, the restaurant, like all commercial
establishments, has to pay for waste disposal and uneaten food therefore
has a direct cost to them; and, secondly, because if there is no penalty
for taking more than you can eat then people may do so simply because they
can't be bothered to estimate their requirements more accurately, thus
generating deliberate (or at least, reckless) waste.

By conteast, there is absolutely no meaningful sense whatsoever in which a
seat that is empty for the final leg of a paid for journey is wasted. After
all, if you had simply not taken the journey at all - if, say, you were
unable to travel due to illness, or merely changed your plans at the last
minute - then there would be no suggestion of charging you extra for not
taking the journey as compared to actually taking it.

If you buy an advance ticket and don't make the journey at all, the TOCs
consider that to be your loss and won't refund you.

If you buy an advance ticket and don't make all the journey, the TOCs
consider that to be their loss and expect you to compensate them for it.

If it were not for the fact that the railways' conditions of carriage are
protected by legislation and are not subject to normal contract law, that
discrepancy would be totally unsustainable in court.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Roland Perry]

In message <ktlms75ee65n926c4...@news.markshouse.net>, at
13:47:00 on Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>If you buy an advance ticket and don't make all the journey, the TOCs
>consider that to be their loss and expect you to compensate them for it.
>
>If it were not for the fact that the railways' conditions of carriage are
>protected by legislation and are not subject to normal contract law, that
>discrepancy would be totally unsustainable in court.

Airlines seem to manage to have similar restrictions. It's very common
to pay a negative amount to make an extra leg. For example when I flew
to the USA from Birmingham via Amsterdam a few years ago, the ticket was
Ł100 cheaper than flying just from Amsterdam to the USA.

And their T&C say if you don't turn up for the first leg, the ticket is
cancelled.

The reason the pricing is like this is because single-leg flights[1]
attract a premium because they are more convenient, and yet there are
still some spare seats which can generate a profit by "paying people" to
take the feeder flight.

I'm not aware that such pricing has been outlawed anywhere.

[1] In this case Amsterdam to the USA direct, and not via some other hub
like Paris.
--
Roland Perry

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 3, 11:16 am, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 02:32:31 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing

> The fundamental problem with this kind of privatisation is that there
> is no true competition. Privatising coal means you can buy your coal
> from Supplier A or Supplier B, the two being completely independent of
> each other and not govered by any kind of ATOC-like entity. But with
> the railways there normally is only ONE track connecting A with B and
> you're therefore obliged to take that track if you want to travel by
> train.

Yes and I would guess that there is only one road between your house
and the nearest town but that doesn't stop several bus or freight
operators providing a service between that town (or anywhere else) and
your house.Ownership of the road comes not into the equation because
the road is publicly owned. There is no reason why rail tracks should
not be publicly owned as are the roads and companies using them are
levied as are road vehicles if this were deemed the best solution.
Alternatively the track could by owned by a separate company itself
owned jointly by the user companies.

>If there were completely independent railway systems
> duplicating routes across the country, a ridiculous scenario, but bear
> with me, then at least one could truly compare the tickets: Travel
> from A to B with Company C and the ticket costs £10. Travel with
> Company D and it costs £20. It's a no-brainer. (Unless Company D threw
> in free food and 30 minutes of lap dancing, for example.)

Given such competition Company D is destined to run empty trains
unless it can offer a premium service to justify the premium fare. One
company could undercut the other to the point where one succumbed and
was replaced by the other. Something which icidentally the presnt
franchised

"Ah!" I hear you say, "What about competition?" It was competition
that drove BR onto the rocks and onto the nipple of the tapayer but
obviously not competition between train companies. Rather it was the
competition camefrom privately owned coach and freight haulage
companies utilising the motorway network. Road transport clearly has
one major advantage over rail in point to point service. Rail however,
has the edge in terms of comfort (passenger service) speed and
capacity. With long journeys (London - Scotland for example) even Air
transport comes into the picture.

> But that true competition cannot be achieved with the railways,
> therefore its privatisation was a complete farce.

So therefore the competion question hardly arises. Even if commerical
pressures left us with just one rail operator running on its own
tracks the competiton would still be there.

> A similar kind of thing happened with water, when there is only one
> pipe supplying water in any particular neigbourhood.

The problem there was that the water and sewage systems were in need
of heavy investment. They had been the poor relations of public
utilities for decades. You turn on a top water comes out - miraculous
You pull out a plug, press a lever or pull a chain and it's gone! Out
of sight out of mind! The mains were rotting (some still are) the
seawage systems were polluting our rivers and coastlines. Megabucks
were needed to correct the shortcomings. If a government increases the
charge for water people tend to see that as extra tax? In those pre-
privatisation days, didn't we, if only in the vernacular, refer to
water charges as rates? Were they not assessed on the value of a
property as rates were.

