Scotrail Bargain Berths getting on/off at Crewe

[gordonthemoron]

to settle this argument, why doesn't someone try it and see what happens?

 

[tony_mac]

are you offering to pay?

 

[glynn80]

errrm, the ticket was valid when they entered the train, wasn't it?

The ticket would only be valid when they entered if they travel to Euston, as soon as they disembark at Crewe they have broken the byelaw.

 

[tony_mac]

Have they have introduced quantum tickets that exist simultaneously in both valid and invalid states, and only become certain when the passenger disembarks?

If not, then entering a train with a ticket that is valid for that service does not breach that term. There may well be something else, but I think you're clutching at straws with that one!

 

[monkey]

^^its true glynns80 is right, thats the way it works. you could be asked to buy another ticket if you have no intention of travellilng all the wa to euston...

 

[gordonthemoron]

if they wouldn't let you off the train, wouldn't that be false imprisonment?

 

[yorkie]

to settle this argument, why doesn't someone try it and see what happens?

I already have, at Preston in 2006. Nothing happened other than I wished I had bought a GNER advance £10 ticket to get home after a decent night's sleep, rather than paying more to stand around on a cold platform for 2 hours! I've also got off the Down Highland Sleeper at Carlisle in seated.

The idea that there are staff standing at doors preventing people getting off 'early' and these people are going to trace you and write demands for payment is rather far fetched to be honest!

Actually, I know of a few stations where the sleeper stops but it is not possible to alight, so I'd take this man's advice above with a pinch of salt!

If you are referring to Carlisle (I guess you must be), it is possible and I have done it. I don't particularly advise doing it, but that doesn't mean it is not possible.

 

[glynn80]

The idea that there are staff standing at doors preventing people getting off 'early' and these people are going to trace you and write demands for payment is rather far fetched to be honest!

As far fetched as the Northern example published in the Yorkshire Post where the passenger got off a local suburban service one stop past his ticket allowed, he heard nothing on the day and then three months letter a court summons landed on his mat?

There was seemingly no way he could have been identified but obviously Northern have their ways and so do Scotrail.

 

[monkey]

...but yorkie, you're allowed to board/alight at carlisle, so thats why they wouldn't have done anything...

 

[gordonthemoron]

must be the Stasi then

 

[yorkie]

...but yorkie, you're allowed to board/alight at carlisle, so thats why they wouldn't have done anything...

It's not advertised on that service.

As far fetched as the Northern example published in the Yorkshire Post where the passenger got off a local suburban service one stop past his ticket allowed, he heard nothing on the day and then three months letter a court summons landed on his mat?

There was seemingly no way he could have been identified but obviously Northern have their ways and so do Scotrail.

That was over-riding which is the opposite to under-riding and is clearly not allowed. I do find the story quite hard to believe and if he got a decent lawyer I am sure he would not have lost the case, if the newspaper reports were accurate. Apparently the guard knew him personally and knew where he lived.

 

[glynn80]

That was over-riding which is the opposite to under-riding and is clearly not allowed.

I was not giving the Northern story as an example of under-riding, I was giving it as an example of the extreme lengths some TOCs will go to to track down fare evaders (which you said was unlikely to occur because it was far fetched).

I do find the story quite hard to believe and if he got a decent lawyer I am sure he would not have lost the case, if the newspaper reports were accurate.

I have heard nothing to suggest his legal defence was poor and considering the person involved was a law student himself it is unlikely he sought inadequate legal representation.

Apparently the guard knew him personally and knew where he lived

??? That was never mentioned in the article, in fact the law student claimed it was mistaken identity. If the guard knew him personally surely that would gave been in the article as if the guard knew him he would not be very unlikely to misidentify the guy and would give a lot more credibility to the guard's version of events.

 

[yorkie]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Train-firm-takes-man-to.1245369.jp

"With his word against the train conductor's, he is now being sent for trial in January and says he will have to represent himself because he is not entitled to legal aid since the amount Northern Rail are claiming in compensation is so small."

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Law-student-gets-1000-bill.1379066.jp

"The company was able to contact Mr Jackson because the conductor knew where he lived."

Sounds to me like he was innocent; there was no proof. The guard knew him, and it appears, did not like him for some reason.

 

[glynn80]

Thanks for the clarification.

Sounds to me like he was innocent; there was no proof. The guard knew him, and it appears, did not like him for some reason.

Or he was guilty and the guard had previously taken his name and address for a separate offence?

 

[Railjet]

:roll: For god sake, Scotrail have confirmed the ticket is not valid on the Sleeper to Crewe. If any passenger were to disembark at Crewe they would be in violation of Railway Byelaw 18 stating:
.............
Of course I cannot state that a judge will 100% convict because of this but I can say with complete certainty they are in violation of Railway Byelaw 18.

