East Mids Rover: not valid SOT-MKC direct?

[cactustwirly]

Some tickets have QR codes printed on them which the guard can scan for more details, for example:

Since when had this been a thing?
Never seen this before

 

[RJ]

Tbf there are people in your "Group 2" who have reasonable knowledge of their own area and are happy to take limited "enforcing" action but will "wave the white flag" at something more esoteric like a long-distance ticket being used to pass through their area on a less than obvious route. Essentially they continue to use the old BR attitude towards routeing which was dominated by the idea of "Reasonable" routes long before anyone decided there was a need for "Permitted" routes. And regional rovers are often off their radar so validity will be loosely judged on name alone. Coast and Peaks is pretty vague!

As to the failure to deal with members of "Group 3", certainly as far as Guards are concerned, this is largely due to the understandable emphasis placed by managers on checking and maintaining their safety competence meaning that customer service expertise is judged more by the absence, or otherwise, of passenger complaints.

I never buy this excuse of customers using "esoteric" tickets being the problem.

In recent times there was an long distance TOC which had a load of guards who didn't understand how the return portion of SSR/SVR worked and tried to insist on me paying for a new SOS on board because I'd taken more than one day to break my return journey. And on a second occasion because I used the return portion 3 weeks after the outward. This kind of thing happens to passengers who trust the ticket inspector is a professional and pay up for a new ticket and say no more about it.

An open return is one of the most basic, common products available and the railways struggle with getting ticket inspectors to understand how they can be used.

I'm in favour of not making excuses for this kind of nonsense!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I never buy this excuse of customers using "esoteric" tickets being the problem.

In recent times there was an long distance TOC which had a load of guards who didn't understand how the return portion of SSR/SVR worked and tried to insist on me paying for a new SOS on board because I'd taken more than one day to break my return journey. And on a second occasion because I used the return portion 3 weeks after the outward. This kind of thing happens to passengers who trust the ticket inspector is a professional and pay up for a new ticket and say no more about it.

An open return is one of the most basic, common products available and the railways struggle with getting ticket inspectors to understand how they can be used.

I'm in favour of not making excuses for this kind of nonsense!

Given the variety of routes permitted on some long-distance tickets some will certainly seem esoteric to those unfamiliar with the Routeing Guide. And sadly that means an awful lot of staff!

I didn't mention BOJ because in practice so few people actually make use of it. BUT it's fair comment to say that far too many staff seem oblivious to it. The situation is not helped by latter day training tending to miss out how staff should endorse tickets if necessary. In most situations people who do wish to make an overnight (or longer) break of journey can declare their intent to allow a suitable endorsement to be made on the ticket but this does require tickets to be checked in the first place! There is also the problem of passengers attempting to use such tickets as seasons and complaining about tickets being marked as used. Anyone who has ever been involved with ticket checking will tell you it can sometimes be difficult to separate the dishonest minority from the rest and there is a lack of consistency across the industry about how to do so. This is one area where a smart card system could make a huge difference.

 

[RJ]

Given the variety of routes permitted on some long-distance tickets some will certainly seem esoteric to those unfamiliar with the Routeing Guide. And sadly that means an awful lot of staff!

I didn't mention BOJ because in practice so few people actually make use of it. BUT it's fair comment to say that far too many staff seem oblivious to it. The situation is not helped by latter day training tending to miss out how staff should endorse tickets if necessary. In most situations people who do wish to make an overnight (or longer) break of journey can declare their intent to allow a suitable endorsement to be made on the ticket but this does require tickets to be checked in the first place! There is also the problem of passengers attempting to use such tickets as seasons and complaining about tickets being marked as used. Anyone who has ever been involved with ticket checking will tell you it can sometimes be difficult to separate the dishonest minority from the rest and there is a lack of consistency across the industry about how to do so. This is one area where a smart card system could make a huge difference.

There was no accusation of fraud - just a common belief on that particular TOC that it was forbidden to take a break of more than one day on the return portion. This is something the BR era staff appear to have passed onto the newer recruits as I experienced it a number of times - and it's likely other customers actually pay up for new Anytime Singles in these circumstances. There's no requirement for any endorsements at all - in fact, endorsements can cause more problems than they solve.

Break of journey should not be a foreign concept to someone whose profession it is to check tickets!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

There was no accusation of fraud - just a common belief on that particular TOC that it was forbidden to take a break of more than one day on the return portion. This is something the BR era staff appear to have passed onto the newer recruits as I experienced it a number of times - and it's likely other customers actually pay up for new Anytime Singles in these circumstances. There's no requirement for any endorsements at all - in fact, endorsements can cause more problems than they solve.