From the politician's perspective, better by far that the job of
raising all this money (plus a consideration of course) fell on
private companies. They don't have to get re-elected.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:54:15 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message <ktlms75ee65n926c4...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>13:47:00 on Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>If you buy an advance ticket and don't make all the journey, the TOCs
>>consider that to be their loss and expect you to compensate them for it.
>>
>>If it were not for the fact that the railways' conditions of carriage are
>>protected by legislation and are not subject to normal contract law, that
>>discrepancy would be totally unsustainable in court.
>
>Airlines seem to manage to have similar restrictions. It's very common
>to pay a negative amount to make an extra leg. For example when I flew
>to the USA from Birmingham via Amsterdam a few years ago, the ticket was
>Ł100 cheaper than flying just from Amsterdam to the USA.
>
>And their T&C say if you don't turn up for the first leg, the ticket is
>cancelled.

That works for two reasons, though. For a start, multi-leg air trips are
genuinely multiple flights (unlike split train tickets which are two
tickets for different segments of the same journey), so there is, as you go
on to say, also a genuine difference in convenience to the passenger which
can reasonably be reflected in the price. And the requirement to check in
at the start of an air journey makes "starting long" a genuine
inconvenience to the airline as it means they have to process your initial
departure from a location where they are not expecting to do so (and where
doing so may result in significant security considerations). So it's
reasonable for them to impose a penalty (such as cancelling the ticket) if
you try to do it.

Neither of those considerations applies to split tickets on a railway
journey. There is no gain in convenience to a passenger by booking a single
journey instead of split tickets, and it creates no administrative overhead
on the TOC if a passenger does start long or end short.

>The reason the pricing is like this is because single-leg flights[1]
>attract a premium because they are more convenient, and yet there are
>still some spare seats which can generate a profit by "paying people" to
>take the feeder flight.

The other point worth noting here is that multi-leg journeys by rail are
precisely the case where a requirement for compostage can't outlaw split
ticketing, since if you have to change trains anyway then you can validate
the second ticket when you do so.

>I'm not aware that such pricing has been outlawed anywhere.

I suspect it might still be vulnerable to challenge, though.

[Graham Harrison]

"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:ceaks7t9c2v5mscou...@4ax.com...
>I read in today's Daily Telegraph that the Association of Train
> Operating Companies (ATOC) is pressing the government to make the
> practice of "split ticketing" illegal or to find some way of stopping
> it. particularly now that various internet sites have sprung up
> advertising it and telling travellers how to do it.

>
> Because of the complexity and illogicality of British train fares and
> ticketing, it is possible to save considerable sums of money by
> splitting a journey into two or more sections.
>

> For example, buying a return ticket from Nottingham to London costs
> say ŁX but if I buy a ticket from Nottingham to say Kettering and then
> another ticket from Kettering to London, I not only spend less money
> overall but may avoid the bar on peak hour trains leaving London on
> the way back. I may also get an all-zones LU travelcard thrown in.
>
> The only proviso to this is that the trains in both directions must
> stop at Kettering to allow me to get off and kiss the platform in true
> papal style before getting back on board to continue my journey.
>
> I think it will be extremely difficult to ban the practice and police
> it in view of the number of people on the trains and with the amount
> of potential criminal offences travelling by rail leaves one open to,
> perhaps every train should carry a mobile "jail car" for those
> unfortunate enough to fall foul of the rules intentionally or by
> mistake!
>
> --
> Alasdair.

I don't believe anyone has yet raised the issue of the current system that
OCCASIONALLY requires you to purchase split tickets. I suppose that
reverting to mileage based fares would overcome that.

However, I can't see the railway industry going back to mileage based fares.

[Jonathan Morton]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ktlms75ee65n926c4...@news.markshouse.net...

>
> If you buy an advance ticket and don't make the journey at all, the TOCs
> consider that to be your loss and won't refund you.
>
> If you buy an advance ticket and don't make all the journey, the TOCs
> consider that to be their loss and expect you to compensate them for it.
>
> If it were not for the fact that the railways' conditions of carriage are
> protected by legislation and are not subject to normal contract law, that
> discrepancy would be totally unsustainable in court.

No, it wouldn't. And split ticketing has nothing to do with the conditions
relating to Advance tickets.

So far as the Advance ticket rules are concerned, it is perfectly
permissible (although unusual) for a normal contract to impose an "entire
condition" - in this particular case to provide that the passenger must
undertake the whole journey (if at all) in exchange for the discount - it is
merely an exception to the general rule.

Whether the conditions relating to particular Advance tickets do in fact
make the point sufficiently clear is a matter of opinion.

But split ticketing is different.