I have the right of free speech to state what I personally thought in my mind you meant.

If you are now stating I was incorrect in my assumption, provide any kind of evidence that what you have asserted above about Eurostar is in anyway truthful.

1. Personally, I think there is a load of ambiguity in the Bye-Law you quoted. It could easily be argued the person has a valid ticket. Certainly not black and white,

2. My words are my own, and you have no right to say I meant something else. I will speak for myself, thank you very much.

3. It is a fact that Eurostar used to issue compulsory return tickets. Any evidence of additional charging or prosecution (wrong word, since it would be a civil case) for people not using return halves?

4. It is a fact that Eurostar staff have (more recently) sold returns to passengers wanting singles. See for example seat61.com.

There obviously has been a change of policy somewhere. It certainly was not out of the kindness of Eurostar's heart. Business does not work like that in the real world.

 

[glynn80]

1. Personally, I think there is a load of ambiguity in the Bye-Law you quoted. It could easily be argued the person has a valid ticket. Certainly not black and white,

OK well I don't feel there is ambiguity. We will have to agree to disagree.

2. My words are my own, and you have no right to say I meant something else. I will speak for myself, thank you very much.

I can interpret what you have stated on this forum whichever way I like. You of course also have the right to correct what I have may or may not have misinterpreted.

3. It is a fact that Eurostar used to issue compulsory return tickets. Any evidence of additional charging or prosecution (wrong word, since it would be a civil case) for people not using return halves?

Eurostar do still issue complusory return tickets. Unfortunately you have become confused because "complusory return" does not mean you are forced to return, only that you must purchase a return ticket, with two legs in opposite directions, to get that price (Eurostar tickets are sold in legs on their website). Never have Eurostar stated that passengers will be charged more if they decide not to use the return portion of their ticket.

4. It is a fact that Eurostar staff have (more recently) sold returns to passengers wanting singles. See for example seat61.com.

This is correct and is a very frequent occurance.

There obviously has been a change of policy somewhere. It certainly was not out of the kindness of Eurostar's heart. Business does not work like that in the real world.

There has been no change of policy, just you have become confused in what their terms and conditions actually means.

 

[EltonRoad]

Ahem. The original question was: "Can you book a bargain berth and then get on at Crewe?"

Answer: Yes.

But given your ticket origin is London Euston, don't be surprised if someone else is sleeping in your bed by the time you get on.

 

[glynn80]

Ahem. The original question was: "Can you book a bargain berth and then get on at Crewe?"

Answer: Yes.

But given your ticket origin is London Euston, don't be surprised if someone else if sleeping in your bed by the time you get on.

Isn't the answer no as stated by Scotrail in their reply to the OP:

Thank you for your query regarding Bargain Berth Tickets.

Bargain Berth tickets are for end to end journeys only and as such boarding and alighting at intermediate stations (e.g. Crewe) is not permitted.

I hope this information was helpful, please let us know if you should have any further questions.

Regards

Emphasis added personally

 

[Railjet]

Eurostar do still issue complusory return tickets. Unfortunately you have become confused because "complusory return" does not mean you are forced to return, only that you must purchase a return ticket, with two legs in opposite directions, to get that price (Eurostar tickets are sold in legs on their website). Never have Eurostar stated that passengers will be charged more if they decide not to use the return portion of their ticket.

There has been no change of policy, just you have become confused in what their terms and conditions actually means.

Sorry but this is NOT TRUE. Eurostar used to issue cheap day return tickets (at weekends mainly) in both of the original classes to Paris and Brussels which were way cheaper than singles. I bought a couple myself. One of the conditions was very specifically that you had to use the return portion, or they would charge your credit card with the fare difference.

I accept this was some time ago, but it definitely did exist.

 

[glynn80]

Sorry but this is NOT TRUE. Eurostar used to issue cheap day return tickets (at weekends mainly) in both of the original classes to Paris and Brussels which were way cheaper than singles. I bought a couple myself. One of the conditions was very specifically that you had to use the return portion, or they would charge your credit card with the fare difference.

I accept this was some time ago, but it definitely did exist.

They still do issue return tickets that are cheaper than singles. This anomaly occurs due to the limited availability for purchasing non-flexible/semi flexible singles and when the limited availability runs out, the non-flexible returns often become the cheapest option for passengers travelling in one direction only. They also still issue day return products but again there is no obligation to actually use the return portion.

My main issue however, is still that you are refusing to back down regarding Eurostar charging customers the full single fare if they did not use their return portion. You state this was some time ago, but reading various usenet groups I can see that as far back as 1998 the "compulsory return" phrase was in use but passengers back then realised that just as is the case now, this phrase did not force them to actually use the return portion, just they had to pay for it. There was no mention by anyone in the many topics on the subject, of the claim that you have made of passenger's credit cards being charged.