Break of journey should not be a foreign concept to someone whose profession it is to check tickets.

Not if done consistently. But that is the problem. And my experience has been that there are more people attempting fraud with longer period tickets than there are making legitimate use of BOJ. It is as foreign a concept to the travelling public as it is to many staff even though I am well aware that such a generalisation does not apply to your good self nor indeed many others here.

 

[RJ]

Not if done consistently. But that is the problem. And my experience has been that there are more people attempting fraud with longer period tickets than there are making legitimate use of BOJ. It is as foreign a concept to the travelling public as it is to many staff even though I am well aware that such a generalisation does not apply to your good self nor indeed many others here.

The point is, staff should be aware of how the most common products work. Fraud is an issue independent of that. There are lots of customers who are not enthusiasts who do understand what their ticket entitles them to - but don't expect to, or know how to handle the staff who don't.

Some may not agree but I think there's a way to deal with this situation, when you hold a valid ticket that an inspector refuses to accept.

The "I'll let you off this time" types as described by the OP - best to leave it like that when you hear that line. It achieves the objective of them leaving you alone and you let them feel good for feeling they did you a favour. Sometimes biting your lip achieves the greater good. If you really feel the need to be right, write into the TOC and ask them to brief staff. It's only the time taken to ping an email though there are more effective ways to waste your time.

The types who insist on a new ticket/UFN/PFN/MG11/BTP blah blah blah - it's important to nip it in the bud before it gets to the stage of delayed train/voluntary/physical detrainment. Ticket inspectors with this personality type don't respond to politeness - they only understand the language they speak in and there's definitely a way to tell them they are wrong and you won't be entertaining them any further. Fight fire with fire and they leave you alone. Speak with few words, make your point assertively then leave them to stew in their own juice. If you're nice and try too hard to protest your innocence, you'll get their back up and trigger the point scoring bully in them - and the TOCs invariably support their staff who get it wrong. In a unionised industry, customers come right at the bottom of the pecking order where disputes are concerned, regardless of who is right. The BTP usually very promptly send several officers to deal with "esoteric" ticket cases - yet you always hear staff complaining that BTP don't turn up when they are genuinely needed - it's because colleagues are tying them up unnecessarily for stupid reasons!

Tip-toeing around someone who couldn't give a monkeys about doing you dirty is the wrong way to handle it. It's a business to customer interaction and the former should be doing all it can to be nice to the latter, even if the railways don't acknowledge this. A customer who has the bad fortune to happen upon the type of inspector who brags in the messroom about not being in the slightest bit interested in tickets shouldn't have to be showing them sympathy.

Paying up and claiming your money back later? Just don't do it under any circumstances.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was no accusation of fraud - just a common belief on that particular TOC that it was forbidden to take a break of more than one day on the return portion.

It didn't help that at one point (now fixed) the standard wording for Off Peaks strongly implied that that actually was the case, if I recall correctly it referred to "an overnight break of journey" or somesuch, rather than the correct situation that you can take as many as you wish. Poor wording leads to misunderstandings, and therefore it, like in this case, requires the appropriate attention to detail so it is unequivocably correct and totally unambiguous.

 

[hooverboy]

What, these words?



Yes, those are potentially misleading. However the map is very clear.

the map is clear enough,and it's perfectly valid on those rovers...the only stipulation is weekday time restriction+ not via birmingham new st

time restrictions
Mon to Fri: valid from 09:00 but 2T railcard not valid until 09:30

No restrictions at weekends or bank holidays

route restrictions
Not valid via Birmingham NS

 

[Bletchleyite]

the map is clear enough,and it's perfectly valid on those rovers...the only stipulation is weekday time restriction

The map is clear, but it contradicts one reading of the wording. This should not be the case and needs to be corrected by simply changing Coventry to Rugby, or just remove the wording.

Why do people have such an issue with the idea that this should be correct? It's lazy, sloppy and is the root cause of the issue.

 

[Silverdale]

The map is only contradicted by an incorrect reading of the wording.

 

[krus_aragon]

The map is only contradicted by an incorrect reading of the wording.

Would you agree that it'd be beneficial to revise the wording, so that such an incorrect reading isn't possible?
To quote a Welsh motto: "nid da lle gellir gwell" (not 'good' if it could be better)

 

[Silverdale]

The particular misreading of the wording used, was to assume that travel described as allowed, implied that other travel was not allowed. The only wording which could not be misread in this way to state that the rover cannot be used on a particular service, would be wording which described all the travel which the rover allowed.

By changing the wording to describe more travel which is allowed, e.g. changing Coventry for Rugby, less travel could be misread as being not allowed. That would be 'better', but only in the sense that there would be less scope for mischief by a shifty train operator.