Regards

Jonathan

[Clive]

In message <UfCdnT5GqKSPo1bS...@bt.com>, Jonathan Morton
<jonathan.morto...@btinternet.com> writes

>- I'd like some beer, please - how much is it?
>- Certainly, sir - it's £5 a pint, or £2 for a half.
>- Excellent, I'll have two halves please.

This happens quite a lot in Tesco, where it's not uncommon to have the
smaller item on "offer" making it cheaper that the big one. This week
two packets of "Hobnobs" separately was cheaper than a combined two in
one pack.
--
Clive

[Roland Perry]

In message <irpms79p7f4820l3h...@news.markshouse.net>, at
14:50:15 on Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge

<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>If you buy an advance ticket and don't make all the journey, the TOCs
>>>consider that to be their loss and expect you to compensate them for it.
>>>
>>>If it were not for the fact that the railways' conditions of carriage are
>>>protected by legislation and are not subject to normal contract law, that
>>>discrepancy would be totally unsustainable in court.
>>
>>Airlines seem to manage to have similar restrictions. It's very common
>>to pay a negative amount to make an extra leg. For example when I flew
>>to the USA from Birmingham via Amsterdam a few years ago, the ticket was

>>£100 cheaper than flying just from Amsterdam to the USA.

>>
>>And their T&C say if you don't turn up for the first leg, the ticket is
>>cancelled.
>
>That works for two reasons, though. For a start, multi-leg air trips are
>genuinely multiple flights (unlike split train tickets which are two
>tickets for different segments of the same journey),

Not always. Sometimes the splitting happens at a place you are changing
trains already. For example you can save money going to Luton by
splitting at Bedford (on the MML). And you have to change trains at
Bedford anyway (or take advantage of the double-back easement from
Airport Parkway, which may not work so well anyway).

> so there is, as you go on to say, also a genuine difference in
>convenience to the passenger which can reasonably be reflected in the
>price. And the requirement to check in at the start of an air journey
>makes "starting long" a genuine inconvenience to the airline as it
>means they have to process your initial departure from a location where
>they are not expecting to do so (and where doing so may result in
>significant security considerations).

I'm not sure why there are "significant" security considerations.
Baggage from UK-NL-USA is put through security checking again anyway (I
know that because the delay of so doing meant it missed the onward
flight).

>So it's reasonable for them to impose a penalty (such as cancelling the
>ticket) if you try to do it.

It's revenue protection, pure and simple.

>Neither of those considerations applies to split tickets on a railway
>journey. There is no gain in convenience to a passenger by booking a single
>journey instead of split tickets,

There's the FUD about missing connections. If you are splitting a ticket
at a place you are staying on the train, that doesn't arise, but not
many people would be brave enough to concatenate an AP ticket from A via
B (change) to C (stay on train), then C to D, and stand up for their
rights to use the C to D ticket on a completely wrong train when the
connection at B is missed.

>and it creates no administrative overhead
>on the TOC if a passenger does start long or end short.

The problem it would give the ToC is that they can't identify "popular
flows" and give a discount, without eroding the pricing for intermediate
points. Then there are the case where the flow is A (small town) to B
(big town) to C (big town) when passengers travelling from A to C are in
effect given a discount to use the train, because the fare is cheaper
than B to C.

>The other point worth noting here is that multi-leg journeys by rail are
>precisely the case where a requirement for compostage can't outlaw split
>ticketing, since if you have to change trains anyway then you can validate
>the second ticket when you do so.

Depending on how far you have to go to do it and the transfer time.
Platform 2 at Nottingham (the bay) is a *very* long way from the ticket
barriers!

>>I'm not aware that such pricing has been outlawed anywhere.
>
>I suspect it might still be vulnerable to challenge, though.

It's been a long time coming.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ZeWdnQeuWe7k8lbS...@bt.com>, at 15:05:20 on
Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Jonathan Morton
<jonathan.morto...@btinternet.com> remarked:

>Whether the conditions relating to particular Advance tickets do in fact
>make the point sufficiently clear is a matter of opinion.

It varies from ToC to ToC, I expect. This is what Megatrain say:

"Megatrain passengers should note that you must alight and board at
these points and it is a condition of travel that you do not alight or
board at other points on the route."
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <WNqdnbJXe7G-8FbS...@bt.com>, at 14:56:39 on
Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Graham Harrison
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:

>I don't believe anyone has yet raised the issue of the current system
>that OCCASIONALLY requires you to purchase split tickets.

If you need to go "off route", for example doubling back via a nearby
much better served station.

>I suppose that reverting to mileage based fares would overcome that.

Would a mileage-based fare allow unlimited doubling back, but be based
on the direct mileage between end points only?

>However, I can't see the railway industry going back to mileage based
>fares.