What also puzzles me is that Eurostar do not actually track whether particular customers travel or not. In fact they publically challenged the government when they were informed they would be required to do so to comply with the eBorders scheme (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/30/eborders_eurostar/). So for you to state Eurostar tracked passengers concerned who did not use their return portions, accessed said passenger's Passenger Name Record and then recharged their credit cards for potentially hundreds of pounds, seems absurd to me.

Furthermore a sizable proportion of Eurostar passengers do not purchase their tickets directly through Eurostar using their credit or debit cards. Many purchase through travel agents (and those passenger's payment details are generally not stored within the PNR) or in cash at the station, how would these passengers have been charged the difference between the non-flexible return and the full single fare?

Again I will state do you have any evidence other than a vague memory of this occurring. If it is just a vague memory there is of course the possibility you are mistaken.

 

[yorkie]

...So for you to state Eurostar tracked passengers concerned who did not use their return portions, accessed said passenger's Passenger Name Record and then recharged their credit cards for potentially hundreds of pounds, seems absurd to me....

It would be absurd for any company to attempt to charge customers extra for undertaking less of the journey than the customer had paid for. It's probably never happened, because if it has, we'd have heard about it in the media.

 

[Railjet]

They still do issue return tickets that are cheaper than singles. This anomaly occurs due to the limited availability for purchasing non-flexible/semi flexible singles and when the limited availability runs out, the non-flexible returns often become the cheapest option for passengers travelling in one direction only. They also still issue day return products but again there is no obligation to actually use the return portion.

My main issue however, is still that you are refusing to back down regarding Eurostar charging customers the full single fare if they did not use their return portion. You state this was some time ago, but reading various usenet groups I can see that as far back as 1998 the "compulsory return" phrase was in use but passengers back then realised that just as is the case now, this phrase did not force them to actually use the return portion, just they had to pay for it. There was no mention by anyone in the many topics on the subject, of the claim that you have made of passenger's credit cards being charged...............

Whether or not you choose to believe me is, quite frankly, of little or no consequence.

When Eurostar started, in 1994, their ticketing system was not nearly as sophisticated as it is now. There was no internet (in general use), and there were no low-cost airlines. Eurostar was able to join the nice little oligopoly, formed by the ferry companies and (few) airlines plying the London - Paris/Brussels routes. Indeed, its pricing structure reflected British Airways's at the time - APEX-style with cheap fares available only if you booked weeks in advance (21 or 28 days was the norm), with no refunds. Otherwise, expensive "full" fares.

When initial passenger numbers were lower than expected, Eurostar needed to stimulate demand without losing core revenue. One of the ways they did this was through last-minute day return tickets at weekends. These were released only a couple of days before departure, and could be bought over the phone or at Eurostar terminals. However, they needed to avoid the possibility that a potentially full-fare one-way customer would turn up and ask for one of these returns, because of the potential loss of revenue. I remember this very well because it was the only way could afford to try out Eurostar. It didn't bother me because I used the return, but I was warned about the restriction at the Waterloo ticket office.

I agree with you in that I doubt if they would have had the information available to enforce this, but the average passenger, who got a computerised ticket, passed through an automated check-in gate, was unlikely to know any better. Quite frankly, it was a a fairly weak attempt to protect revenue. That is probably why it didn't last very long.

It would be absurd for any company to attempt to charge customers extra for undertaking less of the journey than the customer had paid for. It's probably never happened, because if it has, we'd have heard about it in the media.

Really? Well if you go back to post 23 of this thread, you will see that another poster has pointed out that another company does try to do just that.

 

[Greenback]

Eurotunnel may have it in their terms and conditions, as stated in post 23, but as Yorkie says we would surely have heard if they have tried to enforce it.

 

[glynn80]

When Eurostar started, in 1994, their ticketing system was not nearly as sophisticated as it is now. There was no internet (in general use), and there were no low-cost airlines. Eurostar was able to join the nice little oligopoly, formed by the ferry companies and (few) airlines plying the London - Paris/Brussels routes. Indeed, its pricing structure reflected British Airways's at the time - APEX-style with cheap fares available only if you booked weeks in advance (21 or 28 days was the norm), with no refunds. Otherwise, expensive "full" fares.

That is still their fares structure now more or less, I see no reason why they would have taken this frankly absurd approach back then.

Furthermore back in 1994 only 6% of retail transactions were made with a credit or debit card, with the vast majority of payments being made by cash or cheque, how were these passengers forced to pay the full single fare then railjet? Factoring in that also many passengers may book at travel agents and that travel agent's bookings invariably don't hold payment details within the PNR, it seems ridiculous for Eurostar to bring in a condition that they could never enforce.