The wording used was only ever intended to be a brief description of the rover's scope. It is laughable that VT attempted to use it to deny that travel is allowed on their trains between Stoke and Milton Keynes. They should take all the blame for having done that. There really is no blame to be attached to NRE for imprecision in their brief description of the rover's scope.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you agree that it'd be beneficial to revise the wording, so that such an incorrect reading isn't possible?
To quote a Welsh motto: "nid da lle gellir gwell" (not 'good' if it could be better)

Precisely my point. It's silly to justify it being misleading when changing one word would make it not misleading.

 

[Silverdale]

It would still be capable of being misread in exactly the same way.

Even as amended, the blurb would say that travel from Milton Keynes northwards via Rugby is allowed. Misread, that means travel southwards must be not allowed and consequently you are required to buy a new ticket.

 

[krus_aragon]

The particular misreading of the wording used, was to assume that travel described as allowed, implied that other travel was not allowed. The only wording which could not be misread in this way to state that the rover cannot be used on a particular service, would be wording which described all the travel which the rover allowed.

I was asking about the principle of rewording the blurb; I didn't mean to advocate one particular replacement.

I think one possible alternative could be "travel by rail throughout the East Midlands, including Milton Keynes to Stoke, Sheffield and Grimsby, on any mapped route". The word " including" indicates that the blurb is not the full description of the ticket's validity, and th explicit reference to the map tells you where to get that information. But I'm not looking to finalise an agreed wording, instead I'm looking for a consensus that the blurb could be better phrased.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would still be capable of being misread in exactly the same way.

Even as amended, the blurb would say that travel from Milton Keynes northwards via Rugby is allowed. Misread, that means travel southwards must be not allowed and consequently you are required to buy a new ticket.

That is much more tenuous a reading.

In any case, "valid for travel on the listed TOCs on the lines shown on the map" would not be a hard change either.

It is inexcusable to have a misleading piece of text, and I maintain that is the cause of the issue.

 

[Silverdale]

Why is it more tenous? It is being misread in exactly the same way.

There is no need to add a phrase about validity. The validity of the rover is fully described in the section headed; Validity.

The burb as it exists is only misleading if you think that;

a) it is a description of the rover's validity (it isn't) and
b) it lists the only travel that is allowed (it doesn't)

So it is only misleading if you are actually as stupid as a Virgin Trains train manager or Twitter operative.

 

[Polarbear]

Of course, the East Midland Rover is a former BR product, and has been around for years. In that time, it's validity hasn't changed as I recall, so for me, this issue with VTWC staff querying the validity of a well established ticket is symptomatic of the modern privatised network where TOC's are more concerned with protecting "their patch" than working together for the benefit of the customer.

It's been a while since I used an East Mid Rover, and the only question I ever had was on that very section of track. I was only asked whether I was I was alighting at Milton Keynes (I was).

 

[eastdyke]

And all of the initial query is nothing to do with something in the memory of some members of staff recalling the validity of the similarly named but entirely different product 'East Midlands Day Ranger'?
The Day Ranger being valid at both Stoke-on-Trent and Nuneaton but not for most of the direct route between the 2 and not vaiid at all on VTWC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why is it more tenous? It is being misread in exactly the same way.

There is no need to add a phrase about validity. The validity of the rover is fully described in the section headed; Validity.

The burb as it exists is only misleading if you think that;

a) it is a description of the rover's validity (it isn't) and
b) it lists the only travel that is allowed (it doesn't)

So it is only misleading if you are actually as stupid as a Virgin Trains train manager or Twitter operative.

Then get rid of it!

I don't understand your view at all. You seem to support it being misleading which is frankly bizarre.

If it's there to be an example, word it like that - "You could for example...."

 

[Silverdale]

Then get rid of it!

I don't understand your view at all.

What I said (I hope) was that if the blurb was going to be wilfully misread and misused, rather than editing what was there, removing the blurb entirely would be best.

Apart from that, and getting back to the OP. My view is that the VT TM and Tweeter are either stupid or wilfully misleading customers and are entirely in the wrong in what they have said about what the blurb means. Even as it stands, unedited, it does not mean, infer or imply that the EM Rover ticket cannot be used on VT's direct Stoke-MK service.

What I understand you to be saying is that the reason VT have made these ridiculous statements is because the blurb text was poorly constructed.

I agree the blurb was poor, but it was not incorrect to the extent that any knowledgeable, professional train company could remotely imagine that what was written was conferring limitations on the otherwise stated validity of the rover. So the fault for the issuing the ridiculous statements was entirely VT's, rather than NRE's. That's all.