In part because it would raise fares unaffordably on minor routes, at
the same time it reduced fares on well known "high priced premium
routes", if it was revenue neutral.
--
Roland Perry

[MM]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 05:52:01 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 11:16 am, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 02:32:31 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
>
>> The fundamental problem with this kind of privatisation is that there
>> is no true competition. Privatising coal means you can buy your coal
>> from Supplier A or Supplier B, the two being completely independent of
>> each other and not govered by any kind of ATOC-like entity. But with
>> the railways there normally is only ONE track connecting A with B and
>> you're therefore obliged to take that track if you want to travel by
>> train.
>
>Yes and I would guess that there is only one road between your house
>and the nearest town

Well, you'd be wrong, then. There are half a dozen different routes I
could take.

> but that doesn't stop several bus or freight
>operators providing a service between that town (or anywhere else) and
>your house.

I'm not on any bus route.

>Ownership of the road comes not into the equation because
>the road is publicly owned. There is no reason why rail tracks should
>not be publicly owned as are the roads and companies using them are
>levied as are road vehicles if this were deemed the best solution.
>Alternatively the track could by owned by a separate company itself
>owned jointly by the user companies.

There is only ONE trackbed! Ergo, no competition.

>>If there were completely independent railway systems
>> duplicating routes across the country, a ridiculous scenario, but bear
>> with me, then at least one could truly compare the tickets: Travel
>> from A to B with Company C and the ticket costs £10. Travel with
>> Company D and it costs £20. It's a no-brainer. (Unless Company D threw
>> in free food and 30 minutes of lap dancing, for example.)
>
>Given such competition Company D is destined to run empty trains
>unless it can offer a premium service to justify the premium fare.

Well, Waitrose and M&S cater to a particular class of clientele, but I
choose not to buy my grocery items there. That is proper choice.

> One
>company could undercut the other to the point where one succumbed and
>was replaced by the other. Something which icidentally the presnt
>franchised

You say undercut as if that is a bad thing. It's how competition
works. Through more efficient working practices, better sales teams,
more advantageous negotiating with suppliers, one company can supply
the same or better service than another. Aldi and Lidl do it all the
time.

>"Ah!" I hear you say, "What about competition?" It was competition
>that drove BR onto the rocks and onto the nipple of the tapayer but
>obviously not competition between train companies.

BR sucked considerably less from the public tit than the privatised
railways are doing. BR was a national *service* to the country, like
Deutsche Bahn (Die Bahn) is in Germany or SNCF in France or
Nederlandse Spoorwegen in Holland.

> Rather it was the
>competition camefrom privately owned coach and freight haulage
>companies utilising the motorway network. Road transport clearly has
>one major advantage over rail in point to point service. Rail however,
>has the edge in terms of comfort (passenger service) speed and
>capacity. With long journeys (London - Scotland for example) even Air
>transport comes into the picture.

Air transport comes into the picture because of the exorbitant fares
charged by the ToCs for long distances.

>
>> But that true competition cannot be achieved with the railways,
>> therefore its privatisation was a complete farce.
>
>So therefore the competion question hardly arises. Even if commerical
>pressures left us with just one rail operator running on its own
>tracks the competiton would still be there.

Eh?

>> A similar kind of thing happened with water, when there is only one
>> pipe supplying water in any particular neigbourhood.
>
>The problem there was that the water and sewage systems were in need
>of heavy investment. They had been the poor relations of public
>utilities for decades. You turn on a top water comes out - miraculous
>You pull out a plug, press a lever or pull a chain and it's gone! Out
>of sight out of mind! The mains were rotting (some still are) the
>seawage systems were polluting our rivers and coastlines. Megabucks
>were needed to correct the shortcomings. If a government increases the
>charge for water people tend to see that as extra tax? In those pre-
>privatisation days, didn't we, if only in the vernacular, refer to
>water charges as rates? Were they not assessed on the value of a
>property as rates were.

That was then, but now we have water meters, well, I have, so I pay
only for what I use. However, I pay through the nose for all the
millions of litres wasted every day through leaks that the water
company never gets round to fixing. Basically, you had an inefficient
public monopoly before and an expensive private monopoly now.

>From the politician's perspective, better by far that the job of
>raising all this money (plus a consideration of course) fell on
>private companies. They don't have to get re-elected.

Ah, so it was a nefarious political ruse to pass the buck and you're
okay with that and the rip-off prices we are now charged! Excellent.

In Germany, the local council (equivalent) is responsible for the
water supply, so when there's a leak, residents are on the phone to
complain directly to their electable representatives. Result? Germany
wastes far less water per capita.

MM

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:33:38 +0100, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Sainsburys manage it too, not usually with their own products but with
the above type of offer which occasionally undercuts the Sainsburys
price with 2 for 1s and 3 for 2s on what often seems to be the same
product re-badged.