If this restriction had been in place there would have been media attention brought to it as yorkie has said. For a restriction this ridiculous I'm sure we would have heard about it.

I remember this very well because it was the only way could afford to try out Eurostar. It didn't bother me because I used the return, but I was warned about the restriction at the Waterloo ticket office.

If your only recollection is a verbal warning at Waterloo ticket office, I think we can take it that there is a strong possibility that in the 15 years since that was told to you, there may have been some confusion between the actual series of events and what you think may have happened.

I agree with you in that I doubt if they would have had the information available to enforce this, but the average passenger, who got a computerised ticket, passed through an automated check-in gate, was unlikely to know any better. Quite frankly, it was a a fairly weak attempt to protect revenue. That is probably why it didn't last very long.

Or it didn't happen at all.

 

[tony_mac]

OK well I don't feel there is ambiguity. We will have to agree to disagree.

BTW, I don't believe it is ambiguous either - I am sure that you are wrong!

The offence here is comitted by getting on a train, intending to travel, without a valid ticket. If the ticket is valid for that service, no offence is comitted. A ticket is either valid for that service or it is not, it cannot become retroactively invalid because of some future event.

It looks quite obvious that this byelaw is intended to complement the compulsory ticket area rules; and was not some cack-handed attempt to make travelling with an invalid ticket illegal - because it already was.

 

[glynn80]

The offence here is comitted by getting on a train, intending to travel, without a valid ticket. If the ticket is valid for that service, no offence is comitted. A ticket is either valid for that service or it is not, it cannot become retroactively invalid because of some future event.

Of course a ticket can become invalid because of what the passenger does in the future.

If I have a ticket from London to Crewe and then decide to stay on to Preston, the ticket was valid when I boarded but became invalid when I decided not to get off at Crewe (before anyone says anything, I was giving this as an example of a ticket becoming "retroactively invalid", not a direct comparison with under-riding on the Sleeper).

It looks quite obvious that this byelaw is intended to complement the compulsory ticket area rules; and was not some cack-handed attempt to make travelling with an invalid ticket illegal - because it already was.

No the byelaw I quoted was under the heading "Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas ", there are separate conditions for ticketless travel in compulsory ticket areas.

 

[tony_mac]

the point is, the ticket was valid when entering the train, hence there is no offence committed when entering the train.

Yes, the ticket can become invalid at some point in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that it was valid when entering the train. If you decide to stay on at Crewe then your ticket became invalid after Crewe, it was not invalid from London (when entering the train) as you claim. Would you get charged an excess from Crewe or London?

I did say 'to complement' ticketless travel in compulsory ticket areas - as in to provide some similar regulations for stations that are not compulsory ticket areas.
As far as I can tell, previous legislation did not make it illegal to be on a platform, or even to sit on a train, without a ticket - you had to prove that the passenger was actually 'attempting' to travel (and not just intending to travel in the future).
Hence there was a need to tighten up these rules - which would explain both this byelaw and the similar one for compulsory ticket areas.

 

[glynn80]

Yes, the ticket can become invalid at some point in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that it was valid when entering the train. If you decide to stay on at Crewe then your ticket became invalid after Crewe, it was not invalid from London (when entering the train) as you claim. Would you get charged an excess from Crewe or London?

In this circumstance because there would have been an oppourtunity to buy before the customer boarded the following excess fare procedure would have applied (unless the guard suspected fare evasion of course):

The Excess Fare to charge where there was “opportunity to buy” before boarding the train

Over-riding (travelling beyond the destination on the ticket)

A customer travelling beyond the destination station on the ticket should be charged a full Single or Return fare for the additional journey. If it is cheaper, an Excess fare for the difference in fare already paid and price of the full Single or Return fare for the journey from their originating station to their destination may be charged.

 

[tony_mac]

According to your previous claim, getting off at the 'wrong' station made the ticket invalid at the point of departure - so it would not be over-riding, it would be travelling with a completely invalid ticket.

Or are you really suggesting that you believe penalties for under-riding are worse than those for over-riding?

 

[glynn80]

According to your previous claim, getting off at the 'wrong' station made the ticket invalid at the point of departure - so it would not be over-riding, it would be travelling with a completely invalid ticket.

Or are you really suggesting that you believe penalties for under-riding are worse than those for over-riding?

Sorry I confused the situation by using Crewe as the disembarkation point in both examples.

When I posted the excess fare procedures I was referring to the London to Preston example, not the Sleeper.

With regard to under-riding, I cannot actually find any excess fare procedures relating directly to it, there are some break of journey when not permitted example but I'm not sure they are suitable either.