[Graham Harrison]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S3PN$6lYy3...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <WNqdnbJXe7G-8FbS...@bt.com>, at 14:56:39 on Sun,
> 3 Jun 2012, Graham Harrison <edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com>
> remarked:
>>I don't believe anyone has yet raised the issue of the current system that
>>OCCASIONALLY requires you to purchase split tickets.
>
> If you need to go "off route", for example doubling back via a nearby much
> better served station.
>

No. I've seen it on A-B-C in a straight(ish) line with no doubling back
but A or C has usually been somewhere small.

[Graham Nye]

I've also seen this in the co-op, where 100g jars of their own-brand
instant coffee are repeatedly on offer for less than half the price
of the corresponding 200g jars. (So I buy 2 x 100g jars instead of
my usual 200g jar.)

--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

[Roland Perry]

In message <aqmdnYz4XNhoElbS...@bt.com>, at 17:25:12 on

Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Graham Harrison
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>I don't believe anyone has yet raised the issue of the current system
>>>that OCCASIONALLY requires you to purchase split tickets.
>>
>> If you need to go "off route", for example doubling back via a nearby
>>much better served station.
>>
>No. I've seen it on A-B-C in a straight(ish) line with no doubling
>back but A or C has usually been somewhere small.

Sure that A-B-C is a valid route, or is it a case of there being no
ticket priced for A-C at all?
--
Roland Perry

[allantracy]

>
> I've also seen this in the co-op, where 100g jars of their own-brand
> instant coffee are repeatedly on offer for less than half the price
> of the corresponding 200g jars. (So I buy 2 x 100g jars instead of
> my usual 200g jar.)
>

Just this week, we picked up a 400ml shampoo that was on offer at a
price cheaper then the 200ml size, of the same brand, on the very same
shelf next to it.

[allantracy]

>
> I don't believe anyone has yet raised the issue of the current system that
> OCCASIONALLY requires you to purchase split tickets.   I suppose that
> reverting to mileage based fares would overcome that.
>

I posted here recently of how I bought a monthly to London (from
Brum).

I asked for the Tube fare to be included in the ticket to get me to
Liverpool St, expecting some flat rate to be added to extend the
ticket to cover Zone 1.

What I was actually sold was a season to some point undefined,
presumably where the highest LT zone began, plus the additional cost
of an all Zone travelcard to be added to my season.

I could have (and indeed did) used it all the way up the Met or for a
ride on the Croydon Tram, when it took my fancy.

It occurred to me that this ticket not only amounted to split
ticketing but also broke all the rules about the train having to stop
where the two tickets ended and started.

Indeed, most days my train was non-stop to Euston from Coventry.

[Graham Harrison]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:r5QjMJrk...@perry.co.uk...

No price for A-C.

[Scott]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:24:02 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Scott wrote:

>>> However, as you say, if the train does stop at Doncaster, there is no
>>> way the any such ploy could be prevented.
>>
>> For sake of argument, could the ticket examiner not carry a portable
>> device to check that the ticket has passed through a barrier, similar
>> to the checking that takes place by inspectors of Oyster cards on
>> board trains?
>

>what, like a little hand held clipper?
>
Not a clipper. A reader to check whether the ticket had previously
passed through an automated ticket barrier. If it had, this would
show that the ticket was presented at the point of origin (for the
ticket). If not, the inference would be that the passenger must have
boarded the train before the point of origin thus suggesting that
split ticketing had taken place.

[Mizter T]

On 03/06/2012 15:57, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <ZeWdnQeuWe7k8lbS...@bt.com>,
> at 15:05:20 on Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Jonathan Morton
> <jonathan.morto...@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> Whether the conditions relating to particular Advance tickets do in fact
>> make the point sufficiently clear is a matter of opinion.
>
> It varies from ToC to ToC, I expect.

I don't think so - part of the point of the 'fares simplification'
exercise of 2008 was to bring ticket conditions into line across the board.

<http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/advance.html>
<http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/advance_conditions.html>

> This is what Megatrain say:
>
> "Megatrain passengers should note that you must alight and board at
> these points and it is a condition of travel that you do not alight or
> board at other points on the route."

Megatrain is something of an anomaly as it offers Megatrain tickets
rather than Advance tickets.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jqgolu$l8t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:32:29 on Sun, 3 Jun 2012,
Mizter T <mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> Whether the conditions relating to particular Advance tickets do in fact
>>> make the point sufficiently clear is a matter of opinion.
>>
>> It varies from ToC to ToC, I expect.
>
>I don't think so - part of the point of the 'fares simplification'
>exercise of 2008 was to bring ticket conditions into line across the
>board.

It's the "making sufficiently clear" which varies.
--
Roland Perry

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:ceaks7t9c2v5mscou...@4ax.com...
>I read in today's Daily Telegraph that the Association of Train
> Operating Companies (ATOC) is pressing the government to make the
> practice of "split ticketing" illegal or to find some way of stopping
> it. particularly now that various internet sites have sprung up
> advertising it and telling travellers how to do it.

This is not new.

>
> Because of the complexity and illogicality of British train fares and
> ticketing, it is possible to save considerable sums of money by
> splitting a journey into two or more sections.

Bite the bullet - "because of the rip off structure of British train
fares"...
if it were so much per km this would not happen and the practice would
stop.
IMO it should be illegal to prevent customers compounding fares - it is ATOC
who are the fraudsters.

>
> For example, buying a return ticket from Nottingham to London costs

> say £X but if I buy a ticket from Nottingham to say Kettering and then

> another ticket from Kettering to London, I not only spend less money
> overall but may avoid the bar on peak hour trains leaving London on
> the way back. I may also get an all-zones LU travelcard thrown in.
>
> The only proviso to this is that the trains in both directions must
> stop at Kettering to allow me to get off and kiss the platform in true
> papal style before getting back on board to continue my journey.

No - does not even need to stop let alone get off.

>
> I think it will be extremely difficult to ban the practice and police
> it in view of the number of people on the trains and with the amount
> of potential criminal offences travelling by rail leaves one open to,
> perhaps every train should carry a mobile "jail car" for those
> unfortunate enough to fall foul of the rules intentionally or by
> mistake!
>
> --
> Alasdair.

I have done this, probably being the only person ever to travel from
Aberdeen to London on day return tickets*.

5/5/83 stand in election,
buy tickets day return Doncaster <-> Aberdeen 6/5/83 and Doncaster <->
London 7/5/83

6/6/83 - travel to Doncaster, visit parents,
am take train to Doncaster to Aberdeen
pm business meeting Aberdeen (offered the job, but subsequently declined
it)
~22:00 catch sleeper to London - tickets accepted for boarding; tip
attendant to get single cabin.
7/5/83
~ 03:30 pass through Doncaster - return from Aberdeen used up, return to
London now valid
all day - attend meeting in London
evening - return to Doncaster; dinner with parents
8/5/83 - return to Manchester.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k0ims7ps6n5diba5i...@4ax.com...

> Tim Richards <t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 2, 5:53 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The one that I thought was ludicrous was the train cos. trying to say
>>> that
>>> you could not get off at an earlier stop than your ticket ended
>>> at.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315587/Professor-slapped-155...-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Well for a professor he seems remarkably dim to have signed an invoice
>>stating he'd pay later.
>>
>>Although witnessing the educational standards of your average Brit,
>>many of whom he will have taught, I can understand why.
>>
>>What next? Beefeater Restaurants pursuing you for a meal that you've
>>paid for but left because you left the restaurant due to other
>>reasons?
>
>
> There have been instances of restaurants offering self service buffets
> on an "eat as much as you like" basis charging people for food they
> had served on to their plates but did not eat.

So which bit of "as much as you can eat" don't you understand - it is not
"as much as you can pile on your plate and then throw away" nor "as much as
you can put in a box to feed your relatives when you get home"

[Roland Perry]

In message <QOqdnXSW1ebrXVHS...@bt.com>, at 15:05:39 on
Mon, 4 Jun 2012, R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com>
remarked:

>if it were so much per km this would not happen and the practice would
>stop.

That cure would be worse than the disease.

>> The only proviso to this is that the trains in both directions must
>> stop at Kettering to allow me to get off and kiss the platform in true
>> papal style before getting back on board to continue my journey.
>
>No - does not even need to stop let alone get off.

If you are buying normal tickets (not seasons, zonal etc) then yes it
*does* have to stop there.

--
Roland Perry

[Charlie Hulme]

On 04/06/2012 15:05, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> Bite the bullet - "because of the rip off structure of British train
> fares"...
> if it were so much per km this would not happen and the practice would
> stop.

Many train fares would certainly cost a great deal more in such a
system.

At the moment passengers can save money with bargain offers.
What's wrong with that?

Charlie

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

I wonder if you can or if it would be feasible to do split ticketing
with seasonal tickets.

[Peter Masson]

<houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

>>
> I wonder if you can or if it would be feasible to do split ticketing with
> seasonal tickets.

AIUI there are some (but not many) cases where there are savings to be made
by combining two season tickets. However if you can only combine two season
tickets if the train stops at the station where you change tickets.

Peter

[Graeme Wall]

I thought season tickets were the one case where the train didn't have
to stop at the change-over point?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[Roland Perry]

In message <vf4zr.4$6B...@fx26.am4>, at 16:12:26 on Mon, 4 Jun 2012,
"houn...@yahoo.co.uk" <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>I wonder if you can or if it would be feasible to do split ticketing
>with seasonal tickets.

You can split season tickets, but only at a station where the train
stops (the derogation for not-stopping trains is only if exactly one of
the two tickets is a season).
--
Roland Perry

[Bevan Price]

On 04/06/2012 16:10, Charlie Hulme wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 15:05, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>> Bite the bullet - "because of the rip off structure of British train
>> fares"...
>> if it were so much per km this would not happen and the practice would
>> stop.
>
> Many train fares would certainly cost a great deal more in such a system.
>

But many others might be a lot cheaper than now.

Bevan

[Roland Perry]

In message <oZ5zr.55$ZP3...@fx01.am4>, at 18:09:40 on Mon, 4 Jun 2012,
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>I thought season tickets were the one case where the train didn't have
>to stop at the change-over point?

Only if it's a season plus a non-season.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Masson]

"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote

>
> I thought season tickets were the one case where the train didn't have to
> stop at the change-over point?
>

No. The condition for allowing a combination of tickets on a train which
does not stop at the station where the passenger changes tickets is that one
ticket is a season ticket and the other isn't. Two season tickets won't do.

Peter

[Graeme Wall]

Thanks.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Split ticketing would not really be applicable if one is travelling long
distance and decides to upgrade to first class during the journey,
though, would it. One would have to pay the upgrade premium twice, I think.

[Roland Perry]

In message <iOudnYpfVoB2c1HS...@bt.com>, at 18:22:52 on
Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Bevan Price <bevanp...@btinternet.com> remarked:

>> Many train fares would certainly cost a great deal more in such a system.
>
>But many others might be a lot cheaper than now.

The problem is that only the losers (people paying more) complain. And a
lot of them will be from places we currently regard as more worthy of
subsidy. So that's a political problem.
--
Roland Perry

[ian batten]

On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ktlms75ee65n926c466elrrqh0tdtbp...@news.markshouse.net>, at
> 13:47:00 on Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>
> >If you buy an advance ticket and don't make all the journey, the TOCs
> >consider that to be their loss and expect you to compensate them for it.
>
> >If it were not for the fact that the railways' conditions of carriage are
> >protected by legislation and are not subject to normal contract law, that
> >discrepancy would be totally unsustainable in court.
>
> Airlines seem to manage to have similar restrictions.

And theatres, cinemas, popular music festivals...

ian

[ian batten]

On Jun 3, 12:18 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no reason that the two cannot be combined - split tickets and
> book ahead deals.  You can book a journey using split tickets, each of
> which is a very cheap Advance.

And it's hard to see how such a deal could be outlawed. Advances are
often issued as print-at-homes or smartphone barcodes, and are in my
experience always available in one of those formats, so the "prove
you've passed through barriers" thing is moot. I suspect (I don't
know, and I'd be interested to hear from someone who does) that the
operators are charged for issuing tickets through the TVM network, as
if they weren't, they'd have no incentive to go to the effort of
developing a complex infrastructure to avoid it.

ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 03/06/12 12:21, Mel Rowing wrote:
> That would eliminate the practice entirely yes.

Just run a powerful magnet along the magstripe once on the train and
look innocent.

ian

[S]

> Airlines seem to manage to have similar restrictions. It's very common
> to pay a negative amount to make an extra leg. For example when I flew
> to the USA from Birmingham via Amsterdam a few years ago, the ticket was
> £100 cheaper than flying just from Amsterdam to the USA.
>
> And their T&C say if you don't turn up for the first leg, the ticket is
> cancelled.
>
> The reason the pricing is like this is because single-leg flights[1]
> attract a premium because they are more convenient, and yet there are
> still some spare seats which can generate a profit by "paying people" to
> take the feeder flight.
>
> I'm not aware that such pricing has been outlawed anywhere.
>
> [1] In this case Amsterdam to the USA direct, and not via some other hub
> like Paris.

Even stranger things can happen on airlines. A friend of mine flew
once from Denver to Boston and the cheapest ticket turned out to be
via Los Angeles, starting off by going 1000 miles in the wrong
direction. Not only this, the LA-Boston flight stopped in Denver. In a
surprising display of common sense, the airline allowed him not to
travel the Denver-LA and LA-Denver segments.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 05/06/2012 11:38, S wrote:
> On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, Roland Perry<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message<ktlms75ee65n926c466elrrqh0tdtbp...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>> 13:47:00 on Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
>> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> If you buy an advance ticket and don't make all the journey, the TOCs
>>> consider that to be their loss and expect you to compensate them for it.
>>
>>> If it were not for the fact that the railways' conditions of carriage are
>>> protected by legislation and are not subject to normal contract law, that
>>> discrepancy would be totally unsustainable in court.
>>
>> Airlines seem to manage to have similar restrictions. It's very common
>> to pay a negative amount to make an extra leg. For example when I flew
>> to the USA from Birmingham via Amsterdam a few years ago, the ticket was

>> Ł100 cheaper than flying just from Amsterdam to the USA.

>>
>> And their T&C say if you don't turn up for the first leg, the ticket is
>> cancelled.
>>
>> The reason the pricing is like this is because single-leg flights[1]
>> attract a premium because they are more convenient, and yet there are
>> still some spare seats which can generate a profit by "paying people" to
>> take the feeder flight.
>>
>> I'm not aware that such pricing has been outlawed anywhere.
>>
>> [1] In this case Amsterdam to the USA direct, and not via some other hub
>> like Paris.
>
> Even stranger things can happen on airlines. A friend of mine flew
> once from Denver to Boston and the cheapest ticket turned out to be
> via Los Angeles, starting off by going 1000 miles in the wrong
> direction. Not only this, the LA-Boston flight stopped in Denver. In a
> surprising display of common sense, the airline allowed him not to
> travel the Denver-LA and LA-Denver segments.
>

In a case like that, I would have probably just paid the premium and
gone direct, had it been much more than going 1,000 miles west.

I also feel that way about the budget airlines, like Ryanair.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<38608817-baa4-4abb...@t20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, at
03:38:22 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012, S <s_pick...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>Even stranger things can happen on airlines. A friend of mine flew
>once from Denver to Boston and the cheapest ticket turned out to be
>via Los Angeles, starting off by going 1000 miles in the wrong
>direction. Not only this, the LA-Boston flight stopped in Denver. In a
>surprising display of common sense, the airline allowed him not to
>travel the Denver-LA and LA-Denver segments.

That's quite surprising, because normally they would insist, to avoid
that fare eroding their direct-flight Denver-Boston business.

Airlines currently seem happy to send people "the long way round", just
to fill seats on planes; I've seen 4-leg flights from USA to UK,
zig-zagging around in the USA and Europe.

eg Mid-West to Houston to New York to Frankfurt to UK.
--
Roland Perry

[Tony Miles]

On Jun 3, 10:42 am, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <R9Gyr.1533293$4z7.1475...@fx08.am4>, at 10:24:02 on Sun, 3
> Jun 2012, Mrcheerful <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>
> >> For sake of argument, could the ticket examiner not carry a portable
> >> device to check that the ticket has passed through a barrier, similar
> >> to the checking that takes place by inspectors of Oyster cards on
> >> board trains?
>
> >what, like a little hand held clipper?
>

> A clipper with a built-in mag stripe reader?
> --
> Roland Perry

This would need all stations to be equipped with at least one working
"validator" on every platform. Step one in the government's response
to this should be to say "come back and ask again when every station
is equipped".

Secondly - as I've said before - there may be many very genuine
reasons for a passenger to be carrying a combination of tickets, here
are three:
1) I travel from Stockport to Euston, as I do regularly, but Mrs M.
phones to say she'll have to collect me from Piccadilly on my return
due to a late meeting. I purchase an additional single from Stockport
to Piccadilly... If I were ever penalised for that I'd be making a LOT
of noise in the press.
2) I'm on my way to a meeting in Milton Keynes (with NR perhaps) and I
get a message that the meeting is moved to Euston... Again as I've got
my ticket I purchase a MK to Euston return. No way would I expect to
be forced to get off the train and join another just to validate the
second ticket which was purchased with no intent to save money, just
to get me to my weeting.
3) I'm about to leave Euston for Coventry when I get a call that a
relative has been taken seriously ill in Birmingham. Again I purchase
an add-on ticket from Coventry to Birmingham for a legitimate reason.
I am forced to get off and validate the second ticket and when I get
to Birmingham I'm just too late to say my last "goodbye". Again when
that gets into the press ATOC will squirm...

(It's a shame this has come up on a bank holiday as otherwise I may
have had a call from the BBC to comment - and I'd have said exactly
what I think of ATOC on this.... AND I may have even suggested that
many senior TC managers think ATOC is useless anyway - I'd be moved to
suggest that ATOC needs to be campaigning on more important issues
such as the extra £75m a year GW passengers will have to find if the
IEP is introduced just to fund it...)

The other thing that this would bring up is that in all of the
examples I gave above the Government could say "well, the TOC(s)
concerned should offer the chance to re-book your ticket, or the
return half, with no penalty. This will form part of our agreement for
TOCs to change the rules - there will be NO MORE fees for changing
tickets, advance or walk up."

I wonder if the loss of all those £10 fees for changing tickets would
make TOCs change their minds? I'm pretty certain they couldn't get
away with ending "split tickets" and keep large fees for people who
had to change their journeys...
Finally - of course - what if I'm on the last train of the day with a
combination of tickets purchased for a legitimate reason? Would they
dare turf me off at the changeover station and leave me until the
morning for the next train, which of course the second ticket may not
be valid for? Legal experts would be summoned pretty smartly....

I think this one will die pretty quickly, but if it doesn't I'll take
every opportunity to say exactly what I think of ATOC on this!!

Tony